Posted on 10/28/2015 2:09:11 PM PDT by Kaslin
THE TV NEWS was on, and there was a story about the leading candidates in the Republican presidential field.
"So if Donald Trump gets the nomination," my liberal friend needled me, "are you going to vote for him?"
"He's not going to be the nominee," I said, "but I wouldn't vote for him in any case."
"What about Ben Carson?" he wanted to know.
I like what I've seen of Carson's personality and character, I replied, but I couldn't imagine backing someone so inexperienced for president. Then I added: "He'd make a great surgeon general, though!"
I meant it lightheartedly, but my companion was appalled. A surgeon general who doesn't accept Darwinian evolution? I couldn't really imagine Carson in that post, could I?
Now it was my turn to be amazed. Carson is an eminent physician and surgeon. He was a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins, and spent 29 years as the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. In a 2001 celebration of "researchers and doctors who are changing our world," Time magazine hailed Carson as one of America's best scientists and physicians. The Library of Congress, no less, declared him a "living legend." Surely even the most impassioned liberal couldn't argue that Carson, whatever his political or religious beliefs, would lack the scientific and medical chops to make a fine surgeon general, the nation's leading spokesman on matters of public health.
Nonsense, said my liberal friend. Someone who questions the fundamental scientific understanding of the development of life on earth would have little credibility on any scientific topic, including public health. Carson may be a great surgeon, but if he rejects such bedrock scientific findings, who knows what other well-founded data he would refuse to acknowledge?
It is certainly true that Carson denies that life developed through random, unguided genetic mutations over millions of centuries. It is also true that he believes in literal six-day creationism (though he's agnostic on the question of the planet's age) and that he attributes the rise of Darwinian thinking to the influence of "the Adversary," — i.e., Satan. Those are not mainstream views, but Carson has plainly thought about the subject and hasn't been shy about explaining his conclusions, in both religious and scientific terms.
To be sure, he is seeking the presidency, not the office of surgeon general or any other science-related position. But would Carson's views on evolution and Creation be such a red flag to Democrats if his views generally were more in line with left-wing priorities?
The best-known and most beloved surgeon general of all — C. Everett Koop — is remembered for his early leadership in fighting AIDS and for warning bluntly that smoking was harmful. Liberals admired him for putting public health before politics or ideology. Yet Koop, too, was skeptical of Darwinism. "It has been my conviction for many years that evolution is impossible," he wrote in a 1986 letter. Like Carson, Koop also believed that Genesis should be taken at face value, not as "something like parables." Yet those views clearly were no barrier to Koop's nonpareil service as surgeon general.
Similarly, Carson's decades of remarkable medical achievement should quell any suggestion that his biblical views about the development of life "in the beginning" have impeded his scholarship and skill at saving and improving lives in the present. All faiths (including dogmatic atheism) incorporate teachings that cannot be supported by mainstream science. Water into wine? Manna from heaven? Golden plates from an angel in New York? A universe that spontaneously created itself?
Can you regard someone's religious creed as preposterous, yet entrust the person who is faithful to that creed with public office? Of course; Americans do it all the time. I can't see Carson as president, but what I really can't see is why his religion or his doubts about evolution (neither of which I share) should even enter the conversation.
How many kinds of creationists are there?
“Moron”,,,I think was the term!
Isn’t this a RELIGIOUS test coming from the LEFT??
Now you've upset our FR Mormons: if there are any left...
HMMMmmm...
A Mason maven from Macon?
Just ignore them...
I shudda read ahead!
Unless he's (she's??) a Mormon; of course.
is a gift from GOD!
Watch the H2 channel.
You'll come around...
Well; standing on the base of it; looking up.
Mistaken AND rational?
HMMMmmm...
You mean...
Our population would be about 58,000,000 more if we had NOT been: swine who have murdered with impunity.
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
Nope, none of these
“Our population would be about 58,000,000 more...”(without abortion.)”
Abortion is one story, tens of millions of deaths by Communists is another story.
(Both abortionists and Communists resent Christianity because it stands in the way of their objectives.)
IMHO
I believe that some moths might change their color through micro evolution, but there is absolutely no chance that a single cell or several cells formed the beginning of the life forms we see today.
How much research have you actually done? Have you ever, for example, compared the genetics of the influenza virus across both time and distance to see how the virus is changing? Of course comprehension of evolutionary theory is critical to medical advances--if no one understood evolution, how would we explain the constant changing of the influenza virus? Without understanding why and how the virus evolves, how would we try to devise a new vaccine for it every year? In my original toxicology studies, I tried to understand how a particular toxin is deadly, in part by looking at evolutionary relationships between various animals. I can't imagine how someone who wants to reject the theory of evolution would even attempt to conduct research. The process of evolution is constant and ubiquitous; understanding the theory is essential, since it is central to the study of life sciences.
You’ll pardon me if I lack the faith necessary to believe that the immeasurable complexity of life on this planet could arise through random mutations, regardless of what “science†asserts.
Mutations are random, but they follow immutable physical rules. Just as you get a random number every time you throw a cubical die, but you can always predict that the number is between 1 and 6, mutations are always random but fall within predictable outcomes. DNA can mutate by changing a base, adding one or more bases, or losing one or more bases. There are no other possibilities for mutation. Every organism has a few mutations that do not exist in its parents, and the accumulation of those mutations over generations causes species to change. If a group of animals from the same species becomes split, each of the new groups will continue to change (i.e. evolve) over time. Eventually, over many generations, the two groups will become different enough to be considered different species.
Just like there is no chance whatsoever that a tiny nondescript single cell can grow to become a complex organism containing trillions of specialized cells?
To me, the idea that a complex organism can grow from a single cell in weeks or months is way more implausible than the idea that complex organisms can evolve from simpler organisms over the course of millions of years. I mean, that is, if we're looking for something so implausible as to be unbelievable. Of course, in reality, scientists observe both evolution *and* embryonic development, so *neither* process is implausible.
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.