Man of Science condemned for failing to drink the kool aid

Verysincere said:

I think you will find that the reason many of us focused on his creationist (and anti-evolution) view here was because BobRyan used them as the basis of his complaint that Carson was an example of a brilliant scientist who refused "to drink the evolutionist Kool-aide."

But in the case of the Emory University protests (and the public letter of the faculty) it wasn't so much about his creationism and science blunders. It was about his frequent claims [which Carson now contests as being taken out of context] that atheists have no morals/ethics because they have no deity-based moral standard. Dr. Carson has sounded like he thinks that those who don't believe in a deity think they can do anything they want because there is no basis for morality.

Click to expand...

Admittedly I was replying to the other user's comments, rather than the news story OP posted.

To clarify, when I wrote "I don't quite see why this matters anyhow. I've seen quite a few scientists and other highly-educated people make ridiculous claims" - I didn't mean that Dr. Carson's opinion on evolutionists didn't matter. Rather, I meant that people still make ridiculous claims despite being qualified scientists.

Like the Nobel prize-winning chemist Kary Mullis and UC Berkeley professor Peter Duesburg, who both think HIV has nothing to do with AIDS ...

Verysincere said:

I don't think anyone contests that. But their point is that KNOWING about science doesn't make one a scientist. I've taught science at both the undergrad and graduate school level---but that in itself doesn't make me a scientist. A scientist is someone who carries out scientific research based upon the scientific method.

Click to expand...

I would have thought practicing neuroscience by preforming surgery on the brain would have qualified him as an actual scientist. Besides ...

sfs said:

The ironic thing about all of this debate on whether he's a scientist or not is that it doesn't matter. If you say dumb things about science (and this guy said some very dumb things), scientists will criticize you, whether you're a brilliant scientist, a non-scientist who knows something about science, or a complete neophyte.

Click to expand...

^ This.

Notedstrangeperson said:

And as I pointed out - in order to become a neurosurgeon, presumably he must know one or two things about actual neuro-science.

Click to expand...

Why don't actually READ the thread instead of spamming since this has already been addressed SEVERAL times already?

Jazer said:

Ok, I got it, you can be a cutting edge neurosurgeon and an expert on neuroscience without having to know anything about evolution. I guess your theory is not so useful after all.

Click to expand...

And how much creationism do you have to know in order to be a cutting edge neurosurgeon? Looks like your "theory" is a whole lot less useful. Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot.

mkatzwork said:

Amoebas do not 'turn into' horses. Nobody has ever said that, and if they did, they were a fool. Creationists just love mischaracterizing evolutionary theory in varying degrees of ridiculousness (crocoduck anybody?) but no matter how you state it all you show is you just don't even basically understand it to be able to criticize it. Not even the tiniest portion of the basics.

Click to expand...

This phenomenon (of ignorance) among anti-evolution people is extremely common. Earlier today I watched the Richard Dawkins documentary for the BBC entitled "The God Delusion." One of his interviews is with Ted Haggard (pre-sex-scandal, while he was still the pastor of a major mega-church) and Haggard makes some of those absurd kinds of statement characterizing evolution. One was "Evolutionists think that the eye suddenly formed by accident." Dawkins replied, "I don't know of even one scientists who thinks that the eye formed in that way. Not one." Haggard didn't give an inch. "Well, the evolution scientists I speak with certainly say that." Obviously, Haggard either has poor listening skills when he converses with scientists OR he is simply a liar. I don't know which applied. But I see this very often.

Keep in mind that I am a Bible-believing evangelical follower of Jesus Christ (who served on seminary faculties and is ordained as a minister) and it pains me to see so much of this kind of ignorance [and even outright lies] among far too many of my peers. I'm simply being honest. So I must admit that the ignorance you described in your post and which Dawkins illustrated in the Haggard interview is extremely common.

Those who claim to abide by the teachings of Jesus Christ should care about the 9th Commandment (about bearing false witness) and they should ALSO care about TRUTH. I affirm The Theory of Evolution because Jesus emphasized the importance of honesty and truth. So I don't ignore, deny, or distort the volumes of evidence for evolution (and a very old earth) which we observe in what Christians consider God's Creation.

Indeed, I see no reason why some Christians think it is wise or Christ-like to constantly bait and carry on a war against science and scientists. We should consider scientists our ALLIES in the pursuit of a better understanding of God's Creation. Thousands of scientists believe in God. But both they and the many scientists who do NOT believe in God nevertheless pursue the same goals of understanding the universe. So Christians should consider them to be involved in a noble pursuit!

I would wish that the more angry and defiant Christians on this forum would consider how Jesus would have treated scientists had any existed in his day. (Modern science did not arise until the empiricism and the scientific method gradually came into its own through the efforts of people like Francis Bacon and Paracelsus.) I think Jesus would have treated them respectfully and warmly. The only people Jesus regularly got angry with were the RELIGIOUS LEADERS who continually "missed the point" of what the Bible (the Tanakh) was telling them about how to treat and love others and how they were to love God---and who focused more on their TRADITIONS than what was taught in the Bible. We have the same problem with many religious people today: they are more focused on defending their church's man-made traditions about the Bible INSTEAD OF what the Bible actually says.

While I appreciate your extended exposition about evolution and the educational benefits it may hold for some readers, those who MOST need that education will reject it. The Book of Proverbs in the Bible has much to say about those who remain simple ("the mockers") because they REFUSE to listen to instruction. That is one of many Biblical truths that is as true today as back then. Sadly, one can't educate those who refuse to learn. And the Bible said that those types will always be with it. Thus, despite the number of times which many on this forum have tried to patiently explain evolutionary processes, we keep seeing silly, mocking statements which bear no resemblance to The Theory of Evolution. (Indeed, many still insist on confusing it with abiogenesis and the Big Bang Theory. Being ill-informed is no crime. We are all uninformed about various topics. But being ignorant about that which has been repeatedly explained is a choice.)

So one of my major complaints against the anti-evolution Christians is that they are being unbiblical and they are being disrespectful of the abundant evidence for evolution which God has placed within the biosphere all around us. They elevate God's Book of Scripture (the Bible) while denigrating God's Book of Creation (Science).

Flatland said:

]Why don't actually READ the thread instead of spamming since this has already been addressed SEVERAL times already?

Click to expand...

I did. I disagreed with what was written.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Sorry but this really sounds like desperation to me: being a creationist automatically disqualifies him from being a scientist ... even though he's a highly resepcted neurosurgeon.

Besides, doesn't being a neurosurgeon mean he must know at least a little bit about neuroscience. Neuroscience is a science, right?

I don't quite see why this matters anyhow. I've seen quite a few scientists and other highly-educated people make ridiculous claims.

Click to expand...

A neurosurgeon is not a neuroscientist. Scalpel jockeys are not trained as scientists in their studies.

Dover Soul said:

They can not see through the professional creationists that fool them daily so for anyone else to try and get through to them is a virtual impossibility.

Click to expand...

As an ex-Young Earth Creationist myself, I recommend a fellow ex-creationist for his excellent account: "Morton's Demon". It explains how and why it is so difficult to reach someone who is immersed so deeply in a cult-like mentality.

I was a Young Earth Creationist speaker/debater some 20 years before oil-exploration geologist Glen Morton was publishing his "creation science" research in various YEC journals and newsletters. I was in the early group of excited followers who had been rallied to the YEC cause by Morris & Whitcomb's THE GENESIS FLOOD. The cult-like dynamics encouraged by those leaders was not as intense as one finds today, but the "creation science" industry was definitely getting started. It took later entrepreneurs like Ken Ham to build a $23 million per year organizations like Answers in Genesis.

NGC 6712 said:

A neurosurgeon is not a neuroscientist. Scalpel jockeys are not trained as scientists in their studies.

Click to expand...

Not all neuroscientists are neurosurgerons, but all neurosurgeons must must have some degree or other in neuroscience:
What? Do you think the the people preforming the actual surgery on our brains (i.e. "Scalpel jockeys") should be less qualified than the people who simply think about it all day?

Notedstrangeperson said:

I did. I disagreed with what was written.

Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the bit about the car mechanic. That would've answered your question.

selfinflikted said:

Apparently you missed the bit about the car mechanic. That would've answered your question.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't miss it - but it's a poor comparison. A neurosurgeron must have some degree in neuroscience in order to understand how the brain works, which is like saying a car mechanic must have a degree in physics so he can understand velocity.

Notedstrangeperson said:

No, I didn't miss it - but it's a poor comparison. A neurosurgeron must have some degree in neuroscience in order to understand how the brain works, which is like saying a car mechanic must have a degree in physics so he can understand velocity.

Click to expand...

Eh, the comparison is poor, but it makes the point beautifully.

BobRyan said:

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.

in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

Good. I would also support firing math professors who had faith that 2+2=5.

selfinflikted said:

Eh, the comparison is poor, but it makes the point beautifully.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The point of comparing a neurosurgeon to a mechanic is to say that a person doesn't need to fully understand how something works in order to fix it:

NGC 6712 said:

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.

Click to expand...

But since this is neurosurgery we're talking about, that argument is completely and utterly wrong. A neurosurgeon has to have an additional fourteen years of education after high school, and earn a qualification in neuroscience before than can even practice surgery on the brain.

If you're going to tinker around with someone's brain, you'd better make sure you know as much about the human brain there is to know. Needless to say, it's a hell of a lot harder than tinkering with a car.

BobRyan said:

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

In 1987, with a 70-member surgical team, Carson was the first surgeon who successfully separated Siamese Twins conjoined at the back of the head. For this groundbreaking surgery and other accomplishments
...
In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Dr. Carson with the Presidential Medal of Freedom award, the highest civilian award in the United States.

​

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.



Turns out - Emory University has a focus on medical sciences.

I suppose for some not familiar with the concept, the only men of science that exist are rocket scientists. But in real life - that is not the case.

Very often - Medical science is advanced by those who practice it not just by those who conduct clinical trials.

I did not think this concept was going to be so difficult here.

And I am not the one arguing that he should have been a blind-faith evolutionists. That is coming from a few whiners at Emory not me.

in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

This was being talked about (Emory) on the radio while I was driving home this afternoon. The official comment from Emory was that people invited to speak on campus do not speak for the school.

Concerning blind faith in evolution, my idea of a person that believes in evolution based on blind faith doesn't really know anything about evolution. Really, that is the definition of blind faith, believing but not knowing anything about something. In contrast, those who accept evolution based on an academic understanding of it do not base that understanding through blind faith. They base it on an understanding of the evidence that supports it.

Notedstrangeperson said:

No it doesn't.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

Notedstrangeperson said:

The point of comparing a neurosurgeon to a mechanic is to say that a person doesn't need to fully understand how something works in order to fix it:

Click to expand...

No, that's not the point at all. The point is, he might know about science, but that doesn't mean he's a scientist. Same way that a car mechanic might know about cars and can work on them, but is not an engineer. That's the point.

Notedstrangeperson said:

But since this is neurosurgery we're talking about, that argument is completely and utterly wrong. A neurosurgeon has to have an additional fourteen years of education after high school, and earn a qualification in neuroscience before than can even practice surgery on the brain.

If you're going to tinker around with someone's brain, you'd better make sure you know as much about the human brain there is to know. Needless to say, it's a hell of a lot harder than tinkering with a car.

Click to expand...

But because one knows about the brain and neuroscience does not mean that the person is a scientist.

This line of debate, though, is rather pointless. It doesn't make a hill of beans one way or the other.

Notedstrangeperson said:

No, I didn't miss it - but it's a poor comparison. A neurosurgeron must have some degree in neuroscience in order to understand how the brain works, which is like saying a car mechanic must have a degree in physics so he can understand velocity.

Click to expand...

You mean some classes in neuroscience. As far as I know the only "degree" you can get in neuroscience would be a PhD in it - and a neurosurgeon does not have that - unless they choose to do that separately.

Notedstrangeperson said:

But since this is neurosurgery we're talking about, that argument is completely and utterly wrong. A neurosurgeon has to have an additional fourteen years of education after high school, and earn a qualification in neuroscience before than can even practice surgery on the brain.

Click to expand...

Did you look into what that neuroscience training is? It is called BNT (basic neuroscience training) and is the only neuroscience they have to do - from what I can glean online it seems about A level standard. The same course is required of people getting into geriatrics for instance. This is not some PhD in science stuff.

Okay let's forget whether surgeons are scientists or not. That is completely besides the point. The fact is that this said surgeon is not qualified to teach science because he lacks the most basic understanding of science; thus rendering his opinions on evolution invalid. How about we stick with that?

Mod Hat On

This thread has went through a clean up. Please keep your posts ON topic. When they go off topic, it derails the thread and makes it confusing for others. Also, do not flame other posters. Use the report button, do not flame them or flame them back if they have flamed you. Let the mods help, instead of taking it into your own hands and risk being reported yourself.

Mod Hat Off

Flatland said:

Okay let's forget whether surgeons are scientists or not. That is completely besides the point. The fact is that this said surgeon is not qualified to teach science because he lacks the most basic understanding of science; thus rendering his opinions on evolution invalid. How about we stick with that?

Click to expand...

No one is saying he does not know science. They are saying that he does not know evolutionary theory. He is a neuroscientist. He knows neurology.