Creationists can be great scientists?

[Not_By_Chance]

It would appear that the answer is an emphatic "yes." Take the life of C Everett Koop as a shining example.

Just look what this article on creationdotcom has to say...

'Koop was a force for public health and health education through his writings, public appearances, personal contacts, and as Senior Scholar of the C. Everett Koop Institute at Dartmouth. He accepted the prestigious Frank Netter Award for Outstanding Contribution to Medical Education and also was Medical Director of Time-Life Medical and Chairman of Patient Education Media, Inc.

Dubbed ‘the most beloved physician’ in America, Koop was awarded the Denis Brown Gold Medal by the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons; in October 1976 the William E. Ladd Gold Medal of the American Academy of Pediatrics—the Academy’s highest surgical honor—in recognition of outstanding contributions to the field of pediatric surgery; and a number of other awards from civic, religious, medical and philanthropic organizations. In 1980 he was awarded the Medal of the Legion of Honor by the government of France, was inducted into the Royal College of Surgeons of England in 1982 and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow in 1987. In September of 1995, President Clinton presented him with the nation’s highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.'

The article continues...

'Koop recognized the importance of Genesis, stressing that the entire

“Bible flows out of the information given in the early chapters of Genesis. If we are to understand the world as it is and ourselves as we are, we must know the flow of history given in these chapters. Take this away and the flow of history is lost. Take this away and even the death of Christ has no meaning.”

Apparently, 'Koop recognized that the scientific evidence did not support Darwinism, but rather it supported an intelligent creator.' and 'As Professor of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatrics at one of the world’s leading universities, he was a pioneer in his field and an esteemed academic, who effectively articulated his scientific and scriptural objections to evolution in numerous venues.'

You can read the full article here.

 

[Armoured]

If you have to quote mine and use "apparent" conclusions in your OP...

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The accusation of quote mining seems to be one of the standard methods of attacking any information presented here that goes against the evolutionary dogma. Exactly which parts of the article I quoted are taken out of context in such a way that the overall intended meaning has been changed from supporting creation to supporting evolution? Provide some quotes by the great man that he supported the [mythical] story of evolution and denounced Biblical creation. Even better, show that he not only believed in evolution but thought that by not doing so, it would have harmed his work.

 

[Jimmy D]

It would appear that the answer is an emphatic "yes." Take the life of C Everett Koop as a shining example.

Just look what this article on creationdotcom has to say...

'Koop was a force for public health and health education through his writings, public appearances, personal contacts, and as Senior Scholar of the C. Everett Koop Institute at Dartmouth. He accepted the prestigious Frank Netter Award for Outstanding Contribution to Medical Education and also was Medical Director of Time-Life Medical and Chairman of Patient Education Media, Inc.

Dubbed ‘the most beloved physician’ in America, Koop was awarded the Denis Brown Gold Medal by the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons; in October 1976 the William E. Ladd Gold Medal of the American Academy of Pediatrics—the Academy’s highest surgical honor—in recognition of outstanding contributions to the field of pediatric surgery; and a number of other awards from civic, religious, medical and philanthropic organizations. In 1980 he was awarded the Medal of the Legion of Honor by the government of France, was inducted into the Royal College of Surgeons of England in 1982 and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow in 1987. In September of 1995, President Clinton presented him with the nation’s highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.'

The article continues...

'Koop recognized the importance of Genesis, stressing that the entire

“Bible flows out of the information given in the early chapters of Genesis. If we are to understand the world as it is and ourselves as we are, we must know the flow of history given in these chapters. Take this away and the flow of history is lost. Take this away and even the death of Christ has no meaning.”

Apparently, 'Koop recognized that the scientific evidence did not support Darwinism, but rather it supported an intelligent creator.' and 'As Professor of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatrics at one of the world’s leading universities, he was a pioneer in his field and an esteemed academic, who effectively articulated his scientific and scriptural objections to evolution in numerous venues.'

You can read the full article here.

He seems like a decent bloke and an excellent Doctor, it doesn't mean that he's right about everything he says on every topic though. It seems he's let his religious bias influence his thinking when it comes to evolution.

Let's look at what he had to say (according to that article).....


“ … have now been almost totally abandoned by evolutionists. The first involves vestigial organs, which (it was supposed) had served useful functions in an earlier stage of man’s evolutionary development, but which later became literally useless by the changes brought about through natural selection … Certain organs were said to be ‘vestiges’, that is, leftovers from a previous stage in evolution. The simple problem with the argument is that as medical science has developed, most of these organs have been found to serve useful functions in the body."

That's not a good argument against the TOE.

“ … argument for Darwin … is the dictum that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’. This idea is that the human embryo goes through the stages of evolution inside the mother’s womb, resembling at one stage the fish and so on. The better we understand the embryo, however, the more dubious this argument is seen to be.”

His terminology is a bit weird but if he's saying what I think he is... Neil Shubin convinced me of the opposite in his "Inner Fish" documentary.

“ … have been largely given up, many still place their faith in the theory of an unbroken line from the molecule to man by chance. However, they are faced … with at least two problems. First, the more fossil evidence we find, the more apparent it becomes that there have always been distinct breaks in the fossil record. Darwin admitted that the paleontological evidence in his day was slender, but, he said, as more is discovered the new evidence will support the hypothesis. This just has not happened.”

I thought the fossil record confirmed the theory of evolution, it certainly hasn't falsified it.


Those are his first three quotes on evolution, I might not have properly refuted what he's saying (I'm no biologist) but these sound like the usual Creationist PRATTS that can be found in this forum.

That said he does seem like an exceptional fellow, it's a shame he let his religious bias cloud his thinking.

 

[sfs]

It would appear that the answer is an emphatic "yes." Take the life of C Everett Koop as a shining example.

Just look what this article on creationdotcom has to say...

'Koop was a force for public health and health education through his writings, public appearances, personal contacts, and as Senior Scholar of the C. Everett Koop Institute at Dartmouth. He accepted the prestigious Frank Netter Award for Outstanding Contribution to Medical Education and also was Medical Director of Time-Life Medical and Chairman of Patient Education Media, Inc.

Dubbed ‘the most beloved physician’ in America, Koop was awarded the Denis Brown Gold Medal by the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons; in October 1976 the William E. Ladd Gold Medal of the American Academy of Pediatrics—the Academy’s highest surgical honor—in recognition of outstanding contributions to the field of pediatric surgery; and a number of other awards from civic, religious, medical and philanthropic organizations. In 1980 he was awarded the Medal of the Legion of Honor by the government of France, was inducted into the Royal College of Surgeons of England in 1982 and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow in 1987. In September of 1995, President Clinton presented him with the nation’s highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.'

The article continues...

'Koop recognized the importance of Genesis, stressing that the entire

“Bible flows out of the information given in the early chapters of Genesis. If we are to understand the world as it is and ourselves as we are, we must know the flow of history given in these chapters. Take this away and the flow of history is lost. Take this away and even the death of Christ has no meaning.”

Apparently, 'Koop recognized that the scientific evidence did not support Darwinism, but rather it supported an intelligent creator.' and 'As Professor of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatrics at one of the world’s leading universities, he was a pioneer in his field and an esteemed academic, who effectively articulated his scientific and scriptural objections to evolution in numerous venues.'

You can read the full article here.

I don't see any indication in your post that Koop was a scientist of any sort, much less a great one. A great guy, sure, and a good doctor and an excellent Surgeon General. But none of those things make him a scientist.

(To answer your question anyway: yes, creationists can be great scientists. I doubt they can be great biologists at this point in history, though.)

 

[Not_By_Chance]

That said he does seem like an exceptional fellow, it's a shame he let his religious bias cloud his thinking.

He was obviously very intelligent (he'd have to have been, given his profession and all the things he achieved), so perhaps his thinking was not clouded at all but the reverse.

 

[Loudmouth]

He was obviously very intelligent (he'd have to have been, given his profession and all the things he achieved), so perhaps his thinking was not clouded at all but the reverse.

Doctors aren't trained to be scientists, nor are they taught as much biology as some would think. Learning medicine is primarily memorization and differential diagnoses. I have seen MD's try to transition over to scientific research, and some of them just aren't able to do it. Quite frankly, it doesn't surprise me when a medical doctor says something really stupid about science.

 

[Loudmouth]

The accusation of quote mining seems to be one of the standard methods of attacking any information presented here that goes against the evolutionary dogma. Exactly which parts of the article I quoted are taken out of context in such a way that the overall intended meaning has been changed from supporting creation to supporting evolution? Provide some quotes by the great man that he supported the [mythical] story of evolution and denounced Biblical creation. Even better, show that he not only believed in evolution but thought that by not doing so, it would have harmed his work.

Koop didn't do biology, genetics, geology, etc.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I don't see any indication in your post that Koop was a scientist of any sort, much less a great one.

Well, don't doctors have to study biology to an advanced level, amongst other things and isn't biology a science subject? As to his greatness, that is apparent from his achievements; relatively few people achieve the status of professor do they (just to mention one of his additional accomplishments)?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Koop didn't do biology, genetics, geology, etc.

He must have studied biology to have a medical career. Even at advanced level at school, way below university requirements, he would have been delving into complex biological processes and yet, none of this convinced him that evolution was anything other than a myth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, don't doctors have to study biology to an advanced level,

No. They may have to study human biology to an advanced level, but they certainly don't have to learn much outside of that. If you asked a doctor what Ka/Ks stood for, they would probably guess that it referred to gas partial pressures or potassium levels.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

it doesn't surprise me when a medical doctor says something really stupid about science.

Just because anyone, scientist or not, doesn't believe in evolution doesn't make them stupid. It just means that they have a different worldview and have come to totally different conclusions about how things came to be. If you want to read about stupid things, you ought to delve into the nonsense that makes up the Big Bang theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just because anyone, scientist or not, doesn't believe in evolution doesn't make them stupid.

Then show us the evidence, and how it can be interpreted to not support evolution in a logical and rational manner.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

They may have to study human biology to an advanced level

Human biology is biology is it not, albeit only one branch of it perhaps? Don't you think that by studying human biology, he might have come across the idea that man has [supposedly] evolved from apes and yet he rejected the notion?
I think you are trying to downplay the calibre of the training that a surgeon would have to go through. For instance, here's a short quote about requirements to become a doctor in the US...

"Completing a bachelor's degree program is necessary to prepare prospective doctors to enter medical school. Though medical schools do not require specific degrees for admission, many students opt for programs heavy in biology and chemistry. Some schools offer specific pre-med programs that include the required classes for medical school, as well as prepare them to take the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Common courses in a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Biology program include:

• Chemistry
• Biological studies
• Physics
• Human genetics

Medical College Admission Test
The MCAT is a multiple-choice examination that students must pass before they are admitted to medical school. Physical science, biology, critical thinking, verbal skills and writing abilities are all tested in a 5-hour computerized test. Most medical schools use this score when considering applicants for admission, so it's important to score well to be considered for top programs"

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Then show us the evidence, and how it can be interpreted to not support evolution in a logical and rational manner.

Creation scientists have the same evidence that you have. They just form different conclusions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Human biology is biology is it not, albeit only one branch of it perhaps?

It isn't the part of biology that would learn about the evidence supporting evolution.

Don't you think that by studying human biology, he might have come across the idea that man has [supposedly] evolved from apes and yet he rejected the notion?

The question is whether he came across the EVIDENCE. You wouldn't learn about the hominid fossil record in medical school. You wouldn't learn about the genetic evidence that backs evolution. You may not even learn anything about cladistics or population genetics.

I think you are trying to downplay the calibre of the training that a surgeon would have to go through. For instance, here's a short quote about requirements to become a doctor in the US...

I went to school with pre-meds. I have trained pre-med students in the lab. I have trained MD's in the lab. I have had to help MD's learn to think like a scientist. I have worked in a teaching hospital with the doctors doing the training. I have worked with medical students. I think I know what I am talking about.

"Completing a bachelor's degree program is necessary to prepare prospective doctors to enter medical school. Though medical schools do not require specific degrees for admission, many students opt for programs heavy in biology and chemistry. Some schools offer specific pre-med programs that include the required classes for medical school, as well as prepare them to take the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Common courses in a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Biology program include:

• Chemistry
• Biological studies
• Physics
• Human genetics

Medical College Admission Test
The MCAT is a multiple-choice examination that students must pass before they are admitted to medical school. Physical science, biology, critical thinking, verbal skills and writing abilities are all tested in a 5-hour computerized test. Most medical schools use this score when considering applicants for admission, so it's important to score well to be considered for top programs"

A Bio 101 class or human genetics class is not going to teach you about the evidence that supports evolution. The MCAT certainly doesn't require doctors to understand the evidence supporting evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creation scientists have the same evidence that you have. They just form different conclusions.

Their conclusions aren't consistent with the evidence. That's the problem. Their conclusions ignore the evidence.

 

[sfs]

"Completing a bachelor's degree program is necessary to prepare prospective doctors to enter medical school. Though medical schools do not require specific degrees for admission, many students opt for programs heavy in biology and chemistry. Some schools offer specific pre-med programs that include the required classes for medical school, as well as prepare them to take the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Common courses in a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Biology program include:

• Chemistry
• Biological studies
• Physics
• Human genetics

Koop wasn't a biologists, and he also wasn't a chemist or a physicist. Taking a couple of undergraduate courses in a subject does not make one an expert.

I actually meant something a little different, though: "scientist" is a job description, not a vague term of approbation. A scientist is somebody who does science, i.e. does scientific research, regardless of their education. Some scientists I've known have had MDs, most had PhDs, and a few didn't have any advanced degree (or even a degree at all). Koop wasn't a scientist because he didn't do science; that wasn't his job.

 

[sfs]

Creation scientists have the same evidence that you have.

But they have to ignore a lot of it to reach the conclusions they want. Seriously -- creationists have absolutely no explanation for lots of genetic data. All they can do is try to change the subject.

They just form different conclusions.

No, they start with different conclusions, and then do whatever is necessary to the data to reach them. That's why they can't be great scientists when it comes to creationism: what they're doing isn't science to begin with.

 

[SkyWriting]

Doctors aren't trained to be scientists, nor are they taught as much biology as some would think.

He has a Masters in Science. So your comments are unsupported.
http://weill.cornell.edu/education/curriculum/