Creationist Wisdom #134: The Physician

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Evidence backs creationism, which appears in the Argus Leader, the daily newspaper of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

We usually omit the name and location of the author of such letters, because there’s rarely any reason to provide internet visibility for solitary creationists, but we’ll make an exception here. Today’s letter-writer is Dr. David C. Krohn, a family physician in Yankton, South Dakota. In case anyone reading our humble blog lives in that area, it’s good to know the quality of this healer’s thinking.

We’ll copy most of today’s letter, adding some bold for emphasis and our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs. Here we go:

As suggested by the recent responses of two Sioux Falls School Board candidates, many think that science curriculum would be compromised if creationism was taught, arguing that only “good science” should be taught. The presumption that evolution is good science and creationism is bad science often is based on bias or lack of information.

We recently wrote about that school board race. See Creationist Candidate in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. This is a big month for that town and our blog. Perhaps they’ll erect a statue of your Curmudgeon in the village square. Let’s read on:

Just as the dogma of the earth being the center of the universe was espoused for hundreds of years because of biased thinking, the theory of evolution similarly is promoted.

We pause for a moment or two to consider whether we’ve ever seen a more ridiculous analogy … [thinking] … No, we haven’t. The good doctor has topped them all. So let’s continue with his letter:

Many would say that macro evolution is a fact, but in reality the evidence more strongly supports creationism, e.g. no fossil transitional forms and sudden appearance of major groups of animals. However, scientists leaning toward creationism often are ostracized by their colleagues (see Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”).

Ah yes, Ben Stein’s “documentary” — see Expelled Exposed. However, it seems that creationists don’t mind doing some “Expelling” of their own. See: Evangelical scholar expelled over evolution. Here’s more from the good doctor’s letter:

Leading evolutionists have abandoned part of Darwin’s theory of evolution because of weaknesses and have tried to come up with modifications such as punctuated equilibrium, but this was unsatisfactory. Recent research has indicated the unreliability of assumptions underlying dating methods. It also was found that the genetic makeup of humans and chimpanzees is not as close as once thought, suggesting that humans did not evolve from apes.

This guy seems to be getting his “science” entirely from creationist websites — perhaps from sources like Answers in Genesis. That outfit just posted this article: Significance of Highly Discordant Radioisotope Dates. Moving along:

Evolution theory can point only to similarities in organisms, but this does not prove anything. Similarities also would be expected if all life was created as part of a comprehensive master plan. Evolution requires faith and approaches being a religion given its exorbitant claims.

Bear in mind, dear reader, the author of this letter is a physician. Another excerpt:

There are plenty of valid scientific studies by qualified researchers that attest to creationism. It is important that one looks honestly at the evidence instead of clinging to the politically correct preference for evolution.

Here’s the letter’s end, where it reaches its climax:

In fairness to students, unbiased teachers are needed, and both evolution and creationism should be taught.

So there you are. If anyone out there is looking for a good doctor in South Dakota, we’ve provided you with some useful information.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #134: The Physician

  1. This doctor should be ashamed of himself. If he applies the same level of skepticism to his medical practice, god help his patients. He will have them covered in leeches, saying prayers, and sacrificing their pets to get healthy.

    Its odd that someone so well educated in biology not only believes in God but also denies evolution. He must be a terrible doctor to be so accepting of information that he reads on the internet without an ouch of skepticism.

    Luckily, many doctors are atheists and accept the proofs of evolution and deny the illogical explanations of creationism.

  2. Thegoodman says: “He must be a terrible doctor …”

    In fairness to the good doctor, we really don’t know anything about his medical practice. We can guess, based on his letter, but let’s not libel the fellow.

  3. Thank you for writing this. After reading Dr Krohn’s article I almost shat myself. How could a physician be guilty of so many logical fallacies? I’m 2 seconds away from writing a rebuttal, but it’s all just so exhausting. Seriously, a physician? Does he prescribe antibiotics while denying the validity of Darwinian Evolution? He’s a walking contradiction.

  4. Ugh… I hate the “no transitional forms” argument. Everyday I deal with fossils and that every form is a transitional form. When you throw that idea out for religious reasons, nothing about the record makes sense any more. And the dating thing is just bizarre. The only recent challenge I’ve heard about is that their may have been more of an element that has a decay similar to Uranium in the proto-solar system and that pushed the age of the earth from 4.5 billion to 4.45 billion. Interesting, but hardly significant. I would like an explanation from the doctor as to why every single dating method puts the age of the earth 10 to nearly 1,000,000 times greater than his bronze age myths.

  5. Albanaeon says:

    Ugh… I hate the “no transitional forms” argument.

    I kinda like it. Whenever I see it, it’s easy to place the writer in the proper category.

  6. cnocspeireag

    I really wouldn’t mind a physician who was a theist per se, I’m sure I’ve known several.
    One mustn’t mix up Christian beliefs with a belief in YEC, which is fringe lunacy and ridiculed by most Christians, except in the USA and a few other places such as Ireland, where a sort of mixed pagan/primitive Catholic belief seems fairly common in some parts.

  7. Gabriel Hanna

    So tiresome to keep refuting the same lies. How does the doctor how nuclear plants work, if radioactive dating is wrong? Is he even aware if the connection?

  8. “In fairness to the good doctor, we really don’t know anything about his medical practice. We can guess, based on his letter, but let’s not libel the fellow.”

    Right. For many years, I had a veterinarian who was an ardent creationist. But he was a terrific healer.

    Outside of narrow, technical specialties, healing is just as much an art as a craft (rarely a science). I wouldn’t want him doing fundamental research, but he knew how to do the things a practicing vet had to do, had a great rapport with the animals, and was a kind and decent human being.

    This may well be the same for Dr. Krohn, so it’s best not to judge his abilities as a healer by his clear inability to do fundamental medical research.

  9. SY,
    I can understand, somewhat, a doctor being a creationist as s/he might only be knowledgeable about one species. A vet, on the other hand, would have studied, and see everyday, how a wide variety of species are very similar. Indeed, veterinarian science would be remarkably different if individual creation were true: a bird with a broken wing or avian-shoulder-thing would require much different treatment than a cat with a broken fore-leg.

  10. His response to that was, “Common designer.”

  11. @SY

    I think that we CAN judge his abilities as a healer based on his statement. Compassion and quick fixes may be an art, but being up to date on medical information is straight up study work. He is clearly not capable of researching sources or applying logic to his decision making process.

    He isn’t talking about his religious preferences. He is talking about scientific research and his own inability to read the difference between pseudo-science and real science. What is to stop him from reading up on the most recent Acupuncturist or Chiropractic literature and accept it as fact as well? What if he gets a pamphlet in the mail for diet pills, will he prescribe them?

    I am not going to be as nice as the rest of you. He deserves no “benefit of the doubt” given his statements of ridiculousness. His compassion, his bedside manner, his ability to diagnose a problem might all be top notch; I am questioning his ability to stay up to date on new treatments (as well as what treatments are no longer useful or possibly dangerous).

    I also have a hunch that the top medical students from the country are not all fighting over the prestigious Sioux Falls Family Medicine residency program.

    This doctor is clearly out of touch with the scientific method which in my opinion, makes him a terrible doctor.

  12. Thegoodman says:

    I think that we CAN judge his abilities as a healer based on his statement.

    I’ve judged him, but I don’t think we need a lot of comments suggesting that he’s an unqualified physician. It’s sufficient to laugh at his letter and his creationism. The medical profession can police itself without our help.

  13. retiredsciguy

    SC: “However, it seems that creationists don’t mind doing some “Expelling” of their own. See: Evangelical scholar expelled over evolution.”

    Guess I should have caught up with all the posts before commenting on Friday’s post re: Ky. creationism bill. ABC News picked up this story on Friday’s broadcast.

  14. retiredsciguy, it was The Gadfly who first pointed it out to me a week ago in a comment to this thread: The Story of Genie.