Is it Ethical To Teach Doctors Evolution?

[Agonaces of Susa]

Evolution News & Views: ‘Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?’

Doctors don’t study evolution. Doctors never study it in medical school, and they never use evolutionary biology in their practice. There are no courses in medical school on evolution. There are no ‘professors of evolution’ in medical schools. There are no departments of evolutionary biology in medical schools.

If you needed treatment for a brain tumor, your medical team would include a physicist (who designed the MRI that diagnosed your tumor), a chemist and a pharmacologist (who made the medicine to treat you), an engineer and an anesthesiologist (who designed and used the machine that give you anesthesia), a neurosurgeon (who did the surgery to remove your tumor), a pathologist (who studied the tumor under a microscope and determined what type of tumor it was), and nurses and oncologists (who help you recover and help make sure the tumor doesn’t come back). There would be no evolutionary biologists on your team.

I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors—nearly two-thirds according to national polls—don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.

I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I think this guy should have studied evolution then he would know that he was making misinformed statements like his assertion that somehow evolution relies on “random events”

 

[BigBadWlf]

double post...and i have no idea why

 

[Gishin]

If you have ever taken medication that's evolutionary science at work.

 

[soul_biscuit]

What a contemptible question. A better one would be: "Is it ethical not to teach doctors evolution?" Evolution is a fact. It happens. It's real. And it's the explanation for why our bodies are laid out the way they are, despite the bigoted, ignorant author of that quote above.

Evolution is directly applicable to medicine. It is a vital part of the process of designing medicines, because bacteria inevitably evolve resistance to the drugs that kill them. It is a vital part of research into cross-species transplants: it is because we are closely related to, say, baboons, that transplants of baboon hearts may be promising.

And even if evolution weren't applicable at all, it is still a part of basic scientific literacy to understand that A) life operates according to demonstrable natural law, B) species arise according to demonstrable law, and C) human beings are demonstrably the product of evolution by natural selection from nonhuman ancestors. I honestly wouldn't fully trust any doctor who lacked this basic understanding.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

How does it matter, precisely, whether or not a doctor is familiar with evolutionary theory? Will it affect his actions as a caregiver? Or his decisions as a competent doctor?

I see no reason why he should not take it, if he wishes - nor do I see a need to take it, if he does not wish to. I don't honestly see how it really plays into ethics or morality at all...

 

[soul_biscuit]

How does it matter, precisely, whether or not a doctor is familiar with evolutionary theory? Will it affect his actions as a caregiver? Or his decisions as a competent doctor?

It may not directly affect the doctor's competence. I don't have statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if a sizable percentage of doctors in the US don't accept evolution, and we don't hear about ridiculously huge numbers of malpractice cases.

The problem is one of basic scientific literacy. Evolution is one of the strongest scientific facts out there, bolstered by evidence from dozens of disciplines. I would get uneasy around any doctor who couldn't, or wouldn't, grasp such a well-supported fact.

I see no reason why he should not take it, if he wishes - nor do I see a need to take it, if he does not wish to. I don't honestly see how it really plays into ethics or morality at all...

The connection to ethics or morality is perhaps a bit tenuous. Except for one thing: you'll recall that the surgeon quoted in the OP mentions something about the brain forming through "random chance." Of course evolutionary theory does not say anything like that, nor has it ever done so. This doctor could easily disabuse himself of the misconceptions he holds about evolution, yet he chooses instead to repeat them as if he knows what he's talking about. That's intellectual dishonesty, which makes it unethical. It's also a behavior nearly ubiquitous among creationists.

 

[RocketRed]

Evolution is directly applicable to medicine. It is a vital part of the process of designing medicines, because bacteria inevitably evolve resistance to the drugs that kill them. It is a vital part of research into cross-species transplants: it is because we are closely related to, say, baboons, that transplants of baboon hearts may be promising.

Everything I have to say has been said. So I'll just underscore this because it's very true. Also this:

If you have ever taken medication that's evolutionary science at work.

The answer to the OP is a resounding yes. We owe advances in medicine (at least that, anyway) to the teachings of evolution.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

It may not directly affect the doctor's competence. I don't have statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if a sizable percentage of doctors in the US don't accept evolution, and we don't hear about ridiculously huge numbers of malpractice cases.

The problem is one of basic scientific literacy. Evolution is one of the strongest scientific facts out there, bolstered by evidence from dozens of disciplines. I would get uneasy around any doctor who couldn't, or wouldn't, grasp such a well-supported fact.



The connection to ethics or morality is perhaps a bit tenuous. Except for one thing: you'll recall that the surgeon quoted in the OP mentions something about the brain forming through "random chance." Of course evolutionary theory does not say anything like that, nor has it ever done so. This doctor could easily disabuse himself of the misconceptions he holds about evolution, yet he chooses instead to repeat them as if he knows what he's talking about. That's intellectual dishonesty, which makes it unethical. It's also a behavior nearly ubiquitous among creationists.

It is no more a 'fact' than, say...gravity. lol

And by that I mean that neither is scientifically provable - ever only "theories" [albeit highly supported and backed].

But yes, I do agree that, on a basis of scientific literacy, any doctor should, at the very least, understand them. Yet, it does not have any direct bearing, and therefore, it is neither moral nor immoral to teach doctors evolution (or to not teach them, as the case may be).

And, yes, I would wager a large portion of doctors do not accept the theory of evolution. Sadly.


But, to be totally honest, I make no qualms to say this: the doctor quoted by the Op was, frankly, a twit. And be so bold and daring as to say such things about something you have no basis in, is rather unethical.

 

[NDNgirl4ever]

Medicine is a science. Anyone who studies science should understand the major scientific theories like evolution. Studying something does not mean that you have to believe it. I see no harm in teaching medical(and nursing) students about evolutionary theory.

 

[soul_biscuit]

It is no more a 'fact' than, say...gravity. lol

Well said.

And by that I mean that neither is scientifically provable - ever only "theories" [albeit highly supported and backed].

This too. Proof belongs to coins, whiskey, and mathematics. Science deals in evidence.

It bears repeating, however, that evolution (like gravity) is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact that species change over time, and it is a fact that all known organisms can be grouped together in a single family tree. The theory of evolution explains how and why species change and diversify.

But yes, I do agree that, on a basis of scientific literacy, any doctor should, at the very least, understand them. Yet, it does not have any direct bearing, and therefore, it is neither moral nor immoral to teach doctors evolution (or to not teach them, as the case may be).

I suppose I would have to agree that evolution would have no direct bearing on the practice of individual doctors. It has a powerful bearing on medical research, however, as RocketRed pointed out. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example, makes no sense except in the light of evolution.

And, yes, I would wager a large portion of doctors do not accept the theory of evolution. Sadly.

But, to be totally honest, I make no qualms to say this: the doctor quoted by the Op was, frankly, a twit. And be so bold and daring as to say such things about something you have no basis in, is rather unethical.

It seems we're pretty much in agreement!

 

[RocketRed]

You know, these threads pop up ostensibly questioning the ethics and morality of evolution, but then it seems to completely forget about that and turns into a debate over whether or not it's real. It seems like that's the real point of these questions a lot of the time.
At that point, does the discussion even belong in the Ethics and Morality forum? If you're just discussing the viability of the theory, why post it in Ethics and Morality?

If you disagree with evolution, fine. But it seems to obfuscate the issue to bring it up couched in a question of its morality or ethics. The theory of evolution is neutral, it can be used for good and for evil. The thing itself belongs to no ethical or moral side. If you want to question the theory's points as being untrue, why post about it in Ethics and Morality?

 

[soul_biscuit]

You know, these threads pop up ostensibly questioning the ethics and morality of evolution, but then it seems to completely forget about that and turns into a debate over whether or not it's real. It seems like that's the real point of these questions a lot of the time.
At that point, does the discussion even belong in the Ethics and Morality forum? If you're just discussing the viability of the theory, why post it in Ethics and Morality?

If you disagree with evolution, fine. But it seems to obfuscate the issue to bring it up couched in a question of its morality or ethics. The theory of evolution is neutral, it can be used for good and for evil. The thing itself belongs to no ethical or moral side. If you want to question the theory's points as being untrue, why post about it in Ethics and Morality?

This thread could very well evolve (see what I did there?) into an argument about the truth of evolution, and in that case it certainly would no longer belong in E&M. Or course, the original poster hasn't made any overture in that direction yet, so we can still assume that his intent to discuss the ethics of teaching evolution is genuine.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Well said.



This too. Proof belongs to coins, whiskey, and mathematics. Science deals in evidence.

It bears repeating, however, that evolution (like gravity) is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact that species change over time, and it is a fact that all known organisms can be grouped together in a single family tree. The theory of evolution explains how and why species change and diversify.



I suppose I would have to agree that evolution would have no direct bearing on the practice of individual doctors. It has a powerful bearing on medical research, however, as RocketRed pointed out. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example, makes no sense except in the light of evolution.



It seems we're pretty much in agreement!

Amen! Someone who understands it, for once. lol
And, yes, it has serious and direct effect on medical research. Very true.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

You know, these threads pop up ostensibly questioning the ethics and morality of evolution, but then it seems to completely forget about that and turns into a debate over whether or not it's real. It seems like that's the real point of these questions a lot of the time.
At that point, does the discussion even belong in the Ethics and Morality forum? If you're just discussing the viability of the theory, why post it in Ethics and Morality?

If you disagree with evolution, fine. But it seems to obfuscate the issue to bring it up couched in a question of its morality or ethics. The theory of evolution is neutral, it can be used for good and for evil. The thing itself belongs to no ethical or moral side. If you want to question the theory's points as being untrue, why post about it in Ethics and Morality?

When it is no longer about the OP, I won't even discuss it, tbh. I will just leave it alone. Because, yes, it is then no longer an ethics/morality question, but a scientific discussion. And that is not why I come here. lol

 

[RocketRed]

This thread could very well evolve (see what I did there?) into an argument about the truth of evolution, and in that case it certainly would no longer belong in E&M. Or course, the original poster hasn't made any overture in that direction yet, so we can still assume that his intent to discuss the ethics of teaching evolution is genuine.

True. I suppose this is more preemptive commenting than anything else. I didn't mean to jump the gun. I mean more to warn away from making this into another pitched battle of science v religion. Again, no one's gone there yet, but certain issues (evolution and homosexuality especially) always seem to spin away from the original intent of the thread and turn into another right/wrong, true/false sort of thing.

EDIT:

When it is no longer about the OP, I won't even discuss it, tbh. I will just leave it alone. Because, yes, it is then no longer an ethics/morality question, but a scientific discussion. And that is not why I come here. lol

Exactly.

 

[soul_biscuit]

True. I suppose this is more preemptive commenting than anything else. I didn't mean to jump the gun. I mean more to warn away from making this into another pitched battle of science v religion. Again, no one's gone there yet, but certain issues (evolution and homosexuality especially) always seem to spin away from the original intent of the thread and turn into another right/wrong, true/false sort of thing.

Then I thank you for the warning. I get drawn very easily into arguments over the truth of evolution. To me it's too important a question, and too much brilliant work has been done over the last century and a half in pursuit of the answer, to leave charlatans alone to babble nonsense to each other.

 

[Tenka]

Yes I want my doctor to be scientifically literate.

If I knew that my GP was a creationist, I would get a new GP.

 

[Supernaut]

Yes I want my doctor to be scientifically literate.

If I knew that my GP was a creationist, I would get a new GP.

Oh come on, they could have you back on your feet in six days and you can rest on the seventh.

 

[soul_biscuit]

Oh come on, they could have you back on your feet in six days and you can rest on the seventh.

Unless the creationist doctor decides to smite him with a flood.