Should students who reject evolution be allowed to become doctors?

Zelenius

Muse
Zelenius
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
908
I find this trend troubling - Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution... because it 'clashes with the Koran

I also think there are cases of Christian fundamentalists doing the same thing. The first question that comes to my mind is, why do these people even want to be doctors? Evolution is so central to understanding biology that rejecting it is to reject biology - it is the very framework we use to understand biology. Without it, you can't truly understand biology.

My belief is that students who reject evolution should not be allowed to become doctors. We're talking about people's lives here, and a disbelief in evolution is a profound form of ignorance for anyone who has access to education, never mind medical doctors. It suggests a lack of objectivity, of allowing religious dogma to interfere with one's judgment.

This doesn't mean that religious Christians or religious Muslims shouldn't be allowed to be doctors, since plenty of religious people accept evolution and think God may have guided it or got it started somehow. But rejecting it outright is another matter. It is potentially dangerous, and medical schools shouldn't have to waste time or resources dealing with incorrigible students who reject science.

For the record, I am not a medical doctor, or medical student, nor was I ever a medical student.
 
I don't see how not believing in evolution would prevent a doctor from properly diagnosing illnesses and treating injuries. Perhaps if someone could think of a scenario where it makes a difference?
 
They should fail units about evolution if they don't show they understand it, and not turning up to class shows unprofessionalism.

But I don't think that medical doctors must accept the evidence for evolution.

EDIT: Well, they should know about mutations and heredity and so on but they should be allowed to compartmentalise things as long as it doesn't interfere with their ability to be doctors.
 
Last edited:
Their beliefs are indicative of problems with critical thinking.

I think that critical thinking is important for medical professionals.

I think that they are less competent in medicine for holding these beliefs.
 
Complexity said:
Their beliefs are indicative of problems with critical thinking.

I think that critical thinking is important for medical professionals.

I think that they are less competent in medicine for holding these beliefs.
Click to expand...

Can you demonstrate a negative effect?

It's possible their critical thinking problem is situational to a point of religious dogma. To my knowledge there's no religious dogma that clashes with practicing medicine, or else there would never have been any devout Muslim or Christian doctors - and there are.
 
Checkmite said:
I don't see how not believing in evolution would prevent a doctor from properly diagnosing illnesses and treating injuries. Perhaps if someone could think of a scenario where it makes a difference?
Click to expand...

Overuse of antibiotics are probably speeding the evolution of dangerous pathogens. I suspect that a doctor who rejects evolution may not understand this as well as a doctor who does.

Besides this, specific scenarios in which an evolution-disbelieving doctor would not practice medicine properly due to their disbelief, I can't think of any. This is still a huge blind-spot nonetheless, and if I found out a doctor that was treating me rejected evolution, I would switch to a doctor who does. I think rejecting evolution could increase the chance they accept woo notions of health, like with Deepak Chopra for example.
 
Personally I would switch doctors as well; but that's a personal preference and a choice that I have. I don't think belief in evolution should be some kind of shibboleth for permission to complete one's medical training, however. If a person demonstrates, by passing all his medical school exams and practicals, that is a competent doctor, he should be awarded his due credential.
 
There are plenty of born-again Christian doctors around. AFAIK, they are just as competent as any other doctors.

I've been seeing the same physician for about 10 years now. I have no idea what his religious beliefs are. He's got an Irish first name and a Jewish last name, so I can't even make a wild-ass guess.

The thing is - I don't care. He knows his stuff, he's friendly, and he's helped my various serious and not-so-serious ailments over the years. (He's also definitely on the skeptic side of thing with regard to science-based vs. "alternative" medicine.)

He could be a creationist for all I know. He might go to church, he might go to synagogue, he might be an atheist, he might sacrifice goats to Jobu. Whatever he believes, he's good at what he does, and that's good enough for me.
 
Alan said:
They should fail units about evolution if they don't show they understand it, and not turning up to class shows unprofessionalism.

But I don't think that medical doctors must accept the evidence for evolution.

EDIT: Well, they should know about mutations and heredity and so on but they should be allowed to compartmentalise things as long as it doesn't interfere with their ability to be doctors.
Click to expand...
I would certainly not wish to be a patient of such a doctor.
 
Alan said:
They should fail units about evolution if they don't show they understand it, and not turning up to class shows unprofessionalism.

But I don't think that medical doctors must accept the evidence for evolution.

EDIT: Well, they should know about mutations and heredity and so on but they should be allowed to compartmentalise things as long as it doesn't interfere with their ability to be doctors.
Click to expand...

As long as they know antibiotic resistant bacteria is total crap. That would be evolution.
 
Zelenius said:
Overuse of antibiotics are probably speeding the evolution of dangerous pathogens. I suspect that a doctor who rejects evolution may not understand this as well as a doctor who does.
Click to expand...
Well, in theory a creationist doctor might still accept "micro-evolution" as a way to understand the problem with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

(And yes, I recognize that attempting to distinguish micro- from macro-evolution is all B.S. But many creationists think there's a difference.)
 
"Should students who reject evolution be allowed to become doctors?"

yes, if they are good at medicine, pass all their exams, and are willing to accept things like antibiotic resistance and so forth.
 
Zelenius said:
I find this trend troubling - Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution... because it 'clashes with the Koran

I also think there are cases of Christian fundamentalists doing the same thing. The first question that comes to my mind is, why do these people even want to be doctors? Evolution is so central to understanding biology that rejecting it is to reject biology - it is the very framework we use to understand biology. Without it, you can't truly understand biology.

My belief is that students who reject evolution should not be allowed to become doctors. We're talking about people's lives here, and a disbelief in evolution is a profound form of ignorance for anyone who has access to education, never mind medical doctors. It suggests a lack of objectivity, of allowing religious dogma to interfere with one's judgment.

This doesn't mean that religious Christians or religious Muslims shouldn't be allowed to be doctors, since plenty of religious people accept evolution and think God may have guided it or got it started somehow. But rejecting it outright is another matter. It is potentially dangerous, and medical schools shouldn't have to waste time or resources dealing with incorrigible students who reject science.

For the record, I am not a medical doctor, or medical student, nor was I ever a medical student.
Click to expand...

Well, as long as the doctor in question is practicing good medicine, then I do not care if the doctor believes in evolution or not. Nor, do I care if the doctor believes in UFOs, God, that black cats are bad luck, or any other such thing.

However, I do think that it is very detrimental to evaluate how a person may do his job in the future as based on what they believe right now; therefore, one should evaluate how a person does their job as based on how they do that job as opposed to personal beliefs that the person may, or may not, have about some given issue.
 
How can you pass exams if you refuse to learn or accept the knowledge? Surely this must stop people from getting qualifications.

When I was at university it was a requirement that I attend something like 95% of the lectures and tutorials or I would automatically fail the course. I suppose now that these "students" pay such high fees they can pick and choose what they attend.

I certainly would not want to be treated by a doctor who didn't hadn't studied evolution and/or doesn't believe in it. How can you trust someone to diagnose and treat you if they are that blinded by ideology? Where does it stop?

How about a doctor who's religious views start creeping into matters such as family planning or teenage pregnancy. Imho once they believe in the woo rather than the science then they are untrustable.
 
IMO there's no reason why rejecting evolution would necessarily make you a poor doctor BUT there are ideologies which do and that some of these ideologies may have adherents who reject evolution so.....

Rejecting evolution alone wouldn't cause me to call for someone not to be a doctor but some fundamentalist beliefs (from pretty much any religion) would. For example I wouldn't want a doctor who felt that the only appropriate treatment for cancer was to pray.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom