Advertisement
Departments | Specialty Focus | Non-Clinical Topics | News | Special Issues | e-Newsletter | Education | Archive | Site Search

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's

Editor-in-Chief, Chester 'Trip' Buckenmaier III, MD, COL, MC, USA.From the Editor-in-Chief

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
-- Matthew 22.21

I had the misfortune recently of stumbling across a movie documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” narrated by Ben Stein, as I was channel-surfing with my eldest daughter following the evening news. The movie’s basic premise was to expose the scientific communities’ conspiracy to prevent intelligent design “theory” to be taught in America’s public schools and presented as science in publicly-funded museums. This was accomplished through a dizzying array of disturbing Nazi images and eugenics references that were confusingly related to fantasy elitist, freedom-of-speech crushing, atheist, Darwinians who have killed God with the Theory of Evolution.

To say the least, I found the movie somewhat biased. Granted, I am not the film critic for U.S. Medicine, but the confusion engendered in my high school- aged daughter from this thinly- veiled attack on science, masquerading as a documentary film, concerned me greatly. On the other hand, it did provide me with the unique opportunity to discuss the difference between science and religion with my bright (frighteningly so) daughter. 

I had a favorite professor in college chemistry who began my first semester of physical chemistry by stating, “I am here to describe ‘how’ atoms and molecules interact to form the physical world. If you are interested in ‘why’ they do so, well, you are in the wrong class.” This basic depiction of the fundamental differences between science and philosophy/religion has served me well throughout my federal medicine career. Science is the physical world, viewed through the lens of empiricism and ruled by the scientific method to explain ‘how’ things work.  Religion and philosophy deal with existence, are beyond empirical analysis and dwell with questions of ‘why’ things are. Admittedly, I have been a student of science and a follower of its rules my entire professional life. I am not a religious man. Even so, I would not presume to place science as superior or inferior to religion, just fundamentally different. What disturbed me so much about the movie “Expelled” was its suggestion that scientists despise religion.

Certainly the Theory of Evolution, so elegantly presented in Charles Darwin’s 1859 book, “On the Origin of Species,” forms a foundation for the practice of modern medicine.  Empirical evidence for how evolution has influenced life on this planet abounds. It quite literally, if you will, is in our DNA. The study of evolution is certainly worthy of a science class where young minds begin the journey of scientific inquiry that leads eventually to a professional medical degree. The explanation for how nature works, provided by the Theory of Evolution, is a powerful tool in the science of medicine.

I have also experienced that side of medicine that defies empirical explanation — like the unshakable faith of Father Patrick Kenny, or “Father Pat,” to those who worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He seemed incapable of sadness and always lifted others’ spirits with just a “Hello,” and his ever-present grin. Father Pat was no scientist, but no less vital to the daily function of the hospital in providing compassionate care to the sick and injured. Like many other medical scientists at Walter Reed, I was keenly aware of the loss sustained by our community when Father Pat passed away on November 25, 2009, in the hospital he so faithfully served. From my perspective, there was no conflict between Father Pat’s healing arts sustained in faith and mine maintained in science. In fact, what I observed was synergy in our efforts. 

The tragedy of “Expelled” is its utter failure in helping the layperson, our patients, to understand the difference between the “how” of science and the “why” of religion. Instead, through shocking images of our troubled 20th century and unfounded demagoguery, the film pits science against religion. Even more fantastically, the film ends with the ridiculous suggestion that Darwin’s theories led to Hitler’s Nazi regime and the suffering of countless thousands. 

As federal medicine providers, we must be aware of the disinformation that our patients are bombarded with daily in our information focused society. I have always maintained that it is not enough to just prescribe and recommend to our patients on how to achieve health; we must also educate them on the science that supports these recommendations. We must also acknowledge when our patients’ needs transcend our science and show equal respect to their beliefs. Part of being a good provider is the understanding of what is Caesar’s, and what is not, and having the wisdom to help our patients appreciate the difference. 

 

 


Comments (9)

Marla, MD
Said this on 10-18-2011 At 04:21 pm

I have not personally seen the documentary that this editor is referring to but he seems to think that his statements are not at all controversial and everyone should agree with him.  From what I've heard of the documentary, I believe that the premise is that evolution leads to a degradation of the inherent value of every single person in society and that is why the reference to eugenics.  

I also do not see how this debate on evolution discussions in schools is related to evidence based medicine and belongs in this publication.   Like the other person said, we all work together side by side for the patient's benefit, regardless of our personal beliefs in evolution vs creation.  Why attack another colleague's beliefs?

I personally believe that micro-evolution is evidenced in our DNA but not that human beings evolved from apes but rather designed by a creator God who desires a personal relationship with each and every one of us.  That leads me to believe that human beings are inherently worthy and why ultimately I practice medicine.

Tazia
Said this on 10-18-2011 At 01:15 pm

"Certainly the [evolution theory]... forms a foundation for the practice of modern medicine." My experience does not confirm this statement; an appreciation of evolution does not seem relevant to my practice, so far. Would you please elaborate about how it has formed the foundation for your own medical practice? I simply don't yet understand how it could. Thanks in advance.

Dr. Michael J. Knitter
Said this on 10-18-2011 At 04:14 pm

This reply is for Tazia question.  I will give three examples.

Fight/Flight/or Faint (vagal rxn reflex for humans) when aproached by IV insertion.  All three illustrated by humans and other animals under stress situations.  Different rxns to same stimulus may have evolution benefits/risks.  Possum goes catatonic and so do some of my patients.

Next Pain.  Pain fibers good for those who have none such as Leprosy.  If they have feed back of pain, they would not be so prone to injury.  But most chronic pain patients want just the opposite.  Amount of pain fibers has evolution impact on the survival of individuals/populations.

Next is "humanity" treatment of "other" human beings.  Do we treat the other as comodity or "the help" or do we treat every individual human being equal since conception or human zygote?  Look at original Declaration of Geneva 1948 and see how we as medical profession have not met goal--- since Roe vs Wade 1973 and today with Plan B.

Brian Bladykas M.D., Psychiatry
Said this on 10-14-2011 At 09:36 am

I would politely disagree with the posters who questioned the appropriateness of this article in this venue. As a psychiatrist I find it important to discuss my patient's religious and philosophical beliefs to better understand them and potentially help them. 

 It is important for us, as health-care providers, to realize that not everyone happens to share our particular belief systems, and if someone wishes to believe that God is a '49 Cadillac in a wheat field in Kansas, we simply have respect that (although I'm not so sure about Scientology)

For what it is worth, IMHO, there will always be modern day Luddites.   You've always done a great job, keep the articles coming  Trip! :-)

Peter Bekendam, MD
Said this on 10-13-2011 At 04:30 pm

If we want to point our patients toward good information in a documentary, we should recommend "Forks over Knives," a fantastic treatment of The China Study.

Dr. Michael J. Knitter
Said this on 10-13-2011 At 04:09 pm

Although Federal History and Laws support religious statments or "motto" (this motto was passed as Federal Law by Congress) such as IN GOD WE TRUST, the Federal law shall not make a specific denominational pronouncement, while respecting the freedom of religion free speach in its individuals.  Scripture prior to Jesus of Nazareth, and after is usefull, but would not expect the Federal Law or Tax dollar to mandatorily support.  The individual that made the scripture statement wanted your spiritual attention even though He gave his physical body up for ALL.  I read Koran and Scripture in Hebrew traditions also and find them usefull also.  No statue should be made of any human being nor of any image on earth or heaven.  Darwin and God/Creator explain the evolution of man's evolement and growth and end.

Jeanette
Said this on 10-13-2011 At 12:50 pm

Thank you for your thoughts.  I am wondering, however, why you felt they needed to be expressed in U.S.  Medicine when they are certainly more controversial than you seem to admit, and they do not actually directly affect patient care in the way that you are claiming.  If a healthcare provider does see a deep foundational divide in the way that they are viewing the origins of human life compared to the way that other colleagues are viewing those origins, and yet they are able to work side by side in a collegial, patient-centered way, then why attack the foundational beliefs of those providers?

Dr. David W. Yacavone
Said this on 10-13-2011 At 12:15 pm

I wonder why a federal publication sees it necessary to discuss this issue.  This is a scientific newsletter and should stick to evidence based articles about what we do, and that is practice medicine.  Having said that, I relaize an editorial has a lot of leeway and I personally agree with everything said.  However, I'm not certain U.S. Medicine is the right forum.

George G. Childs, Jr., M.D.
Said this on 10-13-2011 At 11:50 am

Your comments are balanced and very well stated. 

Post a Comment (showhide)
* Your Name:
* Your Email:
(not publicly displayed)
Reply Notification:
Approval Notification:
Website:
* Security Image:
Security Image Generate new
Copy the numbers and letters from the security image:
* Message:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement