Posted on 12/03/2005 6:18:54 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
I’m afraid we live in loopy times. How else to account for the latest entries in America’s culture wars: science museum docents donning combat gloves against rival fundamentalist tour groups and evolution on trial in a Pennsylvania federal court. For those keeping score, so far this year it’s Monkeys: 0, Monkey Business: 82. That's 82 evolution versus creationism debates in school boards or towns nationwide—this year alone. [1]
This past summer, when most Americans were distracted by thoughts of beaches and vacations or the high price of gasoline (even before the twin hits of Katrina and Rita), 2 heavy-weight political figures joined the President of the United States to weigh in on a supposedly scientific issue. US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Arizona Senator John McCain, and President George W. Bush each endorsed the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution in the science classroom. Can anyone reasonably convince me that these pronouncements were not just cynical political punditry but, rather, were expressions of sincere beliefs?
So you have to ask yourself in light of all of these events, are we headed back to the past with no escape in the future? Are we trapped in a new period of history when science, once again, is in for the fight of its life?
In times like these, as inundated as we are by technical wizardry, one might conclude that American technological supremacy and know-how would lead, inevitably, to a deeper understanding or trust of science. Well, it doesn’t. Perhaps just the opposite is true. Technology and gee whiz gadgetry has led to more suspicion rather than less. And a typical American’s understanding of science is limited at best. As far as evolution is concerned, if you’re a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is even more depressing. A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority—48 percent—do not believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time [2].
What if we become a nation that can’t chew gum, walk down the street, and transplant embryonic stem cells all at the same time? Does it matter?
New York Times journalist Cornelia Dean, who balances her time between science reporting for the Times and lecturing at Harvard, told me that she believes that science stands in a perilous position. “Science, as an institution, has largely ceded the microphone to people who do not necessarily always embrace the scientific method,” she says. “Unless scientists participate in the public life of our country, our discourse on a number of issues of great importance becomes debased” [3].
Others, such as journalist Chris Mooney, point to the increasing politicization of science as a pollutant seeping into our nation’s psyche. In his recent book, The Republican War on Science, Mooney spells out the danger of ignorance in public life when ideology trumps science.
Science politicization threatens not just our public health and the environment but the very integrity of American democracy, which relies heavily on scientific and technical expertise to function. At a time when more political choices than ever before hinge upon the scientific and technical competence of our elected leaders, the disregard for consensus and expertise—and the substitution of ideological allegiance for careful assessment—can have disastrous consequences [4].
Jon D. Miller, PhD, a political scientist on faculty at Northwestern University’s School of Medicine, believes that the sophisticated questions of biology that will confront each and every American in the 21st Century will require that they know the difference between a cell and a cell phone and are able to differentiate DNA from MTV. For decades, Miller has been surveying Americans about their scientific knowledge. “We are now entering a period where our ability to unravel previously understood or not understood questions is going to grow extraordinarily,” says Miller. “As long as you are looking at the physics of nuclear power plants or the physics of transistors [all 20th Century questions]…it doesn’t affect your short-term belief systems. You can still turn on a radio and say it sounds good but you don’t have to know why it works. As we get into genetic medicine, infectious diseases…if you don’t understand immunity, genetics, the principles of DNA, you’re going to have a hard time making sense of these things” [5].
These ideological battles aren’t likely to vanish any time soon. If anything, an organized and emboldened fundamentalist religious movement buttressed by political power in Washington will continue to challenge accepted scientific theory that collides with religious beliefs. So one must ask, is it too farfetched to see these ideological battles spilling over into areas of medical research and even into funding at the National Institutes of Health?
Now I am not asking for a world that doesn’t respect religious belief. My education as a Roman Catholic balanced creed and science. In the classroom of my youth, one nun taught creationism in religion class while another taught evolution in science, and never the twain did meet.
So what does one do? How can a medical student, a resident, or a physician just beginning to build a career become active in these larger public battles? Burt Humburg, MD, a resident in internal medicine at Penn State’s Hershey Medical Center, is one role model. He’s been manning the evolutionary ramparts since his medical school days in Kansas in the late 1990s when he became active in Kansas Citizens for Science. On a brief vacation from his residency volunteering as a citizen advocate for the federal trial in Pennsylvania, he said education is the key role for the physician. While he realizes that medical students, residents and physicians might not view themselves as scientists, per se, he sees himself and his colleagues as part of the larger scientific collective that can’t afford to shirk its duty. “The town scientist is the town doctor, so whether we want it or not, we have the mantle—the trappings—of a scientist” [7].
It is time for the medical community, through the initiative of individual physicians, to address not only how one can heal thy patient, but also how one can heal thy nation. There are many ways to get involved; from the most rudimentary—attending school board meetings, sending letters to the editor, and volunteering at the local science museum—to the more demanding—running for office, encouraging a spouse or partner to do so, or supporting candidates (especially financially) who are willing to speak out for science. As Tip O’Neill, the larger-than-life Speaker of the House of Representatives, famously declared, “All politics is local.” Speak out for science. Isn’t that a message that should be advanced in every physician’s office?
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.
Add me to the list. :-)
He wrote an argue ment in NRO stating in part that ID might be a possible bridge between Islam and the West. He speaks out strongly against the "Atheistic materialism" of the west and aginast the directions of western science in particular.Mustafa Akyol is a political scientist, journalist and a freelance writer living in Istanbul, Turkey. He is also director at the Intercultural Dialogue Platform, based in Istanbul.
So? Where were the evolutionists when they were invited to express their views? I know there was some "brave" talk by some that to go to the hearings was to "dignify" the hearings regarding the proposals to allow teaching of ID or creationism along side evolution, there-fore most of the "driving leadership" of the "evolution crowd" decided to stay away. (Besides it was in Kansas...not California or any eastern sea-board locale where such a dust-up would make a big splash in the main stream papers).
Well I say, nothing ventured nothing gained. The evolutionists should have gone and expressed their point of view, strongly and forcefully!
Star Wars is "space Opera". :-)
I should read the whole thread before posting. LOL!
My point is made.
He is not a scientist.
But somehow, according to the Kansas school board he is qualified to speak on evolution.
Here's his background:
Mustafa Akyol: Free Muslims Coalition
http://www.freemuslims.org/about/akyol.php
And here's a bit more insight about him:
"Mr. Akyol denies their self-evident interpretations, and that is his right, but he should try to convince – not a Western audience – but over a billion Muslims who curiously share the views of the Muslim texts and authorities quoted by the courageous authors mentioned above. Mr. Akyol prefers to try and persuade Westerners of the perfection of Islam, simply denying that the horrors that occurred in Muslim history, chronicled with great accuracy by Dr. Bostom, either didn't happen, or were not done by Muslims. This sort of twisted logic is little removed from the warped thinking which justified the bizarre accusations that the CIA, Americans, or Zionists must have perpetrated 9/11 because Muslims could not commit such horrors. Many books elaborating this preposterous thesis were disseminated in Europe, and in the Muslim world.
It would be meaningless to answer all of Mr. Akyol's affirmations, accusations and denials, including the genocide of the Armenians. His total rejection of the history of dhimmitude, despite copious documentation by both Muslim and non-Muslim sources, and its replacement by a glorification of a just and peaceful Islamic rule over tens of millions of subjected, non-Muslim peoples, precludes any understanding between those who call a jihad a genocidal war, and those who call it a liberation (even having the temerity to deny the jihad genocide of the Armenians). Mr. Akyol invokes testimonies which are contradicted, multiple times over, by others he chose to ignore. "
from this source:Jihad Watch: Bat Ye'or vs. Mustafa Akyol on Islam's "Golden Age"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003675.php
Strange folk you defend.
Actually I suspect that neither you nor the Kansas school board looked very carefully into his credentials other that Discovery Institute ... anti-evolution ...must be ok.
And the scientists were back n their labs, working on science, as they should have been.
We need a "somebody mentioned science fiction" ping list.
When Debakey (sp, i'm sure, is wrong) got his early "success," there was a lot of overenthused overreaching. The evos think this is a poster child thing, but it could have been no more than a flippant remark made by a professional. I'll do some reading about Baby Fae, though, and I'll bet there were some ideas (wrong ideas) about the operation that had nothing to do with the Descent of Man.
The rules themselves are evolving. Change is a painful thing--you're throwing away the good cards in your hand from sheer emotion. Not that I expect you to listen to me. It's more amusing that you don't. It's clear to me how you could easily win the day, but tantrums and whining work against you.
Do you think standards of academic integrity SHOULD "evolve"?!
Hah. I thought this whole thing was bogus. But there's a lot that's bogus going on in science these days--plagarists and phony data--just google up "unenthical scientists" and you'll waste a day of reading.
here's one source..".One concern was the difference in blood groups of the potential donors and the recipient: common baboons are virtually all AB, A, or B types. The recipient was type O. Crossing the ABO barrier has historically been shunned. However, scattered reports of human kidney- and heart-transplant survival, despite ABO mismatching, were of some encouragement. The transplant team also felt that crossing the ABO barrier might be less significant than crossing the species barrier and that the baby's immune system might fail to recognize it as being as significant as the species barrier.
Should they proceed? All of the other tests were progressing nicely and showing a significant likeness between Baby Fae and one particular potential baboon donor. The team would be vulnerable to criticism if the risky transplant was not successful. The decision to proceed became a judgment call. This was, after all, a compassionate effort to save a baby's life--and, maybe, eventually, the lives of many other babies.
The Institutional Review Board had been following developments closely and was aware of the surgeon's ongoing discussions with the baby's family and of her condition. Final approval of the IRB was granted on October 24, two days before surgery.
Meanwhile, sophisticated, time-consuming immunological tests were employed to help choose the best tissue-matched donor. Bailey's research had discovered that some baboons are more closely tissue-matched to some humans than are other humans. The longest test, the mixed-lymphocyte culture, took six days, but the transplant team was determined not to rush into surgery without having vital information. At midnight, Thursday, October 25, Baby Fae almost died. She was already on maximum life support and was almost taken to surgery before the tests were completed. Decisions were being made on an hour by hour basis." http://www.llu.edu/info/legacy/Legacy3.html (loma linda) There's lots more out there, just hit a single dogpile search with keywords "baby fae baboon chimpanzee"
This is all complete BS--that Dr. Bailey chose a baboon rather than a chimpanzee because "he didn't believe in evolution"-- what's going on here is a hidden agenda. I suspect a DNC agenda.
How low can these fanatics go--i
Sometime do a google on "unethical scientist plagarism fraud data"--you can read at some length how academics and their integrity are faring.
For lurkers and anyone else who wants solid information on the tragedy of Baby Fae
Baby Fae: The Unlearned Lesson
Address:http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_2_1990/BabyFae.html
Here's a quote from the article regarding an interview:
"...The reporters had been forbidden to ask direct questions about the operation, so they queried Bailey on the issue of why he had chosen a baboon in view of the baboon's evolutionary distance from humans. Bailey replied, "Er, I find that difficult to answer. You see, I don't believe in evolution.""
Any questions?
aforesaid link is associated with antivivisection--this Baby Fae hokum is from a PETA-esque group.
Good grief. As if you can't go to the link, check out the mission statement...
Gotcha!
Or at least a 'Robert A.' is God ping list.
What is it about a fatal condition that you find hard to understand? Well, doctor, why aren't chimp hearts the rage now?
Yes. Why do you think your link is the end all and be all to the situation? Here is more from the Loma Linda link mamzelle addressed to me.
Bailey's associates in neonatology and cardiology had too often experienced the heartache of having to tell young parents that there was no hope for their new babies. The only possibility for these babies to live a really normal, active life, he thought, would be a heart replacement. What about animal hearts? (Fifty thousand valves made of calf- and pig-heart tissues were used to replace faulty human-heart valves every year.)
But animal hearts had been tried unsuccessfully in adults on four occasions, the first time by Dr. James Hardy, on January 23, 1964, at the University of Mississippi. He transplanted the heart of a chimpanzee into the chest of a 68-year-old man in a last-ditch effort to save the man's life. But the patient was too weak and died almost immediately. Controlling rejection is usually the greatest challenge in managing a patient following organ transplantation. Rejection in a cross-species transplant would be even more difficult to control than in most human-to-human transplants.
I tried to locate that quote through my own searches, but only found it on evo-fan sites and this nutcase animal-rights site. If you like associating with the PETA crowd, watch out where they throw the blood.
Leads me to think that either he didn't say it, or that it was a throwaway remark that had no meaning in this context. I'm happy to hear if there's some independent verificiation that this remark had anything to do with his choice of heart. Pigs had already had some success--I don't know why he wouldn't have used a chimp if there was some reason to use it other than an evo-kook thinks it's a better choice...? A close relative on the family tree is not always the best choice for a transplant--not even between humans!
At any rate, I'm not much interested in defending this surgeon's overreach that happened over twenty years ago--a lifetime in terms of the gains in medical knowledge. He entered into an ethical no-chimp's-land with this Hail Mary's pass. I'm pretty certain he didn't expect Fae to live very long as much as he wanted very much to learn something that would save the next baby.
Do the evos hate Seventh-Day Adventists, too? Is there something in their theology that approves of baboons and doesn't care for chimpanzees?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.