Man of Science condemned for failing to drink the kool aid

BobRyan said:

Award-Winning Neurosurgeon Condemned by Major University for Not Believing in Evolution - Godfather Politics



Stellar achievements by men of science are often recognized and so they become sought-after speakers at major universities.

Unless of course - such men fail to "drink the koolaid" when it comes to blind-faith evolutionism. The article points this problem out for all to see.

Click to expand...

He's a surgeon, not a man of science. At least, I didn't see any indication that he was a scientist in addition to being a surgeon. (There are a fair number of MDs who are also scientists, but practicing surgeons seldom have the time.)

sfs said:

He's a surgeon, not a man of science.

Click to expand...

Hm?

Notedstrangeperson said:

Hm?

Click to expand...

Surgeons/Physicians technically aren't scientists.

BobRyan said:

Thanks for that transparent response.

Click to expand...

A transparent response to a transparent question. What exactly is a "man of science" anyway? A scientist? Surgeons aren't scientists, I don't know how much simpler it can get. How come creationists never mention Michael Behe who is an ACTUAL scientist? Oh I forgot, he accepts common descent.

BobRyan said:

Says it all.

Click to expand...

Yes, it pretty much did. Too bad you didn't leave it there.

Some scientists - build the rockets - others simply study the principles of flight.

Click to expand...

Generally, engineers build rockets, not scientists. (Look up "rocket science" on Wikipedia.) Not everyone who does something difficult is a scientist, nor is everyone who learns by trial and error.

The scientist that advances the field by "trial and error" vs the one that simply uses a set of equations to advance "the theory" - are both contributing to the advancement of science.

Click to expand...

Quite true. But a surgeon who learns how to do something new in surgery isn't advancing a scientific field; he or she is advancing a practical skill.

The wild claim of evolutionist is that you do not know science nor can you apply it - without first bowing at the altar of evolution because evolution is the foundation of science if one is devoted to blind-faith evolutionism.

Click to expand...

There certainly exist competent scientists who do not accept evolution. That doesn't make surgeons scientists.

As has been commented upon - he is a surgeon not a scientist. Doctors of medicine are not scientists - medical school is a vocational training for the human body. It is no more a scientific training than computer programming or sociology.

People also have to realise that the talking-snake cultists have a completely different concept of a scientist is. To them people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and Ken Ham are "scientists."

Funny him being a surgeon since evolutionary theory forms the bedrock upon which modern medicine is built.

Checking his background - undergrad psychology, grad med. school. Not a hint of science there - and NO, psychology is NOT a science.

Probably the more important factor in his evolution stance is that he is a Seventh Day Cultist errrr, I mean Adventist.

Dr. Benjamin Carson is a wonderful example of someone totally unqualified to teach anyone about evolutionary biology---or even 5th grade science!

Don't believe me? Read my examples from his interview.


I'm referring to hsi interview at: Adventist Review: Evolution? No.

BobRyan said:

Stellar achievements by men of science are often recognized and so they become sought-after speakers at major universities.

Click to expand...

Benjamin Carson is a great surgeon but lacks basic common sense in multiple areas of science. I say that based on an interview published at the SDA website. (I posted a critique of his statements in the comment section under his article. It lasted about 36 hours when they removed the entire comment section and permanently deactivated it. Clearly, they did not like to see his errors exposed.)

Carson's interview was filled withe usual nonsense:

* He confused ToE with Social Darwinism

* He thought ToE included the Big Bang Theory.

* He said that it was a good thing that the earth stayed in its perfect orbital distance from the sun: "A half million miles closer to the sun and the earth would be burned to a crisp. A half million miles farther away and we would die in a deep freeze." So apparently Carson thinks that the earth's orbit is a circle rather than an ellipse. Moreover, Carson has no idea that the earth's distant from the sun varies by over two million miles, yet we don't get burned to a crisp and we don't freeze.

I'm having trouble finding that original article but here's one very much like it. Notice how much scientific error and nonsense appears in the article:

Adventist Review: Evolution? No.

And sure enough, he's still telling his silly botching of 5th grade science class:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]"Even in our own solar system--we orbit 93 million miles from the sun. If it were 92 million miles, we'd be incinerated; 94 million miles, and we'd be a frozen iceball."

And believe it or not, his statement gets worse than that. No, Dr. Benjamin Carson can't get a handle on that 5th grade science. I certainly don't care what he THINKS he knows about evolution. Here's a sample. Notice how many blunders he makes in just one paragraph concerning the Theory of Evolution. (It's fine if he chooses to reject it. But first he should know what it is.)

[/FONT]1) "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]And why did evolution divert in so many directions?" [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Because there isn't a single path! Where did he get the idea that evolution is some sort of linear sequence? There are countless environments on the earth. Does he expect only ONE life form for all of those environments?
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]2) He thinks that evolution is some "force evolving to the maximum." Rubbish. His ignorance amazes me. Despite his claim, he clearly learned NOTHING about evolutionary processes in school.

3) "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Darwin specifically stated that his theory hung on the discovery of intermediate forms, and was sure that we would find them. More than a hundred years later we still haven't found them." [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]There are hundreds. Denying them won't make them go away. Darwin lived at a time before the explosion of paleontological discoveries. He knew that they would be found and they were. Somehow Carson didn't get the memo. [/FONT]Perhaps he was in surgery.

4) "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Even the earliest fossils don't show such intermediates." [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]I'm curious why he thinks the "earliest fossils" would somehow be easier to find or more significant. In any case, after getting through a paragraph of such ignorance, it is hard to stand any more.

If you think it couldn't get any worse, try this one:
[/FONT]First, why would the Big Bang deny an "organized universe" (whatever that means)?

Secondly, "[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]The scientists speak about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything tends toward a state of disorganization". Please. Not really (unless he learns about the disorganization and loss of heat differentials, which the universe is heading toward.) It describes the distribution of heat in a heat transfer engine such that eventually it is distributed in such a way that there is no remaining ability to do work. He is confusing heat distribution with information theory. (Such nonsense is common in "creation science" literature nowadays but a few Young Earth Creationist ministries have even started including it in their "Arguments which should not be used" lists. They know its inane and makes them look foolish.)

Thirdly, [/FONT]"[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]This flies in the face of the second law, which says it would be less organized as a result, not more!"[/FONT] Hardly. If what he is saying is true, then seeds should not grow to produce forests. After all, surely a forest is more complex and "more organized" than a cup of randomly arranged seeds, right? Just plain silly. And does he REALLY think that the world's physicists somehow agreed behind the scenes, "Yes, we all know that what we claim about heat transfer engines, entropy, and most everything else is nonsense but let's all pretend that the very laws and theories we worked to define are actually in constant contradiction with the other things we claim!" Oh, and let's keep secret about the fact that the Big Bang Theory (which was first proposed by a Christian clergyman and it provides a scientific argument which many Christians use to support the concept of Biblical creation) is a big joke because somehow the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics denies it! Surely nobody will notice!

[I wonder if Carson is another Christian who thinks that there were NO laws of thermodynamics before Adam's fall? If so, I wonder how he thinks Adam was able to digest food or walk before the laws of thermodynamics made heat transfer engines operate? In fact, keep in mind that a mud puddle couldn't even evaporate after the rain! (Of course, since Carson says 2nd law of thermodynamics prevent increases in organization, how does a puddle of water evaporate and leave neatly arranged and organized salt crystals behind, each in wonderfully organized cubic patterns?)

I shouldn't have to spoon feed this. The Carson interview shows how clueless he is about science outside of the narrow confines of surgery and related medical science. If he can't handle 5th grade science, why should anyone trust him concerning evolution theory?

Pathetic.


>"Man of Science condemned for failing to drink the kool aid"

No. He is condemned for being totally ignorant of all sorts of science, including the theory of evolution. If he can't handle 5th grade science, how do you know that he can even MAKE the "kool aid" or even identify it?

I'm amazed that you would make reference to such a clueless man who is in no position to pontificate on the merits of evolutionary biology.

Admit it. Dr. Carson is totally unqualified to speak about science outside of his medical practice. Before he lectures on astronomy, perhaps he should visit a nearby elementary school. Do you REALLY think he makes a good choice for overruling the world's scientists?

Not just pathetic. Extremely sad and discouraging.

.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]

[/FONT]

BobRyan said:

The wild claim of evolutionist is that you do not know science nor can you apply it - without first bowing at the altar of evolution because evolution is the foundation of science if one is devoted to blind-faith evolutionism.

Click to expand...

No, Benjamin Carson is ignorant of the theory of evolution and he has proven himself ignorant in MULTIPLE fields of science. Read my critique of the kind of "science" which Carson described in an interview. Double-check the source to reassure yourself that I have accurately quoted him---and then tell me that he is even qualified to teach 5th grade science.

If Dr. Carson is the kind of person you look to for an assessment of the Theory of Evolution, no wonder you are focused on defending your traditions over anything Biblical or scientific. Carson made a total fool of himself in the interview in the link and I would love to hear your excuse for it. See my review of the interview in this thread.

.

verysincere said:

Dr. Benjamin Carson is a wonderful example of someone totally unqualified to teach anyone about evolutionary biology---or even 5th grade science!

Click to expand...

Using your link Carson presents a rather standard argument against evolution> Irreducibly complex organisms, abundant fossil but no transition fossils, we should have plenty of evidence of intermediates but we don't. Yet what is interesting is the conclusion he draws from this.

"Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, "I will make myself like the Most High."

Can you prove evolution? No. Can you prove creation? No. Can you use the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in evolution. I'm too logical!"

Your argument is that he can not teach at a fifth grade level of Science yet he is a accomplished neurosurgeon & Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. (My brother is an instructor at John Hopkins medical school.) Carson also has 61 honorary doctorate degrees, yet you claim that he is unqualified to teach fifth grade science.

If he is "unqualified", it is because he is overqualified. Not from lack of understanding or knowledge of science. Of course I forgot, you consider evolutionism to be science, so I can see where you may get confused.

Reading that interview - he's a nitwit.

Jazer said:

If he is "unqualified", it is because he is overqualified. Not from lack of understanding or knowledge of science. Of course I forgot, you consider evolutionism to be science, so I can see where you may get confused.

Click to expand...

No he is not qualified as a scientist. He is a surgeon - that's a medical car mechanic. What understanding of science does he really need for his job? The only science he has ever done is undergrad general science and the bit of biochem in a medical degree. Yeah - he could teach 5th grade science but then so could every engineer and many other disciplines. But his words show that his actual understanding of science at a higher level is flawed.

NGC 6712 said:

What understanding of science does he really need for his job?

Click to expand...

What Science do you need for neurosurgery? In the very least you need to know the nervous system. Do you know what the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery does? I needed surgery once, so I went to the director of surgery and asked him to do it. He had students follow him around wanting to learn how to be a surgeon. So here you have someone that trains surgeons how to do their job, but he is not qualified to teach fifth grade science? Is that not a bit absurd of a suggestion. Of course we know that no one is serious. The very absurdity was designed to draw people into the discussion in the hope of promoting evolutionary beliefs.

If you were to ask how many doctors of medicine have a fifth grade level of understanding of the Bible. Then you may have something. But any doctor could teach any fifth grade subject. My sister teaches and she says all you have to do is be one chapter ahead of your class.

But his words show that his actual understanding of science at a higher level is flawed.

Click to expand...

Actually no, the argument was not that he did not know fifth grade science. But that he did not have a fifth grade level of understanding about evolution. That of course presents all of it's own set of problems.

to become a neurosurgeon, one must:
Graduate from High School (12 years)
Graduate from College (4 years)
graduate from an accredited medical school (four years);
complete a six month to one-year surgical internship program, to build fundamental clinical skills;

complete five to seven years in a neurosurgical residency program accredited by the American Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). During residency training, neurosurgeons are trained in all aspects of neurosurgery, including the cerebrovascular system, the spine and spinal cord, trauma, tumors, pain management and pediatric surgery. Residents must complete a minimum of 60 months of training in the neurological sciences, with at least 36 of those months devoted to clinical neurosurgery and a minimum of three months devoted to clinical neurology

This is a total of 28 years of education. You are 34 when you finish your education.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_...t_take_to_become_a_neurosurgeon#ixzz1v6omx2aP

BobRyan said:

Says it all.

Thanks for that transparent response.

Some scientists - build the rockets - others simply study the principles of flight.

The scientist that advances the field by "trial and error" vs the one that simply uses a set of equations to advance "the theory" - are both contributing to the advancement of science.

The wild claim of evolutionist is that you do not know science nor can you apply it - without first bowing at the altar of evolution because evolution is the foundation of science if one is devoted to blind-faith evolutionism.


Bob

Click to expand...

I think you'll find its engineers who do the actual building.

Conflation is one of the biggest problems facing creationi9sm. You know, aside from being utter nonsense, of course.

Jazer said:

What Science do you need for neurosurgery? In the very least you need to know the nervous system. Do you know what the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery does? I needed surgery once, so I went to the director of surgery and asked him to do it. He had students follow him around wanting to learn how to be a surgeon. So here you have someone that trains surgeons how to do their job, but he is not qualified to teach fifth grade science? Is that not a bit absurd of a suggestion. Of course we know that no one is serious. The very absurdity was designed to draw people into the discussion in the hope of promoting evolutionary beliefs.

Click to expand...

I wanted to avoid letting this drop - but my wife is a surgeon. (Cardio). And she is no scientist like I am no surgeon. The memorising of basic biology/anatomy/biochem that is required for med school plus the mechanical skills learned for surgical residency is NOT doing science. Medical doctors/surgeons are not trained scientists. The science they do as part of their learning is just some basic book learning of simple level material. It's not advanced or cutting edge or research. It's memorisation of some basic facts.

to become a neurosurgeon, one must:
Graduate from High School (12 years)
Graduate from College (4 years)
graduate from an accredited medical school (four years);
complete a six month to one-year surgical internship program, to build fundamental clinical skills;

complete five to seven years in a neurosurgical residency program accredited by the American Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). During residency training, neurosurgeons are trained in all aspects of neurosurgery, including the cerebrovascular system, the spine and spinal cord, trauma, tumors, pain management and pediatric surgery. Residents must complete a minimum of 60 months of training in the neurological sciences, with at least 36 of those months devoted to clinical neurosurgery and a minimum of three months devoted to clinical neurology

This is a total of 28 years of education. You are 34 when you finish your education.

Click to expand...

Depends where you are from - in most countries the medical degree is considered an undergrad degree and is a 5 year program straight from high school.

But that is by the by - that education path you highlighted is NOT a science one. Medical school and surgical residency is a vocational training path not a scientific one.

This is all summed up rather easily:

Medical doctors and surgeons are NOT scientists because their training was not in science.

NGC 6712 said:

I wanted to avoid letting this drop - but my wife is a surgeon. (Cardio). And she is no scientist like I am no surgeon. The memorising of basic biology/anatomy/biochem that is required for med school plus the mechanical skills learned for surgical residency is NOT doing science. Medical doctors/surgeons are not trained scientists. The science they do as part of their learning is just some basic book learning of simple level material. It's not advanced or cutting edge or research. It's memorisation of some basic facts.

Depends where you are from - in most countries the medical degree is considered an undergrad degree and is a 5 year program straight from high school.

But that is by the by - that education path you highlighted is NOT a science one. Medical school and surgical residency is a vocational training path not a scientific one.

This is all summed up rather easily:

Medical doctors and surgeons are NOT scientists because their training was not in science.

Click to expand...

I'm a general practitioner. And I'm not a scientist.

I understand the scientific theory and such, enough to criticise someone else when they are clearly wrong, but not so much that I could ever claim to "debunk" any position held as correct by scientific consensus.

verysincere said:

Dr. Benjamin Carson is a wonderful example of someone totally unqualified to teach anyone about evolutionary biology---or even 5th grade science!

Don't believe me? Read my examples from his interview.


I'm referring to hsi interview at: Adventist Review: Evolution? No.

Click to expand...

Very interesting post. I think this flags up an interesting aspect of arguments such as this.

The initial post pointed out that Dr Carson is a surgeon, which means that he is highly educated, and as part of his training he should have been exposed to the scientific method, and at least basic biology.

This creates an assumption that he should have enough of an understanding of science to make meaningful statements about it. It is then pointed out that he's a creationist and rejects evolution. But this is a weak assumption, because we are reasoning about a large group, surgeons, and basing any logical implications on assumptions about this group. And Dr Carson may or may not be a "typical" surgeon to whom these stereotypes apply, or he may not.

However, verysincere has dug further to find actual evidence about how much science Dr Carson actually understands. And the result is clearly that his understanding is very poor. Hence whether or not surgeons as a group would generally have enough scientific and biological knowledge to make worthwhile statements about evolution or not becomes completely irrelevant, because we now know that Dr Carson doesn't. And hence we can interpret his creationist belief and statements in light of that specific, to Dr Carson, evidence.

But it's interesting that the thread is continuing, and appears to be continuing largely discussing the generalities, rather than focussing on the specific knowledge of Dr Carson's level of understanding of science.

Why?