AMA Call to Arms
The American Medical Association has released an op-ed on the issue of evolution denial and related issues. For those of you late to the party, it covers the essence of the issue and addresses where the medical community ought to stand:
The medical community as a whole has been largely absent from today’s public debates on science. Neither the American Medical Association nor the American Psychiatric Association has taken a formal stand on the issue of evolution versus creationism. When physicians use their power of political persuasion in state legislatures and the US Congress, it’s generally on questions more pertinent to their daily survival—Medicare reimbursement, managed care reform, and funding for medical research. Northwestern’s Miller believes that the scientific community can’t fight the battle alone and that, as the attacks against science accelerate, the medical community will have to use its privileged perch in society to make the case for science. “You have to join your friends, so when someone attacks the Big Bang, when someone attacks evolution, when someone attacks stem cell research, all of us rally to the front. You can’t say it’s their problem because the scientific community is not so big that we can splinter 4 or more ways and ever still succeed doing anything.”
It’s a excellent article, and mentions a variety of ways to get involved. Because the anti-science agenda behind the creationist assault is all-encompassing, and every scientific discipline stands to lose. Remember that - their target is the entire structure of methodological naturalism and the scientific method.
(Hat tip to Aetiology via The Panda’s Thumb.)
7 Responses to “AMA Call to Arms”
Leave a Reply
Please keep comments civil, rational, reasonably on-topic, and in something tangential to standard written English. Comments that display a reckless disregard for civilized discourse will be moderated.
December 2nd, 2005 at 6:18 pm
I love this quote:
Northwestern’s Jon Miller concedes that speaking out may come with a price, “It won’t make…[physicians]…popular with many people but is important for any profession, particularly a profession based on science” to do so [5]. Consider this: shouldn’t civic leadership be embedded in the mind of every blooming physician? In the end, doesn’t combating this virulent campaign of anti-knowledge lead us back to that old adage of evolutionary leadership by example, “Monkey see, monkey do?” Seize the day, Doc.
However, this article disturbs me, because it over looks a very basic fact that is often assumed to be false.
The concepts of intelligent design and evolution can coexist.
On one side, evolution is scientifically supported strongly, although it you’re adamant, you can make an argument that science is just really lucky blind shots that hit their mark almost every time. On the other, you could argue, intelligent design would make sense, cause science is soo awesome and cool, and there’s no one cool enough to figure out all the random coolness in science but some intelligent design scheme, although you could argue that it’s a natural phenomena to take for granted.
Another point: articles that are all one-sided, with terms like “nonscientific alternatives” that insult the other side, only perpetuate the argument without reaching a societal helpful point. All yakking and no acting makes USA a fucked up place to live in. Seriously people, can we work together on attacking the problem, instead of attacking each other?
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:00 pm
I disagree that they can coexist. The notion that there’s some intelligent cause can coexist with science, but that’s not the problem. The problem is the *intelligent design creationist* political movement, its attempts to bypass the scientific process and get their message into science classrooms through political maneouvering.
“Nonscientific alternative” isn’t an insult, it’s a statement of fact - intelligent design creationism is flat-out not science. Period. It’s when the id-creationists try to get a nonscientific message into science classrooms that there are problems.
Science didn’t fire the first shots in this battle, either - religious extremists did. And the scientific method had damn well better defend itself.
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:05 am
Often times also, I’ve found that ID’ers don’t really give a flying carp if their position is science or not.
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:32 am
*summons Zombie Derrida from the dead*
“Deconstruct the IDCreationists!”
Zombie Derrida begins to write paper.
“No, you fool, eat their flesh!!”
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:58 am
You didn’t sleep, did you.
That was not a question.
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Believing in a Creator *isn’t* science–it’s faith, which I can have while still marveling at the scientific processes by which our world came to be. The problem is that faith should not try to be science–they’re just not the same thing–but you can have both.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:39 pm
I believe you. I wish the fundies did, too.