You’d think doctors would overwhelmingly side with mainstream scientists in the evolution debate. But just 63 percent of physicians said they agree more with evolution than with intelligent design in a recent poll by a social and religious research division of New York City’s Jewish Theological Seminary. The evolution support was strong among Jewish doctors (86 percent), followed by Hindus (68 percent), Catholics (61 percent) and, most strikingly, Protestants (43 percent). This shows how faith is entangled in this education issue.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
15 Comments
Do you anti-evolutionists ever read a science book? If the earth is just 6,000 years old, why can I see a galaxy millions of light years away? If we throw out 150 years of scientific research for a theory based on a six-day magic show, by an all-powerful supreme being, we might as well believe the Empire State Building was built by the Keebler Elves.
I think that most of the people involved in the evolution/intelligent design controversy are missing the point. The main proponents of intelligent design are mainstrealm scientists. There is a difference between a proponent of intelligent design and biblical creationists. Strict Darwinian evolution does not have enough scientific facts to qualify as a rational theory anymore. Keep religion out of the discussion. The facts more and more support intelligent design.
Intelligent design has not scientific evidence to back it up. It has none. So we are talking about religion, or at least mythology. You either have evidence for a theory or you don’t. Even partial evidence beats no evidence.
Hey Steve,
If you can show me a book encompasing 66 different books written over a large period of time by many different authors all conveying the same message talking about keebler elves building the Empire State building then you can say you have a valid comparison.
You might not agree with or accept the proof of God, but that doesnt mean there is none.
Dear Mr. Otto,
Give me any science textbook that talks about the theory of evolution and I can site scientific evidence that proves much of the proof of evolution in its text false.
I will site scientific proof. Are you willing to accept the challenge, or do you wish to keep getting all of your info from the Eagle editorial staff?
Then, how many sources can you digest that give evidence of intelligent design? There is a bunch! Saying there isn’t doesn’t make it so!
Hank
Seems to me that the process of natural selection is intelligent design.
Dear Mary,
Unfortunatly, there is no real evidence that there is such a process as natural selection.
Hank
Hank,
At the risk of repeating too much of my post from the “God Did It” comment section, I offer the following:
The theory of evolution, specifically evolution via natural selection, is based upon the following simple postulates and observations, each of which is testable either through experimentation, observation, or both.
1. Individuals within a population of organisms vary in genetic composition
(testable and confirmed).
2. Individuals within these populations compete for limited resources (testable
and confirmed).
3. Based upon genetic composition (genotype), some individuals within a
population will be better suited to secure resources under particular environmental conditions (testable and confirmed).
4. The “best suited” or “fittest” individuals will likely leave more surviving
offspring than other members of the population (testable and confirmed).
5. As a result of 1 – 4, over time the genetic composition of a population will
change (tested and confirmed.)
6. As a result of the genotypic change which is a consequence of 1 -5, the
phenotypic characteristics (the physical appearance of the organisms) will change over time (testable and confirmed).
7. When members of a population become genetically isolated (geographically,
physically, or through other various mechanisms), genetic changes that accumulate in one population subset may not accumulate in the other, resulting in divergent genetic and phenotypic characteristics of each sub-population. This is the process of speciation (testable and confirmed.)
The process of speciation by evolution is currently the only scientifically valid explanation of both the current and historical diversity of organisms (it is important to note that mechanisms other than natural selection are at work, though most evolutionary biologists accept natural selection as the primary agent of evolutionary change).
You claim to have scientific evidence that indicates each of these postulates/observations are false, and therefore evolution by natural selection does not occur. Please post your references to the scientific literature that supports your claim.
Though I have not seen the poll by the Jewish Theological Seminary and do not know the specific questions asked, I am not surprised by the results. Many people presume that physicians are well-trained in scientific methodology and most aspects of biological science. However, this is not the case. As evolutionary biology is not a component of the medical school curriculum, any training in evolution would have occurred in a physician’s undergraduate program. As pre-med programs vary, it is quite possible, perhaps even likely, that a physician may have never had a course examining evolutionary biology. As such, many physicians have no more expertise in evolutionary science than they have in repairing jet engines. It is important to remember that physicians, while highly trained in human biology and human biochemistry, should not be considered to be experts in all subjects.
Well said again!
I always have a fascination about veterinarians. While most doctors deal with only one species (what’s the singular form for “species”), they have to deal with cases spanning multitude of species, especially at the zoos. Wouldn’t they be better subjects for this particular E vs. ID poll?
Roo,
Many of the courses in veterinary and MD (or DO) curricula have at their foundation evolutionary science (pathology, immunology, physiology, etc.), but few, if any, of these courses examine in detail the evolutionary underpinnings of the science. (I advise both pre-med and pre-vet students, and as part of my work I visit with med and vet schools and current med and vet students about curricula and course content.) In most courses practical (i.e., treatment) application is stressed. However, this may be changing. As more information is acquired about the evolutionary processes that lead to the changing genetic characteristics of pathogens and parasites, a more thorough understanding of evolution will be required to understand and treat associated diseases. What may be interesting is to poll the faculty who teach genetics, parasitology, and immunology in both animal and human med schools to see if they feel an understanding of evolutionary science is increasing in relevance. (By the way, you have it right…..species is both singular and plural!)
In reguards to Hank’s assertion that the main proponents of intelligent design are mainstrealm scientists, I’d like to put some perspective to this (Thanks to the late Dr. Isaac Asimov for doing the leg-work for me).
Johannes Kepler was a professional astrologer, while Isaac Newton tried changing baser metals into silver and gold. The inventor of logrithms, John Napier had his own interpretation of the Book of Revelations. The discoverer of Uranus, William Herschel, thought the sun to be cool, dark, and habitable under a flaming atmosphere. Percival Lowell insisted on Martian canals. Robert Hare, a chemist, devised a device for communicating with the dead. German physisist William Weber and Alfred Wallace were both spiritualists. And Sir Oliver Lodge supported psychic research.
Why should those with scientific credentials be different today?
Isaac Newton, a natural philosopher AND an alchemist! Wow, did he ever manage to possess the philosopher’s stone as well? ;)
Can’t find anyplace else to put it so I’ll put it here