Posted on 09/29/2005 4:52:20 AM PDT by gobucks
A national survey of 1,472 physicians indicates more than half -- 63 percent -- believe the theory of evolution over that of intelligent design.
The responses were analyzed according to religious affiliation.
When asked whether they agree more with intelligent design or evolution, 88 percent of Jewish doctors and 60 percent of Roman Catholic physicians said they agree more with evolution, while 54 percent of Protestant doctors agreed more with intelligent design.
When asked whether intelligent design has legitimacy as science, 83 percent of Jewish doctors and 51 percent of Catholic doctors said they believe intelligent design is simply "a religiously inspired pseudo-science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation." But 63 percent of Protestant doctors said intelligent design is a "legitimate scientific speculation."
The study was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research at The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City and HCD Research in Flemington, N.J.
The May 13-15 poll had a margin of error plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Copyright 2005 by United Press International
Glad you find it so funnybone
I thought that if you believed that God created the world, but used evolution to fulfill his creation, then you were a supporter of Intelligent Design and therefore a complete and total moron. Or do you have another definition of Intelligent Design than that?
Evolution is just a theory, why do its opponents always seem to label it "Darwinism" like it's an ideology? You can accept evolution in biology and still believe in a personal God. I do.
"I thought that if you believed that God created the world, but used evolution to fulfill his creation, then you were a supporter of Intelligent Design"
Exactly my point. The question was asked as though the evolution and intelligent design are contradictory when that is not the case. It's a push-poll.
If that is your point, then why do 83% of self identified Jewish doctors believe that Intelligent Design is ""a religiously inspired pseudo-science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation."
It seems to me that either
1) These Jewish Doctors do not understand what Intelligent Design is.
2) These Jewish Doctors do believe it is incompatible to combine a belief of God the Creator and an observable method of creation.
3) These Jewish Doctors do not believe in a Creator, therefore Intelligent Design sounds like a silly fairy tale to them.
couldn't find any intelligence in your design.More to the point.Those reprobates that hate God and the foundations of
American education-who have excised 2/3 of the Northwest
Ordinance to devolve their little red schoolhouse are the
ones I find most pathetic.
I think you missed my point. The way the entire survey is phrased is meant to imply that intelligent design is by definition opposed to the theory of evolution (which it is not).
The questions were loaded in order to get the response the push-pollers wanted.
Under the circumstances that's not a very big "most" because most doctors probably do not even worry about the subject and those that don't think about it will, when asked, mostly say yeah, that one, the one that permeates the background, the one that was the assumption throughout their school years.
I dont think doctors are automatically authorities on evolution. Most doctors don't really need to study evolution in any depth, and some may have no education about evolution at all. All they need to know is about human anatomy and medicine.
If anything I reckon veterinary doctors will probably have more authority on evolution than regular doctors.
Well for those that actually take the Bible as the Word of God, it is out of love for the Creator and fact he has saved us from his justice and wrath through the redeeming blood of His Son? Does that answer the question?
I are one! I believe that God created all things, you and me, and even all those who dishonor Him!
Exactly. I am one that thinks that ID is a legitimate hypothesis, and "scientific," refutable. But I do not see what is the moral or ethical implication of ID being true, or not true. Without revelation - without some imposition of a Truth beyond the frame of the picture (Wittgenstein, etc.) - I do not see how any personal moral code is necessary. Darwin or Dembski being correct does not mean anything in terms of what should be individual decisions. Does anyone have a logical challenge to this?
"All they need to know is about human anatomy and medicine."
It is because so many agree with this statement that so many doctors are just plain lousy at healing people.
I agree very much that what one chooses to read determines largely what they think they are choosing to believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.