The spouse had heard Eugene Volokh on a talk show during his drive home, whereon was discussed the case of a Texas Tech professor who refused to write a letter of recommendation to medical school for a creationist student.
Ah yes, of course it makes sense to judge a doctor's clinical competence by his understanding or acceptance of evolutionary theory. As the spouse snorted, "Demanding that a doctor accept evolutionary theory is like requiring that your carpenter understand botany". I'd say it's a pretty good bet that many, many excellent physicians understand little about evolutionary theory, unless they have a true amateur interest in the subject. In fact I'd say that many, many excellent physicians are creationists on some level, even on a fundamentalist level. (In a related, earlier, snorting episode, the spouse once had a student who proffered his doctor's rejection of evolution as support for his creationist beliefs. "He's a doctor, and he doesn't believe in evolution!" The spouse asked if he would hire an evolutionary biologist to perform surgery.)
Despite what people may believe about biology as a unified subject, and pace Dobzhansky's famous dictum about the centrality of evolution in biology, it's quite possible to obtain a degree in molecular biology, biochemistry, or related fields without ever having to trouble oneself with gaining any real understanding of Darwinian theory. (This was true in my day, and I assume it's even more the case now - how often, in large schools, do population and evolutionary biology even share a department with molecular biology or biochemistry?)
Dini makes an egregious attempt to link creationist beliefs and bad clinical practice via the example of the overprescription of antibiotics that leads to antibiotic resistance. Clayton Cramer refutes this reasoning with some empirical observations, but I'd also like to point out that explanations for the development of antibiotic resistance do not invoke any macroevolutionary mechanism - therefore, to the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to assume that creationists reject any clinically significant knowledge about the process of the development of antibiotic resistance. They may not believe it's evolution in action, but they deny neither that it happens nor that it happens because of improper use of antibiotics.
"Darwinian medicine" is very interesting theoretically and may lead to new, fruitful approaches to curing disease. Such an understanding may aid a physician-researcher on the path of discovery. But it's hardly plausible that another physician's creationist beliefs would somehow prevent him from incorporating into clinical practice any sound treatment resulting from the insights of such an approach. Are the immune or endocrine systems fully understandable outside of an evolutionary viewpoint? I would say no. Do you see any physicians (some of whom we know to be creationists) transfusing people with an incompatible blood type? Or refusing to use oxytocin to prevent postpartum hemorrhage, because they don't recognize the evolutionary relationship between that hormone and reptilian vasopressin?
Dini is contending that the refusal to accept evolutionary theory indicates the lack of an aptitude for sound diagnostic and treatment judgments. He speculates freely but offers no concrete evidence in support of his hypotheses about the greater medical incompetence of creationists. Most unscientific.
UPDATE: Further blather here and here.
Moira,
The spouse has a point. I want to see my carpenter's botany credentials, damn it.
Here's a different take:
One can accept evolution as a valid scientific model and still believe in one's heart biblical creationism. They are not by necessity in competition. (I do not believe in creationism, BTW.) I see the two as entirely separate answers to very different questions.
One geologist I knew years ago was a devout Christian. He held on faith that every word in Genesis was true. Still, he had no problem dating sedimentary strata via biological transformations when necessary. Oh, he said, according to 'the model' this is ordovician shale. Wrong age. We're looking for younger deposits.
It's been 25 years - a whole age to me - I can't remember his name. I can still remember his guitar playing, though, and his hilarious wit. It took me a while to understand where his head was, and how it differed from where his heart was, and why that difference was not a conflict of intellect.
Cheers
Posted by: Ranald H. on January 31, 2003
It would appear to me that the Dr has been unable to establish a viable reputation through scholarship, and has found an alternate route to academic visibility.
Perhaps his intent is to establish the narrow mind as a desirable evolutionary goal.
Or he wishes to become a Dr Gumby, Brayn Surjen...
Cheers
Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs, Capt on January 31, 2003
Thought provoking. I'm a staunch scientific type - creationism is not science - but if the student passed all his classes, he should be allowed into medical school. (If you really want to have some fun, demand that prospects be well grounded in mathematics before they're allowed to proceed.)
Posted by: uisgebaugh on January 31, 2003
Good essay-one minor clarification.
There are quite a few creationists who will accept microevolution (small changes in existing species) but not buy macroevolution (big, cumulative changes that create entire new species). The idea that bacteria develop resistance to drugs via microevolution wouldn't get one labeled one a heretic in most theologically conservative churches.
Posted by: Mark Byron on February 02, 2003