Many physicians skeptical of Darwinism
Uncommon Descent brought to my attention a fairly recent poll of physicians' opinions about evolution. I am really surprised that I did not know about this 2005 poll before. I guess the problem was that I just searched for polls of scientists and did not search for polls of physicians.
The actual poll results are here. The first question, Q1, was, "what religion are you?" Questions Q2-Q5 are not specified. The poll results for questions Q6-Q10 may be seen by clicking on the boxes on the left sidebar. A lot depends on how the questions were asked. For example, when asked, "What are your views on evolution -- accept, reject, or undecided," 78% responded, "accept"; when asked "do you agree more with evolution or more with intelligent design -- evolution, intelligent design, or no opinion," 63% responded "evolution," and when asked, "What are your views on the origin and development of human beings?", only 38% said, "humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement" (the other choices were guided evolution, were created in present form, and "I don't like to think about such matters"). What I can say is that these results show much lower support for evolution theory than I have seen in other polls of professionals in scientific or technological fields. I think that all of the recent publicity about the evolution controversy may be having an effect on the opinions of such professionals by causing them to think more about the issue. A large number of them probably previously took evolution for granted but when they carefully examined it they did not find it convincing -- that is what happened to me. Also, when the results of polls are widely publicized, there may be a "bandwagon" or "critical mass" effect: when people see that a fairly large number of their peers are questioning evolution, they are more likely to question evolution themselves. Anyway, how can the Darwinists say that there is no controversy when such large percentages of physicians -- who are well trained in biology -- reject or doubt Darwinism?
Despite the great importance that is attached to scientific and technological professionals' opinions about evolution (particularly such professionals who work in the field of biology, and physicians fall into that category), these professionals are rarely polled on the subject. Prior to this 2005 poll, the next most recent reliable poll of such professionals that I am aware of is a 2002 poll of scientists in Ohio. In that poll, 90 percent of respondents said that intelligent design is not supported at all by scientific evidence, but for reasons stated above, this figure is subject to sudden drastic change. In contrast to the infrequent polling of these professionals, the general public has been polled about evolution several times a year. Darwinists of course scoff at the large percentages of the public that question evolution or favor teaching criticism of evolution in the public schools. One would think that the Darwinists would want to counter that public questioning of evolution by sponsoring polls of scientific and technological professionals, but maybe the Darwinists are afraid of what such polls might reveal -- and this poll of physicians shows that such fear is justified. This poll of physicians shows that the opinions of scientific and technological professionals may be starting to shift towards anti-Darwinism, and anti-Darwinists should try to take advantage of this apparent trend by sponsoring other polls of such professionals and by publicizing the results of such polls.
There have been letter-signing campaigns as well as formal opinion polls in this area -- there is the Discovery Institute's campaign called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which now has over 600 signatures from professionals in science and technology; the "Project Steve" of the National Center for Science Education; and "Physicians and Surgeons Who Dissent from Darwinism", from Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity. These letter-signing campaigns are of course no substitute for formal opinion polling. One of the advantages of the opinion polls is that peer pressure is absent because these polls are anonymous.
The actual poll results are here. The first question, Q1, was, "what religion are you?" Questions Q2-Q5 are not specified. The poll results for questions Q6-Q10 may be seen by clicking on the boxes on the left sidebar. A lot depends on how the questions were asked. For example, when asked, "What are your views on evolution -- accept, reject, or undecided," 78% responded, "accept"; when asked "do you agree more with evolution or more with intelligent design -- evolution, intelligent design, or no opinion," 63% responded "evolution," and when asked, "What are your views on the origin and development of human beings?", only 38% said, "humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement" (the other choices were guided evolution, were created in present form, and "I don't like to think about such matters"). What I can say is that these results show much lower support for evolution theory than I have seen in other polls of professionals in scientific or technological fields. I think that all of the recent publicity about the evolution controversy may be having an effect on the opinions of such professionals by causing them to think more about the issue. A large number of them probably previously took evolution for granted but when they carefully examined it they did not find it convincing -- that is what happened to me. Also, when the results of polls are widely publicized, there may be a "bandwagon" or "critical mass" effect: when people see that a fairly large number of their peers are questioning evolution, they are more likely to question evolution themselves. Anyway, how can the Darwinists say that there is no controversy when such large percentages of physicians -- who are well trained in biology -- reject or doubt Darwinism?
Despite the great importance that is attached to scientific and technological professionals' opinions about evolution (particularly such professionals who work in the field of biology, and physicians fall into that category), these professionals are rarely polled on the subject. Prior to this 2005 poll, the next most recent reliable poll of such professionals that I am aware of is a 2002 poll of scientists in Ohio. In that poll, 90 percent of respondents said that intelligent design is not supported at all by scientific evidence, but for reasons stated above, this figure is subject to sudden drastic change. In contrast to the infrequent polling of these professionals, the general public has been polled about evolution several times a year. Darwinists of course scoff at the large percentages of the public that question evolution or favor teaching criticism of evolution in the public schools. One would think that the Darwinists would want to counter that public questioning of evolution by sponsoring polls of scientific and technological professionals, but maybe the Darwinists are afraid of what such polls might reveal -- and this poll of physicians shows that such fear is justified. This poll of physicians shows that the opinions of scientific and technological professionals may be starting to shift towards anti-Darwinism, and anti-Darwinists should try to take advantage of this apparent trend by sponsoring other polls of such professionals and by publicizing the results of such polls.
There have been letter-signing campaigns as well as formal opinion polls in this area -- there is the Discovery Institute's campaign called "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which now has over 600 signatures from professionals in science and technology; the "Project Steve" of the National Center for Science Education; and "Physicians and Surgeons Who Dissent from Darwinism", from Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity. These letter-signing campaigns are of course no substitute for formal opinion polling. One of the advantages of the opinion polls is that peer pressure is absent because these polls are anonymous.
Labels: Evolution controversy (4 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/28/2006 10:54:00 PM
9 Comments:
Have you noticed that with the exception of a single post by your fellow asshole "jujuquisp", all posts on this blog have been your own, mine, or your brother's? It looks like you have driven the others off by your mindless repetition.
If you don't want this blog to die, you should at least try honesty if you are incapable of logical debate.
That is all posts in the last 48 hours or more.
Voice In the Wilderness said --
>>>>>It looks like you have driven the others off by your mindless repetition.<<<<<
Where in the hell is the repetition? This is a brand new post with a lot of new material!
And the only reason for my "mindless" repetition elsewhere is that commenters keep repeating questions that I have already answered. If anyone has driven others off by "mindless repetition," it is some of the visiting commenters on this blog.
For a one-man blog, this blog is very active. The only one-man blog that I have seen that is more active than this one is Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars." I have added about 50 articles (called "posts" on this blog) in just 2½ months, and most of them are big articles with a lot of research. There is no lack of new material here.
Actually, I get a lot more responses than a lot of other blogs get. Many blogs get few responses or no responses at all.
People who call me a crackpot continue to waste their time reading my blog and posting on it -- I wonder why that is.
I think that a lot of people who agree with me are doing most of their commenting elsewhere, like on Uncommon Descent.
>>>>>If you don't want this blog to die, you should at least try honesty if you are incapable of logical debate.<<<<<
On the contrary, it is mostly visiting commenters who are incapable of logical debate -- instead of responding to my comments, they just call me wrong, stupid, ignorant, dishonest, etc.. I don't know why some of them bother to respond at all -- they are not making a good impression.
> Where in the hell is the repetition? This is a brand new post with a lot of new material! <
The repetition is under the other threads. In a short time it will occur here.
> commenters keep repeating questions that I have already answered. <
You have not answered them. Let's start with a simple one. Why do you believe that there is any significance about a document presented in a Pennsylvania court being notarized by a Texas notary? This one is quite painless and non-controversial. If you even attempt to answer this, I will give you some of the others that you have dodged.
> For a one-man blog, this blog is very active. < Thanks to me and your brother, the real Dave.
> I have added about 50 articles (called "posts" on this blog) in just 2½ months <
It's a good thing that you don't have a job and have kind relatives to support you.
> and most of them are big articles with a lot of research. <
Like Bob Dylan's song?
> Actually, I get a lot more responses than a lot of other blogs get. <
Any you have yet to thank me.
> People who call me a crackpot continue to waste their time reading my blog and posting on it -- I wonder why that is. <
Do I have to repeat that again? It is the entertainment value in seeing someone self-destruct.
> I think that a lot of people who agree with me are doing most of their commenting elsewhere <
They are notably absent here.
> instead of responding to my comments, they just call me wrong, stupid, ignorant, dishonest, etc. <
You seem to be projecting here. That seems to be what you are saying rather than others. You have been proven to be dishonest. No one else has.
> they are not making a good impression. <
What sort of impression are you making with your continued lies? A difference of opinion is one thing. Repeated lies are something else.
Looking back at the previous thread, "Evolution controversy is reminiscent of Bob Dylan song", there were 11 posts. You posted 3 times. I posted 5, your brother 2, and the asshole jujuquisp 1. Going to posts before that yields a similar ratio except for the entries of Kevin and Rob.
Under the thread "HR 2679, the bill barring attorney fee awards in establishment clause lawsuits" there were 14 posts, all that were not yours were mine, Bill Carter's and real Dave's.
Under "Quote Mining" there was some new blood. A man posting as dhogaza made three posts asking seemingly excellent questions and you dodged them all so he seems to have left. I made the other three posts.
Under "Herr Fuhrer Esley Welsberry's Big Lie", there are 33 posts. You made 10 of them, Kevin made 4, jujuquisp made 2, Real Dave made 2, Bill Carter 3, and the remaining 12 were by me.
Since we are following your practice and posting under several different names, it would be hard for you to count individuals but I have the key. I will give it to you if you ask politely.
You should thank us. Without us your blog would be completely dead. Some people must be reading it, however, otherwise the name "Larry's Cry Room" would not have propagated so quickly.
I'm From Missouri -- RIP
I am sorry to see this blog crashing down in failure. It is like the sadness of seeing your pet fly die after you have pulled out the last of his wings.
There has not been a post from Larry(?) in over a day. Since we know he has no life, it must be due to discouragement over the failure of his blog. Let's see about the activities of others. (I will leave out the posts of his most faithful contributor, me.)
The next most recent poster is your brother, the real Dave, who last posted two days ago. He is very discouraged about observing your mental collapse and your continued lies so I doubt if we will hear much more from him.
The idiot jujuquisp last posted three days ago. I doubt if anyone on either side will miss him. He does serve one purpose, however. He is the only person besides me whose existence you don't deny who has posted in the last five days.
Bill Carter (ViU) has not posted since Sunday, Rob Serrano last posted at the same time. I assume that ViU will fill in for me again this weekend.
On Saturday, six days ago there were three posts by dhogaza, the first new blood in some time. You dodged all of his questions so we heard nothing further from him.
Kevin gave up trying to push a rope after his posting Friday of last week.
To find anyone else, we have to go all the way back to Chris Hyland who posted more than two weeks ago. He tried to correct your misconceptions about UK educational institutions but when he saw that your brain was impermeable, he also disappeared.
In contrast, I have always faithfully strived to keep your blog alive. You have never shown the least appreciation, still I will continue this thankless task out of a sense of duty. I know that deep down you really appreciate me.
Had you considered adding some posts under assumed names, as you did with fake Dave? You could then argue with yourself more publicly than you do currently.
The real Dave said...
> Dhogaza did in fact misquote Larry rather outrageously, as Larry pointed out: <
Yes, he did, but in Larry(?)'s case, this is probably doing him a favor. Larry(?) is wrong with such regularity that he is like a compass that reliably points South.
I once had a girlfriend whose sense of direction was so consistently wrong that one could navigate by just going the opposite of her directions. (Of course Larry(?) doesn't know what a girlfriend is.)
> Contrary to ViW's assertions, I have not noticed any instance of Larry deleting comments <
You may have not noticed that the Sun rose in the east. That does not make it so. If you don't know if something is happening, you look fairly silly by claiming that it is not. By count, some of the comments have disappeared. Whether this is by design or just a facet of Larry's unfamiliarity with computers, it is a fact that posts have disappeared. The ones that seem to have vanished are the more innocuous ones so it may be an accident. If he is intending to be true to that part of his policy, so much the better, but since the cause of the missing posts is not known, the commendation may be premature.
You are bending too far backward to defend your brother despite his mistreatment of you. I think that the willingness of your parents to humor Larry(?) when he was acting unquestionably insane has not helped him. Perhaps you are laboring under the delusion that he will appreciate it? You might note the moral of James Thurber's The Bear Who Could Let It Alone. "It is better to fall flat on your face than to bend over too far backward"
> Larry is right when he says that his blog is "very active." <
If you don't count Larry(?)s, mine, and the contributions of you and Bill Carter (who don't exist), there are very few. Again you are bending over backwards. It isn't warranted.
> As for people falling off the blog, it seems to me unfair for Larry to complain about that when he disinvites people (me, for instance). <
Keep around. Your posts are one of the highlights of this otherwise dying blog.
>>>>>There has not been a post from Larry in over a day. Since we know he has no life, it must be due to discouragement over the failure of his blog. <<<<<
Let me explain a few things to you lousy trolls.
You think that posting here is easy because all you do is post insults, ad hominems, breathtakingly inane wisecracks, and off-topic chatter.
I contrast, I have to think a lot about what I post and I have to back it up with facts. You call me stupid and ignorant, but I've got the facts. The facts are on my side. You hang around here because you are afraid of me -- you find my arguments too persuasive and you desperately try to stop me by harassing me.
If you go to Panda's Thumb and some of the other blogs, you will find that the bloggers there generally participate little or none at all in the discussions. I not only have to post the opening comments here -- which often take a lot of research -- but I have also participated very heavily in the discussions.
> I contrast, I have to think a lot about what I post <
You have very little to show for your "thinking".
> I have to back it up with facts. <
You rarely do.
> I've got the facts. The facts are on my side. <
You are delusional. Unsubstantiated pronouncements are not facts.
> You hang around here because you are afraid of me --
you find my arguments too persuasive and you desperately try to stop me by harassing me. <
This one is too good to miss. I will consider it an early entry in July's Lunatic of the Month contest. I can't conceive of even you topping it in the coming month.
> I have also participated very heavily in the discussions. <
How much effort does it take to repeat the same tired old stuff over and over? You dodge all of the hard questions. You even dodge some of the easier ones.
Post a Comment
<< Home