Do the majority of Physicians reject Darwinism?

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have recently seen a statement that a recent poll shows that 60% of physicians and surgeons are skeptical of Darwinism. Can this be possible? Are we being treated by a bunch of quacks? ;)

Can anyone here verify or else falsify the truth of the poll claim or is this a bunch of baloney being spread by a tiny minority?

http://www.pssiinternational.com/
 

Gerald

Resident Fiend
What physicians and surgeons think of evolutionary theory is quite irrelevant.

Now what I'd like to see is the percentage of physicians and surgeons who doubt germ theory...
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Gerald said:
What physicians and surgeons think of evolutionary theory is quite irrelevant.

Now what I'd like to see is the percentage of physicians and surgeons who doubt germ theory...

If the saying "nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution" is true, then doubters must not know anything about biology, which means that as physicians they must be quacks.
 

Vision in Verse

New member
bob b said:
If the saying "nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution" is true, then doubters must not know anything about biology, which means that as physicians they must be quacks.
I've gotta admit, I've had some stupid physicians.
 

Gerald

Resident Fiend
bob b said:
If the saying "nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution" is true, then doubters must not know anything about biology, which means that as physicians they must be quacks.
If you say so..:kookoo:
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
Vision in Verse said:
Let me point you to another poll.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Belief statistics are irrelevant. They don't prove anything.

Of course opinions don't make or break the theory, but when educated individuals (especially a contingent majority) who know a lot about human biology are skeptical about a theory like natural selection + massive amounts of time, it doesn't mean good things for the paradigm...
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
:rotfl:
Bob edited his link!
Good thing Vision quoted it first.
From http://www.hcdi.net/ you find the polls department http://www.hcdi.net/polling/HCDPoll.cfm
And the first poll on the list that seems to be germane to the conversation is this;
http://www.hcdi.net/news/PressRelease.cfm?URL=NodtoEvolution.cfm
Which says;
Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design


NEW YORK, NY, May 23, 2005 – Results of a national survey of 1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%) agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent design.
 

Real Sorceror

New member
Bob, why do you refer to ToE as "Darwinism"?
I am very skeptical of "Darwinism", but I fully accept the current Theory of Evolution.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
fool said:
:rotfl:
Bob edited his link!
Good thing Vision quoted it first.
From http://www.hcdi.net/ you find the polls department http://www.hcdi.net/polling/HCDPoll.cfm
And the first poll on the list that seems to be germane to the conversation is this;
http://www.hcdi.net/news/PressRelease.cfm?URL=NodtoEvolution.cfm
Which says;

I edited the link because it turned out to be too difficult to find the poll I had in mind within the first site I linked to.

With regard to the poll you referenced, which compared evolution with intelligent design:

Apparently some physicians make a distinction between Darwinism and evolution, believing that God must have guided some sort of evolutionary process (i.e. theistic evolution). Thus, the majority reject Intelligent Design for reasons that are not entirely clear. Perhaps they believe, as is widely reported in the media, that ID is just another name for young earth creationists (i.e. creationism).

So why don't intelligent people believe that the Earth and universe are young, only thousands of years old and not billions?

As Balder once stated confidently, a young Earth (and universe) is impossible because stars are billions of light years away and yet we see them. So the Earth and universe must be billions of years old because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, right?

This argument has never been sucessfully refuted (until now). The irony is that the Big Bang proponents themselves proposed the solution: inflation. They just didn't carry this mechanism, which they first proposed to solve the "horizon problem", to its logical conclusion.
 

Jukia

New member
death2impiety said:
Of course opinions don't make or break the theory, but when educated individuals (especially a contingent majority) who know a lot about human biology are skeptical about a theory like natural selection + massive amounts of time, it doesn't mean good things for the paradigm...
See fool's post. As with most information posted by creationists further review indicates bob b's post is inaccurate and misleading.
And what is a "contingent majority"?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jukia said:
See fool's post. As with most information posted by creationists further review indicates bob b's post is inaccurate and misleading.

As is yours.

Apparently the theistic evolutionists do make up a significant number of the respondents.

This indicates that the subject elicits controversy in our society so that it should be discussed in the schools as such instead of teaching only one side.

When the full ramifications of the "inflationary universe" set in among scientists there will be another interesting controversy to add to the one over "evolution".

What great fun !!!! ;)
 

Jukia

New member
bob b said:
This indicates that the subject elicits controversy in our society so that it should be discussed in the schools as such instead of teaching only one side.

QUOTE]

What is it you wish to teach? Creationism? ID?
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
Jukia said:
See fool's post. As with most information posted by creationists further review indicates bob b's post is inaccurate and misleading.
And what is a "contingent majority"?


The majority of the physician contingent.
 

Jukia

New member
bob b said:
The Controversy, i.e. all sides.

"Just the facts, maam".
Then it is easy, Sgt. Friday. There is no controversy. The facts support neither creationism nor ID.
Game, set, match.
 

Johnny

New member
bob b said:
I edited the link because it turned out to be too difficult to find the poll I had in mind within the first site I linked to.
A likely scenario. What probably happened is that you read your own link. Why didn't you just link right to the poll then?

bob b said:
If the saying "nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution" is true, then doubters must not know anything about biology, which means that as physicians they must be quacks.
Do not confuse biology with medicine. They are very different disciplines and a physician can be a good physician and a very poor biologist.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jukia said:
Then it is easy, Sgt. Friday. There is no controversy. The facts support neither creationism nor ID.
Game, set, match.

Wrong, the facts support both ID and creationism.

Your problem is that when you read things in a textbook or paper you can't tell the difference between a fact and an author's conclusion.
 
Top