Posted on 12/28/2005 10:46:19 AM PST by hellbender
PRIZE FIGHT Damadian, a physician-scientist then at Brooklyn’s Downstate Medical Center, went on to build the first magnetic resonance imaging machine, an MRI scanner he nicknamed Indomitable. Millions of patients would go on to benefit from this new technology’s capacity to create astonishingly sharp images of the body’s soft tissues. And Damadian appeared embarked on what many perceived to be an inevitable progression toward the famed concert hall in Stockholm where he would someday be awarded a Nobel Prize. **** But it is difficult not to at least consider another explanation: that scientists on the assembly or in other positions of influence could not abide Damadian’s staunch support for "creationist science." Damadian is a firm believer in a literal translation of the Bible: he has no doubt that the earth was created by God during a six-day stretch about 6,000 years ago. Damadian has also served as a technical adviser to the Institute for Creation Research, which rejects the standard model of evolution."
(Excerpt) Read more at smithsonianmag.si.edu ...
SPOTREP - some of us have been telling this story for a long time. Great to reinforce it!
Oh, oh ... looks like Creationists aren't nuts after all!
It is the reverse that is true ... .
Naturally I am a "Creationist" are far from ashamed of it. It is amazing how many scientists are ... Isac Newton and others made unparalleled contributions in their time. I wish I could say the same for evolutionists ... but I can't ... . Oh well.
Flame away!!!
When it comes to practical utility, or even predictive power, intelligent design is pretty much the way to go. In fact, it's been a general principle of science from the beginning.
Yes, but if you read the whole Smithsonian article, it discusses the various contributors. It also has some fascinating anecdotes about bad judgment in awarding past prizes. Very good, balanced article.
Yes. Typical liberal insipness. Pushed here by insipid phony conservatives with an agenda related to their personal issues vis-a-vis religion.
Yes, interesting.
Just so we're clear: you are seriously claiming that no "evolutionists" have made significant contributions to science? Impressive.
The prize awarded for the MRI is one of many Nobels that have come under scrutiny. It pays to be a 'good old boy' to get one of them.
What predictions does intelligent design make? What experiements or observations would confirm or disprove it?
This can't be true, since we know that all of science collapses in an instant if everybody doesn't believe Darwin. That keyboard would de-materialize right from under your fingers, like Michael J. Fox's image faded from family photos in "Back to the Future".
He was the first to take MRI scans of lab animals proving this.
He was the first to build an MRI machine capable of scanning a human torso.
He was the first to publish scans of a human MRI.
Lauterbur and Mansfield refined the technique to improve the clarity of imaging. A necessary advance, but they were uninvolved with these other steps.
Damadian was completely passed over for the Nobel for "inventing" the MRI. Anyone who thinks this was not a case of blatant discrimination is kidding themselves in light of the facts above. When Darwinian fundamentalists argue that no Nobel prize winners are biblical creationists, point out that's like saying there are no black leaders in the KKK.
Interesting.
I doubt you will be spared the flames, flame-baiting, and the obligatory likenings to the Taliban and what-not.
"Just so we're clear: you are seriously claiming that no "evolutionists" have made significant contributions to science?"
Not at all. Evolution is rich in explanatory power (It's useful in understanding earth history, for example), just not that valuable to most people. Can anyone name a single technological development remotely comparable in value to the MRI, which resulted directly from application of evolution? Physics has given us the transistor, nuclear energy, the electron microscope, etc. etc. Chemistry has yielded drugs. Genetics has produced better crops. All of those developments would have happened if evolution had never been discovered.
Organic food enthusiasts are, in essence, creationists, because they believe that food as it exists in "nature" is the most perfect food for human consumption. That could only be true if it were designed that way by some higher intellegence.
Darwinists, on the other hand, would say that food as it exists in nature has evolved in such a way as to maximize the likelihood that the particular food with survive, without any concern for whether it is healthy for humans or not.
It generally predicts organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws will be found.
What experiements or observations would confirm or disprove it?
Nearly every scientific experiement and observation on this planet has confirmed it to date. The discovery of black holes may call into question the ubiquitous presence of intelligent design, but even black holes may serve a purpose. The ultimate disproof of intelligent design would be for all particle matter to disintegrate into nothing.
Scince science is speculative in nature, science is free to posit intelligent design as a reasonable explanation for organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.
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.