We can see that the results are quite striking. Doctors are far less likely to believe in the explicitly creationist position than are the general public. They are also far more likely to believe that evolution occurred without divine guidance. Overall, the acceptance of evolution among doctors is around 80% (actually 78% when asked the question directly) whereas it's only around 45% for the general public. So contrary to the self-congratulatory beliefs of the UD folks, it is not the case that being a doctor somehow makes one more prone to being a IDist/creationist. In fact it makes one much less prone. While some of this may be due to the fact that more educated and affluent people are more likely to accept evolution, much of it is probably due to the medical training that doctors receive. That makes Dave Scot's remarks all the more ironic. (One quick note: The Gallup organization has been conducting a similar poll for a long time, though they include a 10,000 year age for the human species are part of question #1. Even still, the results for the general public are highly similar to those above. However, if I had included those results broken down by college education, the college educated would have sat somewhere in between the general public and doctors in the above chart. Because I couldn't find any data for this more recent than 1991, I left it out, but it supports the notion that there is more than just general education that leads doctors to accept evolution.)
It is true of course that doctors are more prone to being creationists than scientists in general and biologists in particular. This is to be fully expected, as it's unlikely that you're going to find any one group of people who are more convinced about evolution than biologists and other scientists. But the fact is, we see a steady increase in the acceptance of evolution when we move from the uneducated to the educated, and from those whose educations are irrelevant to evolution towards those who are more relevant. Thus, the prevalence (or rather paucity) of creationist doctors has a simple explanation.
Much the same can be said of engineers. The perception that there exists a large number of creationist engineers has actually spawned its own bit of internet folk wisdom, known as the Salem hypothesis. Although there are no survey data for engineers specifically as far as I know, I strongly suspect that the percentage of engineers who accept evolution is similar to (though probably somewhat less than) that of doctors. Which is to say, an engineer is far less likely to be a creationist than is a member of the general public, yet is more likely to be a creationist than is a scientist. Assuming this is the case, it doesn't really require any special explanation.
Ironically, ID/creationists are very keen on giving the impression that they have quality credentials, in spite of the fact that they are very quick to dismiss and vilify the vast majority of credentialed scientists. The propaganda put out by the Discovery Institute and other creationist organizations will always mention an advanced degree held by one of their own. This is true even when the degree is of highly questionable relevance. If it seems like there are a lot of engineers and doctors espousing ID, it's probably just a manifestation of this tactic.
(Cross-posted to Sunbeams From Cucumbers.)
Update: Dave Scot throws a childish temper tantrum over at UD, claiming that I "trots out a strawman - [that] ID and "evolution" are mutually exclusive". Except of course I didn't. Nowhere do I say that evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. The Finkelstein survey pits them that way, but that's exactly why I used a question that gives people more than two choices. The fact is, no matter what flavor of IDism/creationism one espouses, the survey data make it abundantly clear that doctors are much less likely to buy into it than are the general public. If doctors are therefore considered to hold some sort of special insight into the evolution debate, this does not bode well for the IDists. That is the substance of the post, and naturally Dave Scot totally ignores it. It appears that in his intellectual dishonesty, he's reduced to slaying strawmen. :)Why Do So Many Doctors Accept Evolution?
Over at Uncommon Descent, Gil Dodgen asks the question of why so many engineers reject evolution. Dave Scot then asks a similar question about doctors. Not surprisingly, their answers to these questions are self-serving and backed up only by wishful thinking. Dodgen quotes Stephen Meyer as saying that because engineers know all about "design", they are therefore in a unique position to know about biology. (As a corollary, I suppose biologists must have special insight when it comes to designing bridges.) Even more amusing is Dave Scot's explanation for why doctors supposedly reject evolution. They are risk adverse. I'll let others ponder the logic of that one.
But all of this begs the question: How many doctors (or engineers) reject evolution, and why do they do so? I think the question is worth looking at, even if just for fun. So let's do something that the denizens of UD would consider totally alien -- let's look at some data.
Lucky for us, the Louis Finkelstein Institute recently conducted a survey on the beliefs that doctors have concerning evolution and "intelligent design". The headline for the survey was that a majority of doctors, 63%, preferred evolution over ID. Still, that leaves a fairly sizable minority, 34%, who agree with the ID position. Unfortunately, it's hard to know what to make of such numbers. Thanks in large part to the obscurantist tactics of its major proponents, "intelligent design" is a fuzzy concept that has any number of possible meanings among lay people. For example, a lot of people seem to think that ID is equivalent to theistic evolution, a position held in contempt by the leading ID advocates. It's also difficult to compare different surveys against each other, given that (especially for this issue) the answers tend to be extremely sensitive to the wording of the question. For example, any question that makes a reference to God or the Bible will tend to elicit a more positive response than one that doesn't, even when the questions are essentially the same.
Fortunately, the Finkelstein survey does contain one question that is directly comparable to that asked of the general public in a CBS News poll conducted around the same time. That question asks people about their views on evolution and gives them three choices: The first is that humans were created by God essentially as they are now; the second is that humans have evolved with God guiding the process; and the third is that humans have evolved without God's guidance. Although the wording differs slightly between the two surveys, the differences are trivial and shouldn't make any difference in how people respond. Thus I submit that this is the best comparison between surveys that we're likely to find. I've put the results together into a single chart:
We can see that the results are quite striking. Doctors are far less likely to believe in the explicitly creationist position than are the general public. They are also far more likely to believe that evolution occurred without divine guidance. Overall, the acceptance of evolution among doctors is around 80% (actually 78% when asked the question directly) whereas it's only around 45% for the general public. So contrary to the self-congratulatory beliefs of the UD folks, it is not the case that being a doctor somehow makes one more prone to being a IDist/creationist. In fact it makes one much less prone. While some of this may be due to the fact that more educated and affluent people are more likely to accept evolution, much of it is probably due to the medical training that doctors receive. That makes Dave Scot's remarks all the more ironic. (One quick note: The Gallup organization has been conducting a similar poll for a long time, though they include a 10,000 year age for the human species are part of question #1. Even still, the results for the general public are highly similar to those above. However, if I had included those results broken down by college education, the college educated would have sat somewhere in between the general public and doctors in the above chart. Because I couldn't find any data for this more recent than 1991, I left it out, but it supports the notion that there is more than just general education that leads doctors to accept evolution.)
It is true of course that doctors are more prone to being creationists than scientists in general and biologists in particular. This is to be fully expected, as it's unlikely that you're going to find any one group of people who are more convinced about evolution than biologists and other scientists. But the fact is, we see a steady increase in the acceptance of evolution when we move from the uneducated to the educated, and from those whose educations are irrelevant to evolution towards those who are more relevant. Thus, the prevalence (or rather paucity) of creationist doctors has a simple explanation.
Much the same can be said of engineers. The perception that there exists a large number of creationist engineers has actually spawned its own bit of internet folk wisdom, known as the Salem hypothesis. Although there are no survey data for engineers specifically as far as I know, I strongly suspect that the percentage of engineers who accept evolution is similar to (though probably somewhat less than) that of doctors. Which is to say, an engineer is far less likely to be a creationist than is a member of the general public, yet is more likely to be a creationist than is a scientist. Assuming this is the case, it doesn't really require any special explanation.
Ironically, ID/creationists are very keen on giving the impression that they have quality credentials, in spite of the fact that they are very quick to dismiss and vilify the vast majority of credentialed scientists. The propaganda put out by the Discovery Institute and other creationist organizations will always mention an advanced degree held by one of their own. This is true even when the degree is of highly questionable relevance. If it seems like there are a lot of engineers and doctors espousing ID, it's probably just a manifestation of this tactic.
(Cross-posted to Sunbeams From Cucumbers.)
Update: Dave Scot throws a childish temper tantrum over at UD, claiming that I "trots out a strawman - [that] ID and "evolution" are mutually exclusive". Except of course I didn't. Nowhere do I say that evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. The Finkelstein survey pits them that way, but that's exactly why I used a question that gives people more than two choices. The fact is, no matter what flavor of IDism/creationism one espouses, the survey data make it abundantly clear that doctors are much less likely to buy into it than are the general public. If doctors are therefore considered to hold some sort of special insight into the evolution debate, this does not bode well for the IDists. That is the substance of the post, and naturally Dave Scot totally ignores it. It appears that in his intellectual dishonesty, he's reduced to slaying strawmen. :)
We can see that the results are quite striking. Doctors are far less likely to believe in the explicitly creationist position than are the general public. They are also far more likely to believe that evolution occurred without divine guidance. Overall, the acceptance of evolution among doctors is around 80% (actually 78% when asked the question directly) whereas it's only around 45% for the general public. So contrary to the self-congratulatory beliefs of the UD folks, it is not the case that being a doctor somehow makes one more prone to being a IDist/creationist. In fact it makes one much less prone. While some of this may be due to the fact that more educated and affluent people are more likely to accept evolution, much of it is probably due to the medical training that doctors receive. That makes Dave Scot's remarks all the more ironic. (One quick note: The Gallup organization has been conducting a similar poll for a long time, though they include a 10,000 year age for the human species are part of question #1. Even still, the results for the general public are highly similar to those above. However, if I had included those results broken down by college education, the college educated would have sat somewhere in between the general public and doctors in the above chart. Because I couldn't find any data for this more recent than 1991, I left it out, but it supports the notion that there is more than just general education that leads doctors to accept evolution.)
It is true of course that doctors are more prone to being creationists than scientists in general and biologists in particular. This is to be fully expected, as it's unlikely that you're going to find any one group of people who are more convinced about evolution than biologists and other scientists. But the fact is, we see a steady increase in the acceptance of evolution when we move from the uneducated to the educated, and from those whose educations are irrelevant to evolution towards those who are more relevant. Thus, the prevalence (or rather paucity) of creationist doctors has a simple explanation.
Much the same can be said of engineers. The perception that there exists a large number of creationist engineers has actually spawned its own bit of internet folk wisdom, known as the Salem hypothesis. Although there are no survey data for engineers specifically as far as I know, I strongly suspect that the percentage of engineers who accept evolution is similar to (though probably somewhat less than) that of doctors. Which is to say, an engineer is far less likely to be a creationist than is a member of the general public, yet is more likely to be a creationist than is a scientist. Assuming this is the case, it doesn't really require any special explanation.
Ironically, ID/creationists are very keen on giving the impression that they have quality credentials, in spite of the fact that they are very quick to dismiss and vilify the vast majority of credentialed scientists. The propaganda put out by the Discovery Institute and other creationist organizations will always mention an advanced degree held by one of their own. This is true even when the degree is of highly questionable relevance. If it seems like there are a lot of engineers and doctors espousing ID, it's probably just a manifestation of this tactic.
(Cross-posted to Sunbeams From Cucumbers.)
Update: Dave Scot throws a childish temper tantrum over at UD, claiming that I "trots out a strawman - [that] ID and "evolution" are mutually exclusive". Except of course I didn't. Nowhere do I say that evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. The Finkelstein survey pits them that way, but that's exactly why I used a question that gives people more than two choices. The fact is, no matter what flavor of IDism/creationism one espouses, the survey data make it abundantly clear that doctors are much less likely to buy into it than are the general public. If doctors are therefore considered to hold some sort of special insight into the evolution debate, this does not bode well for the IDists. That is the substance of the post, and naturally Dave Scot totally ignores it. It appears that in his intellectual dishonesty, he's reduced to slaying strawmen. :)
90 Comments
David B. Benson · 9 January 2007
Steve --- Very nice. However, I suggest a different grouping. Ask these questions of those who have studied at least one quarter (or semester) of biology in college!
I'll opine that, irrespective of profession or occupation, this group will have about 3/4 accepting ToBE(Theory of Biological Evolution) as opposed to about 1/4 still proclaiming "Goddidit".
I'll further opine this accounts for your medical doctor versus engineer percentages, since there are only a few universities which require engineers to take any biology at all..
the pro from dover · 9 January 2007
Another intersting statistic is that the % of doctors in the U.S.A. that are athiests is about 12% (the same as in the general public). There is no question that certain religions are greatly overrepresented in the medical profession when compared to the percentage in the general public. These are Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish in that order.
Regardless it still would suport that at least for doctors faith in God and acceptance of evolution presents little conflict.
Tom · 9 January 2007
This comment about obscurantist tactics in ID is either disingenuous or just laughable. ID proponents are clear about what their program and research are about. Opponents keep distorting it. There's hardly been a report in the news media in years that has accurately summarized ID.
argystokes · 9 January 2007
Tom,
Do you know what ID research is going on right now? Do you have some insider information as to what Axe et al are doing at the Biologic Institute? Because last I heard, the ID research program was Top Secret.
Mark Studdock, FCD · 9 January 2007
As the first two categories in the chart above are Design positions (Created or guided towards creation by an intelligence" positions) then we can safely say that a majority of doctors (60%) support a design hypothesis as the cause behind the origination of human beings.
God guided evolution is a design position. The word "guided" makes this clear. Thus, many of the claims often touted by anti-ID types concerning the idea that the more educated one is the more likely they believe in evolution, are only valid if evolution is understood as "Design by evolution". (a design position)
Therefore: Unguided Evolution or the idea that human beings are not the product of intelligent design is a slightly minority position among medical doctors.
MS
stevaroni · 9 January 2007
Well, I'm an engineer, and though I've never run a real survey, over the years I've found that the majority of us are solidly in the evolution camp.
Most of us learned early and some of us learn the the hard way, that you can't ignore the laws of nature, and wishing will not make it so.
My profession is littered (sometimes literally) with the bodies of those who decided to pretend things were different than they are, and a few episodes of that are a strong motivator.
Even given that, I still run in to the occasional colleague who professes belief in creation. It may be an uncharitable observation but most of these individuals did not impress me with their technical prowess, and weren't in a corner of the profession where they had to directly work with the real world..
I was once asked if I'd ever hire an engineer who believed in creationism, and I immediately replied "No. Never". The woman who asked the question was taken aback, and accused me of religious intolerance. I replied that I simply couldn't ever trust the professional judgment of someone who was willing to cavalierly ignore mounds of physical evidence.
(Is that actually legal? BTW? It seems like a good reason to me, but it may be legally shakey.)
stevaroni · 9 January 2007
harold · 9 January 2007
I'm a medical doctor by training, practiced an obscure specialty for 11 years including training before getting wise.
You'll notice on the graphs above that only 15% (or whatever) of doctors claim to be hard core creationists ("God created humans in their present form").
Although it is certainly possible to practice clinical medicine competently as a creationist, it sure takes a lot of denial. And that's 15% too many, in the sense that they should no better. However, it's likely to reflect cultural values rather than actual intellectual beliefs.
Medicine is so loaded with examples of evolution in action, it boggles the mind. Infection. Genetics. The immune and inflammatory systems. Cancer (where individual cells gain a reproductive advantage temporarily due to mutation, but at the ultimate expense of the environment that sustains their very existence).
When I was a medical student (long before I knew that nuts and political schemesters, with apologies but no retraction, denied the theory of evolution), I was amazed at how much evolution made sense of the various odd aspects of humans and the parasites who prey on them. My undergraduate degree was in biology, although my classmates seemed to grasp things like antibiotic resistance, no matter what their background.
I'm personally offended, although not an engineer, by the "engineer as creationist" stereotype. It's extremely unfair. The fact that a few loud creationists have engineering credentials should not provoke anyone to generalize about an honorable and rational profession.
I'm delighted to note that medical schools are starting to include the theory of evolution as part of the curriculum.
Chuck Morrison · 9 January 2007
I'm a family physician, I accept the evidence for evolution, and I'm an atheist. The religiosity of the docs I've met varies widely. In our clinic of 8 physicians, 3 are Christian and the rest are either agnostic or atheist (and this is in Utah). I don't know, neither have I met, any physician who denies evolution.
Needless to say, I find the current claims at UcD even more bizarre than usual.
MarkP · 9 January 2007
Steve Reuland · 9 January 2007
TheOtherTom · 9 January 2007
It seems to me that a more relevant datum would be the percentage of professionally trained theologians who understand that evolution is the best explanation for the current state of affairs. I suspect that this would be much higher than for the general public, given the increased education required. Of course, since the cretinists don't understand data, it would not matter to them.
JimV · 9 January 2007
The first time I heard the ID argument was from a creationist friend. One day, after a tennis match, he pointed to car parked next to a tree and said something like, "See that tree and that car? Can't you tell that they were both designed?"
I have been a mechanical engineer for many years, mostly designing turbines. My reaction was that anyone who thought that was a convincing argument against evolution probably had never designed anything complex. Design work, like what I understood of evolution, contains a lot of trial-and-error, builds on previous designs incrementally,and is subject to survival in competitive marketplaces. I tried to explain this to my friend using the car as an example. We've all seen cars evolve in our lifetimes. Museums are full of extinct forms, like the Model T and the Edsel. They even have vestigial organs which have been adapted to new functions, such as cigarette lighters being used to power electronic equipment.
My friend didn't accept my analogy, but later when I worked for Cooper Energy Systems, I found the missing link! They have big oil paintings of it on the walls.
Cooper invented the first farm tractor. One painting shows a team of six draft horses, pulling two wagons in tandem, one with a steam engine on it, and the other full of coal. Cooper made the steam engines, and farmers hauled them to their fields to run threshers. Somebody at Cooper got the idea to add a bevel gear so the steam engine could turn a wagon axle.
The next picture shows the same wagon train, with the bevel gear - and a team of two horses still in front! They used the horses for steering! So the first automobile was a mutation of a horse-drawn steam engine.
RBH · 9 January 2007
stevaroni · 9 January 2007
Thinker · 10 January 2007
As a potential future patient, it scares me somewhat to learn that nearly two-thirds of all doctors believe some form of divine intervention was involved in the process that brought forth our species; as a corollary, do they also believe divine intervention is a key success factor in the outcome of a medical treatment?
S.V. · 10 January 2007
I'm an engineer (that is the literal translation of the title I'm allowed to use after I graduated). I know next to nothing about biology but after encountering the argument of evolution is a lie because something as complex as the eye has to be designed I did what anyone making such arguments (or countering them) should do and that is study the area of the argument.
What I found out was that calling the eye (or generally anything else that people substitute for the eye) designed is an insult to both engineers (and other professions which design) and to christians.
If I'd design something the way that most things I've looked at in biological systems I'd probably not only lose my job but have a chance of ending up in jail due to criminal neglect (and have a chance of the graduating title to be revoked).
And that is why those it has to be designed arguments are also an insult to christians. It depicts God as an incompetent moron.
Which scares me. What kind of christian wants to get rid of something like evolution so bad because it contradicts a single chapter in the bible that they are willing to demean God to achieve their end.
Torbjörn Larsson · 10 January 2007
Frank J · 10 January 2007
demallien · 10 January 2007
Damn you to the Ninth Hell Frank J!!! Could you at least put a warning at the start of such posts so that we can take our Sarcasm-meters off-line...
grumble, mutter, repair bill, groan, mutter, unavailable, grumble, 6 weeks, damn....
:-)
Greg Laden · 10 January 2007
Here is what I would like to actually be assessed in these sorts of surveys:
Do you believe X is best explained by modern evolutionary biology, the widely accepted science underlying all the different subfields of biology, or do you believe that X is best explained by direct intervention of a creator such as the Judeo-Christian God?
God/Science (check one)
_____ _____ The Origin of Life (on earth)
_____ _____ The Origin of Life on Mars (if it is discovered there)
_____ _____ The rise of new species as seen in the fossil record
_____ _____ Major changes over time such as the evolution of the immune system
_____ _____ The evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria
_____ _____ The origin and rise of modern humans
_____ _____ Major changes in human prehistory such as upright walking.
For that matter, I'd like to see these questions specifically dealt with by the IDCers. In fact, I think I'll go over there and ask them...
2hulls · 10 January 2007
I accepted the TOE vs Creation long before I became an engineer.
It was about the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.
I'll propose that it's (obviously) possession of logical and critical thought processes that inevitably lead one to the rational conclusion - and may lead one to a profession requiring the same - rather than the other way 'round.
JMHO
Dave
Michael Hopkins · 10 January 2007
I think the the Salem hypothesis is perfectly valid though it can be easily misinterpreted. Historically the set of people who get presented as creation "scientists" tends to be heavier on engineers rather than what is traditionally called scientists. That reality does not mean that engineers are more likely to be creationists than the public at large. And indeed I would strongly suspect that engineers have significantly less percentage believers in creationism than the general public though more than scientists and very much more than professional biologists. Or in other words, not all that doctors as the article points out.
One might point out opposition to creationism from the engineers who dislike the misuse of their professions such as An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement John W. Patterson from 1982.
BlastfromthePast · 10 January 2007
I have a degree in biology. Let's look at the courses that one takes to get such a degree. As either a freshman or a soph, one takes general biology. Yes, evolution is discussed and stated as a proven fact. But, of course, no one is equipped at that time to dispute this "fact". Then one takes embryology, or something equivalent. One is studying anatomy and various stages of development--evolution has nothing to do with either. Then as a junior and senior you take cell biology, genetics, endocrinology, animal behavior, etc., all of which PRESUPPOSE evolution--no one actually discusses it one way or the other; it's simply presumed. However, when you take chordate morphology, there you expect--as I did--to have a discussion of evolution, a demonstration of known missing links, etc. But that doesn't happen there either. The closest one comes to a missing link is the African Lungfish. In my case, all of this left me scratching my head since I received a degree in biology without EVER having a discussion about evolution (oh, perhaps in the general biology class, but like I say, it was standard fare and what would we know about the weaknesses of the theory). And, for the next 13 years, I merrily went on my way thinking that evolution must somehow be true, even though I had never really been given an explanation of it.
The point being: it is no small wonder that many scientists, and even many doctors--as they took many of the same classes--would "believe" in evolution, because they had no reason NOT to believe it since: 1) it was stated as a proven fact, and 2) it was never discussed outside of being presented as a fact.
And, one can easily live out a life as a biologist (other than being a paleontologist or evolutionary biologist) without ever using the ToE. Most biologists in labs "presume" evolution; but what they really do in the lab is to see that A is different from B, and then try to figure out how A got to be B, which is to say that, if you replace the word "evolution" with the word "change" it would neither add, nor subtract, from the meaning and import of almost every paper written that includes the word "evolution".
So, if 34% of doctors DON'T believe in evolution, well, I think that's saying something. But----does anyone out there have ears to listen with?
Raging Bee · 10 January 2007
BlastfromthePast: You sound an awful lot like Larry Fafarman -- same dogged repetition of nonsensical or irrelevant points that have been conclusively refuted long ago. And whether or not you're Larry, a certian matter of timing leads me to conclude that "Me" in another post is really you.
Then...you take cell biology, genetics, endocrinology, animal behavior, etc., all of which PRESUPPOSE evolution---no one actually discusses it one way or the other; it's simply presumed.
I'll bet you also took a lot of history and geography classes, all of which PRESUPPOSE round-Earth-ism ---- no one actually discusses it one way or the other; it's simply presumed.
And, one can easily live out a life as a biologist (other than being a paleontologist or evolutionary biologist) without ever using the ToE.
One can also easily live out a life as a Discovery Institute spokesdweeb without ever using the "theory" of "intelligent design." Your point...?
So, if 34% of doctors DON'T believe in evolution, well, I think that's saying something.
What, exactly, do you "think" they're "saying?" Of course, if any of those doctors did any actual scientific work to disprove evolution, and published the results in peer-reviewed publications, that might "say" a little bit more, don't you "think?"
Raging Bee · 10 January 2007
PS: If you're Larry, and you really have a degree in biology, then why did you become an engineer? Didn't understand the biology stuff well enough? (You say you have a degree in biology, but you don't say you actually became a biologist, or mention any significant work you did as such. Telling omission, that.)
argystokes · 10 January 2007
Nah, Blast's not Larry. (S)He was around here long before Fafarman, and is far less persistant.
Steve Reuland · 10 January 2007
Steve Reuland · 10 January 2007
mark · 10 January 2007
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
The short answer for why so many physicians reject evolution is that they aren't scientists (most of them, anyhow), and, though they are taught the how science proceeds, they do not have to be able to do science in any real sense at all.
Another reason is the one existing behind all of ID, the anthropomorphic/animistic tendency to ascribe intentional action where natural causes are not readily apparent. IOW, evolution is actually very complex and takes considerable study to recognize "at a glance". "Design" can be "seen" without having to learn much of anything.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
J. Biggs · 10 January 2007
I am a dentist, (which I think counts as a doctor), and I definitely accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life. One question I am commonly asked by my patients is "Why do we have wisdom teeth?" My practice is located in the bible belt and I have a fair number of "Creationist" clientele. When I mention that humans have evolved smaller jaws over time which can not accommodate the same size and number of teeth that they could in past generations, I get this "I don't believe in evolution." so I have come up with a few different responses to satisfy IDers and Creationists.
The creationist asks, "Why do I have Wisdom teeth?"
Answer 1. Because God doesn't like you.
Answer 2. Oral surgeons gotta eat too.
Answer 3. With your poor oral hygiene, God thought that one of these days you might need some extra teeth.
The IDer asks, "Why do I have Wisdom teeth?"
Answer 1. You are a product of faulty design.
Answer 2. The design was probably good but a cut rate manufacturing process got the size of your jaw all wrong.
Answer 3. It's the designer's attempt at a prank.
If anyone has anything to add I would appreciate it. I just want to keep my patients happy.
mark · 10 January 2007
When I hear someone say "It looks like design, therefore it is design," I'm reminded of the old commercial for the Ford Grenada: "It looks like a Mercedes..." When you consider some of the recent advances in science, look at how the observations were made. In many cases, it is impossible to simply "look" and see the feature in question; observation may be based on the scattering of elections or the mass of ions; then, it may be necessary to apply sophisticated statistical techniques to differentiate effects of some treatments. What something looks like can be misleading or uninterpretable.
W. Kevin Vicklund · 10 January 2007
Hey Blast, I thought you had sworn us off for good for daring to debate with you? (by the way, Blast is just Blast - there's no reason to believe otherwise, and he certainly isn't Larry, whose computer is currently dead)
By the way, did you take a look at the colony discussion thread that you abandoned? It's in the mid-February archives. I'm willing to take up where we left off...
Raging Bee · 10 January 2007
As for why some doctors may be creationists, anyone with a passing familiarity with women's health issues can confirm that even the best doctors are capable of feats of reactionary prejudice that will amaze and astound mortal men. (Mortal women are used to it.) Stories abound of progress on a medical issue being stalled, not by lack of knowledge or resources, but by doctors who simply don't care enough, or are too unwilling to think outside their comfort-zone, to forge ahead -- even when paying customers are begging them to do so.
BlastfromthePast · 10 January 2007
W.Kevin Vicklund:
"By the way, did you take a look at the colony discussion thread that you abandoned? It's in the mid-February archives. I'm willing to take up where we left off..."
No, Kevin, I don't. I don't want to waste my time, which is exactly why I stopped posting here.
As to the colony discussion, I'm just waiting for the article that will demonstrate my side of the argument, and then I will quite happily throw it in your face. So, till then, ta ta....
P.S. It was UCLA I attended. In fact, I was in grad school in Medicial Microbiology for a while. I left the area because I didn't really have a particular interest in it (But I must say, if they were doing the kinds of things that they're doing today, I'd probably have been very interested) I got a degree in engineering to make money. (Biogen didn't exist then) Hope that answers a few questions. And as to the general point I was making, you might check out Michael Denton's, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", since he had a fairly similar experience. Ta ta, de neuvo......
J. Biggs · 10 January 2007
Frank J · 10 January 2007
Demallien: Sorry about your meter. If you have a new one, please turn it off:
I'm no fan of the media, which mostly helps, if not outright favors, ID, but in all fairness, ID is crafted such that one either "misunderstands it" or unambiguously raves about it. Here's why:
If an IDer says that ID detects design, and a critic accuses ID of "Goddidit," the IDer says "you misunderstand ID, it's not creationism, all it claims is that there are major problems with 'Darwinism'."
If an IDer rattles off ID's objections to "Darwinism" (the usual creationist canards), and a critic accuses ID of being creationism in disguise, the IDer says "you misunderstand ID, it's not creationism, all it claims is evidence of design in biology."
IOW, it reduces to:
If the ID critic says ID=A, the IDer says "no, ID=B."
If the ID critic says ID=B, the IDer says "no, ID=A."
The trick is to choose the words carefully so that most people will miss the bait-and-switch, no matter how effective the critic is.
Meanwhile, IDers have admitted that they found nothing about the designers' identity/identities, whereabouts, whether still in existence or themselves designed. And they have admitted that they don't even try to hypothesize, much less test, what the outsmarted, but still (permanently?) missing, designer(s) did with regard to biology that would make for a promising alternative to evolution, much less validate any of the mutually contradictory creationist accounts. Oh yes, and Michael Behe admitted under oath that, to accommodate ID, the rules of science must be relaxed such that astrology is also accommodated.
Put that way, ID is no comfort at all those hoping to (1) find a better theory than evolution or (2) find God in the gaps or (3) validate any of the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations of Genesis. But as long as most criticisms of ID do not put it that way, ID wins the PR game - even with 34% of doctors. Any wonder why IDers don't even try to do science?
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
Raging Bee · 10 January 2007
I got a degree in engineering to make money.
You could have made money in biology -- provided, of course, you got an adequate education in it. Having to get a totally different degree "to make money" screams "failure" in no uncertain terms.
As to the colony discussion, I'm just waiting for the article that will demonstrate my side of the argument, and then I will quite happily throw it in your face. So, till then, ta ta...
If you had an article on hand to "demonstrate your side" when you argued it, then you would not be "waiting" for such an article today. Therefore, your "side" was utterly unsupported then, it's utterly unsupported now, and all you're doing is making groundless assertions and telling us to wait for you to back them up at some unspecified future time. No wonder you couldn't make money in your chosen field.
Raging Bee · 10 January 2007
Blast needs his own emoticon: -':-(
Raging Bee · 10 January 2007
Okay, it looked better in Courier: a frowny-face with an "L" on the forehead. Damn that automatic fiddling-about with the quote-marks...
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
W. Kevin Vicklund · 10 January 2007
It is unfortunate that you feel it is a waste of time - you might have learned something, and I certainly learned a lot during the debate. But I think your abandonment of the debate has more to do with you realizing you had made a number of mistakes that when corrected counter your own pet theory than with any actual mistreatment you may have received. Mistakes like not reading graphs and charts properly, simple and persistent math errors, and deliberately equivocating between synonymous phrases in the paper being discussed.
By the way, for those interested, the discussion took place
here. WARNING: very long (256 messages) and quite technical - lots of math
Anyway, to bring this somewhat back on topic, I am an engineer without any college level biology (that doesn't mean I haven't studied on my own, though). Yet I took on and embarrassed someone who claims to have received grad level instruction in biology. And this illustrates the danger that engineers face - we are trained to analyze models and make judgements on their validity. That training is supposed to be cross-discipline. But it is very easy to overlook the background knowledge necessary to construct a model in the first place, and therefore we may lack the knowledge of when a model no longer applies. I try to always research any basic model and its limitations before engaging in a debate, but often in the workplace that is not an option - you have to go with what you know. One other thing I was trained in that not all engineers are trained to do is to honestly assess a competing model, in a manner fair or even favorable to the competing model (while still remaining realistic, of course).
I have made incorrect arguments in the past, and I am sure I will in the future. But the best way to prevent that is to be honest with myself, admit that I don't know everything, and research it as much as I reasonably can before opening my big fat mouth. Unfortunately, all too many people don't do that.
If a paper does come out that appears to refute Boraas et al., please let me know, Blast. I'm more than willing to discuss the implications. Forgive me for not holding my breath.
Moses · 10 January 2007
stevaroni · 10 January 2007
Raging Bee · 10 January 2007
Tom: What about the IDers who testified under oath in the Dover trial? Did they also misunderstand and/or misrepresent "the real ID?" If so, how?
So tell us, now that you have our attention, what ID is REALLY about.
Stevaroni · 10 January 2007
harold · 10 January 2007
Frequent commentator Glen Davidson wrote -
"The short answer for why so many physicians reject evolution is that they aren't scientists (most of them, anyhow), and, though they are taught the how science proceeds, they do not have to be able to do science in any real sense at all."
Most physicians may not possess Davidon's expertise on "electric consciousness", but...
1) A large number of physicians are trained in research at the doctoral and post-doctoral level, either before, during, or after their medical training.
2) Clinical medicine is a very applied and macroscopic field, but both clinical research and individual clinical decisions are strongly grounded in the scientific method.
3) At any rate, the numbers actually show that physicians overwhelmingly accept the theory of evolution. The 15% or so who declare that "humans were created by God in their present form" may, in addition to expressing a cultural bias, be older - the age breakdown is not given.
4) Medical schools are beginning to add basic evolutionary biology to the curriculum (caveat - medical students are already overworked). This may reflect a general silver lining of the "ID controversy". In the end, it did far more to energize supporters of science than to advance the cause of forcing nonsense into the high school curriculum of a few isolated rural school districts.
mplavcan · 10 January 2007
Having been training in an anatomy department in a prominent medical school, and having taught medical students for 16 years, the fact that 34% agree with ID is as meaningless as saying that 34% of plumbers accept it. Most premeds are focused on biology as a necessary requisite to medical school (an incorrect but common assumption), and take the required courses. Most undergraduate biology courses regularly discuss evolution, but few that are required for medical school go into the details in great depth. None that I know of directly and systematically adress creationst crap. During my undergraduate experience, enrollment in comparative anatomy was 8 -- the premeds avoided it because it was difficult to earn an A in that class. Evolution was dealt with in depth only in upper level classes, mostly populated by biology majors interested in biology, and not premed.
Physicians are not trained as scientists unless they are in a specialized program. Most medical students are so overwhelmed with the workload that they care only about scoring enough to pass their core classes. In gross anatomy, we repeatedly offered evolutionary insights into human anatomy. While it helped some students, many simply ignored it and stuck with memorizing names and places.
Many of the clinicians that we dealt with had little exposure to science beyond the simple double-blind trial. Some were amazingly ignorant of comparative anatomy and evolution.
The one creationist engineer that I dealt with over the years was shockingly ignorant of biology and the second law of thermodynamics. Other engineers that I know expressed embarrassment that this gentleman was so publicly assertive on a topic about which he knew nothing.
Unfortunately, this survey is simply playing off the fact that the public views physicians as really smart and rich, thereby lending a greater weight to their opinions. College professors, of course, fall into the realm of "those who can, do; those who can't, teach." And we wonder about why the American public is so poorly educated in science.
stevaroni · 10 January 2007
harold · 10 January 2007
That's odd, my comments wouldn't post. I'm sure it's a coincidence, and I'll try again.
Glen Davidson wrote -
"The short answer for why so many physicians reject evolution is that they aren't scientists (most of them, anyhow), and, though they are taught the how science proceeds, they do not have to be able to do science in any real sense at all."
This statement is biased and not strictly correct, and responses to it certainly deserve to be allowed.
My disappearing response was that, while physicians as a group may lack Davidson's expertise in "electric consciousness", they do have scientific grounding.
1) Many physicians have doctoral or post-doctoral scientific training, either before, during, or after their clinical training.
2) Clinical medicine is very applied and macroscopic, but it does employ the scientific method, and even individual clinical decision making is grounded in the scientific method.
3) The numbers in the post at the top of thread do not show that physicians reject evolution at all, but that about 80-85% accept the theory of evolution. I do find a 15-20% creationist level surprisingly high. We aren't told what the ages or religious and cultural backgrounds of these self-reportedly creationist physicians are.
4) Medical schools are introducing courses in evolutionary biology as we speak. Although medical students are massively overloaded as it is, this is a good idea.
J. Biggs · 10 January 2007
J. Biggs · 10 January 2007
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
harold · 10 January 2007
Glen Davidson -
I'd like to clarify for others who may be confused, that I did not, to the best of my knowledge, create any "straw man".
My reading comprehension is very strong, so much so that if I suffer "faulty comprehension", it may reflect the material, rather than my reading of it.
I suppose that our disagreement hinges partly on the interpretation of the subjective terminology "do real science". Perhaps you could clarify specifically what constitutes "doing real science".
Henry J · 10 January 2007
Re "(or better yet, with men, add "nipples", that's always good for a head scratcher)"
Isn't a possible answer to that simply that suppressing those for males would require adding stuff to the genome? (And, maybe the suppressing of them doesn't really have particular benefit.)
harold · 10 January 2007
Glen Davidson -
I'd like to add that, for the record, I have no major disagreement with anything you've written in this thread, although I would never deliberately use "straw man" argument techniques. (Note - possibly, this may not apply to simultaneously posted items, but it probably does.)
As someone with a medical degree who has also done some research, I am familiar with the tension that sometimes exists between PhD faculty, graduate students, and medical students/clinical faculty in the medical school environment, and that may have fueled my reply. Perhaps we can agree that the majority of physicians only need to resort to the scientific method in an applied way, rather than needing to do any original research. However, quite difficult problems requiring creative thinking can be encountered in clinical practice.
The matter is somewhat moot, from my point of view. Creationist claims notwithstanding, what the article actually shows is a much higher acceptance of the theory of evolution among physicians than among the general population, or probably, almost any professional group except practicing research scientists. That's true no matter how one qualifies it. Since physicians and other doctoral level health professionals are the most biologically educated people short of actual practicing biologists, it's consistent with the hypothesis that the more people know about biology, the more likely they are to accept the theory of evolution.
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
Salvador T. Cordova · 10 January 2007
Sir_Toejam · 10 January 2007
J. Biggs · 10 January 2007
Perhaps you are right Glen, and I objected offhand. I just felt your original post seemed insulting, when apparently it was not intended to be. I am sure you can see how it could be taken that way. Certainly any statement can be interpreted in many different ways and I apparently misinterpreted yours as an insult to medical professionals.
Steve Reuland · 10 January 2007
Mike from Phoenix · 10 January 2007
For the record, I am a first time poster, an engineer, accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution and am an atheist. However, I find that I am a minority with the peers I have worked with. I would say less than 10% of the engineers I know would consider themselves agnostic or atheist. I think this has more to do with culture and politics than critical thinking skills. I would wager that most Americans don't really care enough about the question to think critically about their beliefs. They are comfortable in their world and don't see an advantage to questioning status quo.
Most of the engineers I work with are extremely conservative politically - I think technically conservative people can be socially liberal, but that is not the prevailing opinion. They are typically upper middle class, believe they worked hard to achieve their success, and anyone less fortunate just has not taken the time to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. These folks buy into conservative ideals and that really aligns them with the Christian majority.
I also tend to think that smart people are better at rationalizing their beliefs. They are also confident (OK maybe arrogant) enough to easily dismiss people with views other than their own. Also there is a prevailing belief that raising children in a religious network is better for their kids moral development (again I don't, but that is my opinion of why others go to church and respond to polls the way they do).
It is not easy to get most people to think rationally about human origins. There is a lot of baggage associated with faith and getting people to abandon this will not be easy, if it is even possible. I don't think being an engineer or a doctor makes an individual more or less likely to believe or not. I think scientists care more about the question and are more likely to research the facts and base their beliefs on evidence versus internal desires. It is my experience that most believers just want to believe in a higher power and therefore believe. It does not mean they are dumb or incompetent - they just don't care enough about the question to give up their social structure and emotional comfort.
Ed Darrell · 10 January 2007
stevaroni · 10 January 2007
Ed Darrell · 10 January 2007
Mike from Phoenix · 10 January 2007
I have worked in aerospace for about 20 years. One of the first engineers I worked for was an independent minded atheist/agnostic, but I have to say he was the exception compared to those I usually encounter. I work closely with the military, but most of my peers have not actually been in the service. I know engineers who go to church because of spouse/family pressures and I know engineers who are flat out hard core young earth fundamentalists.
Raging Bee · 10 January 2007
Sal blithered thusly:
The majority dissent from Darwinism is not needed, a measurable minority is a significant statement in and of itself. This minority serves as a counter example to the insistence that Darwinism is important for scientific and technological and medical progress.
What about the measurable majority who reject creationism? What sort of statement do they make?
This is the way of the creationist: take any scrap of "dissent" they can find to validate their prejudice, while ignoring the huge mass of evidence that flatly refutes it.
The weak mind is like a microscope: it magnifies small things and can't handle big ones.
Glen Davidson · 10 January 2007
Sir_Toejam · 10 January 2007
sparc · 11 January 2007
Rolf Aalberg · 11 January 2007
With respect to the figures for doctors etc. that believe in creationism, ought we not take into account the fact that some, even well educated scientists, for religious reasons reject the theory of evolution simply by holding the bible for being the ultimate truth that takes precedence over any scientific facts or evidence supporting the ToE?
Tabulating the numbers by sorting out all who simply reject science because of religion should significantly lower the number of 'bona fide creationists'. (I don't even think such a creature exists).
Peter Henderson · 11 January 2007
Anton Mates · 11 January 2007
Keith Douglas · 11 January 2007
The issue of physicians being scientists or not can be solved rather simply by changing the terms of the discussion to the specific tasks being done. If one does this, then medical research is technological, and physicians most often act as technicians. Using the scientific method does not make for science in itself. Engineers too can use the scientific method because their fields are based on scientific research with additional "stuff". These (like in medical research) can be values, which is one of the fundamental differences between science and technology.
(I have papers on my website about all of this if anyone cares to see the longer version.)
kevin · 11 January 2007
"In my case, all of this left me scratching my head since I received a degree in biology without EVER having a discussion about evolution "
ehh, Blast-o-hot-air, maybe you should turn in your diploma as obtained under false pretenses...
Just because you avoided the subject does not mean that no-one knows about it.
stevaroni · 11 January 2007
les · 11 January 2007
Sal, since your point always seems to be "someone with an education believes ID/disbelieves TOE, therefore ID is true/TOE is false," you could save a lot of time and brain damage to all concerned if you just pop up periodically and say "I'm still here!" and we can all say OK and continue what we're doing. Thanks in advance.
Raging Bee · 12 January 2007
stevaroni: Thanks, but the words aren't really mine; I don't remember who first said it, or where I read it (many years ago).
fnxtr · 14 January 2007
I once had a very lovely Christian gal say to me "I doesn't matter if you don't believe in God. He believes in you."
I didn't want a debate so I left it at that elementary level.
It's just as well I didn't say then what I say now to Sal:
Evolution doesn't care if you believe in it or not. It's happening anyway.
trrll · 14 January 2007
deadman_932 · 14 January 2007
murali · 22 January 2007
I am doing this statistical module in the university. I think everyone is missing the larger picture here. The problem with the medical survey is that these are self response surveys. That means that a large number of people are sent the poll and only a small percentage of the people respond. of these maybe thirty percent (of doctors) are creationists. What this means is that people with stronger views tend to respond more. although many normal people also reply, many of those who reply have a chip on their shoulder. IN this case it would be IDers or creationists. They feel that they are perpetually embattled politically and socially; that the scientific establishment is always against them and have a larger impetus to respond. hence they are likely to respond more. on the other hand, a standard evolutionist is likely to throw away the survey form as he thinks it is just a waste of time, he has nothing to prove. This is very similar to the way Rev Pat Robertson rallied religious fundamentalists to increase voter turnout and thus hijack republican politics in America. At the very least, do not trust self response polls. Closed response (multiple choice) polls also should be checked for choices that bias the results.
murali · 22 January 2007
sorry just to add. the module is about how people can deceive intentionally or unintentionally with statistics. Big names in the polling industry have a far from clean record in unbiased and reliable polling.
Henry J · 22 January 2007
Yep - if there's a correlation between who decides to bother with answering, versus what their answer is, that is going to throw off the result.
Henry