Is it possible to be a creationist and be licensed Medical Doctor?
Of course.
Just like there are MDs who believe aliens are among us. It’s doesn’t matter, it’s not relevant (unless it spills into weird beliefs about transfusions or whatever).
A quick example from googling: link
Why do you think it wouldn’t be possible?
Will a dentist do?
Front page storyin today’sAustin American-Statesman about the whackjob chairman of the State Board of Education.
Seems to me that it’s possible to believe that the world is flat and the moon is made of green cheese and still be a Medical Doctor. Even though I believe strongly in evolution (and am atheist), I still don’t see how creationist beliefs (or flat earth beliefs or moon=green cheese beliefs) would have any relevance to being an MD.
I’ve known more than a few biblical literalist physicians. They’re still a very small minority, IMHO.
Most were pretty good clinicians. One in particular was not.
I suspect they’d make lousy researchers, though.
But then I’m no creationist, and I’d make a lousy researcher too.
I have to correct myself briefly here. Being a Creationist could matter, it just rarely does in practice.
Creationism, at least in the West, doesn’t make testable predictions any more. So, it doesn’t tend to influence the day to day decisions of people working in many scientific fields – it doesn’t because it doesn’t make clear claims about things we can observe.
The one caveat I would have about a creationist physician is that he might be disinclined to practice evidence-based medicine. Still, I would prefer that to a devout Catholic physician, who really might let his religious beliefs interfere with medical decisions.
My worry would be that he’d misuse antibiotics, due to religious objections to admitting that bacteria evolve resistance.
I think you’re all kind of lumping all creationists into one, single pot. There’s a difference between a red state Bible literalist, and a normal religious person who’s capable of understanding science and accepting it, and also profess faith in certain aspects of creationism.
In general, creationists do not object to selection, but to speciation via natural selection.
And just to address the OP - the creationist who addressed a recent church mens breakfast I attended was a M.D. The breakfast was great, the address, not so. The concluding Q&A, heated.
Si
Nah. The way modern creationism works is, you don’t challenge any scientific observations. All you do is think up an ad-hoc explanation for the phenomenon that is consistent with your beliefs and move on.
Thus, few creationists would dispute that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. They’ll just say some crap about God designed into bacteria the useful trait of changability.
Check out this recent article from Answers in Genesis (link). In this article they concede that there can be useful mutations and that these mutations can be selected for by the environment. All while denying evolution.
How can they say this with a straight face?
One of the better-known M.D. apologists for creationism these days is a neurosurgeon, Michael Egnor.
If M.D.s are involved in research, their anti-evolution views could lead them dangerously astray. In clinical practice, there’s less potential for harm, unless you count being in some sort of position of influence to encourage ignorance.
I guess it’s flattering in a way, but I’m surprised by the number of people, including some on the Dope, who assume that physicians are sensible, responsible and respecting of the scientific method and become shocked/outraged when examples to the contrary turn up. While most are logical sorts there are unfortunately more than a handful who espouse and/or practice quackery, are antivaccinationists or have nutbar views about various medical and non-medical things.
And that doesn’t even take into account internists who allegedly bury bags of grenades on their property and own 110 machine guns and grenade launchers, as in the alleged case of the allegedly beyond froot-loopy doc from Arkansas who was arrested the other day.
While I don’t see problems in principle with being both a MD and a creationist, I’m somewhat reluctant to believe that somebody could have the intimate knowledge of the human body, its many sometimes ridiculous imperfections, and especially its host of messy, smelly and gross ailments that a doctor needs and simultaneously think that whole mess was ‘intelligently designed’.
I’ve known at least two. Fine doctors, both of them.
I ask because during last month’s Darwinmania someone was quoted in the LA Times saying (paraphrasing) that biology and evolution are as inseperable as physics and gravity. That got me to thinking.
That’s true, but you can be a PhD geologist and still be a young-earth creationist. (Cite. Another cite.)
If anyone actually denies gravity (It is only a theory, after all!) I wouldn’t be the least surprised to find a gravity-denying physicist out there.