One of his comments, a reply to a detractor: “natural selection has never produced anything new, all it does is choose which trait is dominate [sic]. Only irrational Darwinists take it to the extreme and argue from a point of ignorance and emotion.” Right. Well, it’s a good thing creationists are immune to that sort of behavior!

Why do fundies so often stumble upon these threads a year or more after they’ve become dormant, take a dump and then leave?

Despite opposition from skeptics like theoretical physicists who did not believe it could not be done, he did it anyway and succeeded. There is no strong case to deny this man the Nobel Prize.

Dr Eugene Feigelson, from the State University of New York College of Medicine in New York, where Damadian’s pioneering work was done. He said, ‘… we are so disappointed, and even angry … all of MRI rests on the fundamental work that Dr Damadian has done here.’

Yes, Dr Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield, did contribute to the field. Lauterbur worked on techniques for producing images from these MRI scans and Mansfield refined the those techniques.

There is absolutely no strong argument for denying Dr. Raymond Damadian’s invention of the MRI. Without Damadian’s vision the other two could not have invented their techniques!

I really was afraid that it disappeared into an URL-hole, never to be seen again. There was some concern but, like you said, it’s not like I lost 30 years of work or anything…

The Nobel Prize Committee has a long, glorious history of shafting co-contributors out of their fair share of the recognition (and money). That doesn’t make it right, but it shows a pattern of negligence or carelessness instead of malevolent intent.

You can certainly make a case that Damadian should have been a co-recipient of the prize. You can also make a strong case that he shouldn’t. This appears to be one of those edge cases.

The question before us is not whether Damadian deserved the prize. The question is whether the reason he was denied the prize is because he’s a wingnut. It is difficult to tell, because Wikipedia is a secondary source (and occasionally a quesitonable one). I know! Let’s check Conservapedia!

But seriously, this is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:

Some consider Damadian to be a controversial figure in academic circles, not least for his exuberant behavior at conferences. He is also fundamentalist Christian and a young earth creationist and a member of the ‘Technical Advisory Board’ of the Institute for Creation Research. Philosopher Michael Ruse writing for the Metanexus Institute suggested that Damadian might have been denied a Nobel prize because of his creationist views, saying:

“I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs. Having silly ideas in one field is no good reason to deny merit for great ideas in another field. Apart from the fact that this time the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community.” —M. Ruse

Damadian himself said, “Before this happened, nobody ever said to me ‘They will not give you the Nobel Prize for Medicine because you are a creation scientist.’… If people were actively campaigning against me because of that, I never knew it.”

Certainly the specter has been raised, but it seems more speculative in nature. Damadian himself said that he wasn’t aware of any anti-creationist influence. Absent stronger evidence, I’m inclined to say that this is yet another case of KW’s overactive persecution complex. He seems to project an awful lot into everything he sees. He must be a riot with Rorschach tests.

Chapter 12: Raymond Damadian Claimed to be the inventor of the MRI. Also claimed, in 1977, the MRI could detect cancer anywhere in the body. It still cannot do this. Tried to complain his way into a Nobel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Damadian
Favorite quote about him: “there is ‘no Nobel Prize for whining’”

After reading the wikipedia article on that guy, that’s about the only example I’ve ever read where maybe, just maybe, there might be a little prejudice against a creatard. It’s a bit of a gray area from what I read on wikipedia, so I’m not convinced he was denied a part of the MRI Nobel due to his creatardedness, but it is honestly the first time I can actually see a possibility of a valid argument. However, a book on just one person to argue about a conspiracy against religion would be pretty weak, so that’s why we get to see the rest of the bowel movement.

Apparently Kevin is incapable of expressing a thought in his own words; thus, we can only assume that he is incapable of independent thought and has no ideas of his own. He must be the perfect sheep.

A shame that he’s a creatard, really. I’ll always remember him saying in that perfectly deadpan voice “Bueller? Bueller?”

And we haven’t seen good old Kevin Wirth around for awhile. He’s pretty entertaining, and I think calling him a “scientist” is laughable. You might as well take a Preacher, put him in a lab coat and glasses, and call him a scientist.