June 22, 2005

WHO DOESN'T?

Doctors Doubt Darwinism (Drs. Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak, June 3, 2005, Jewish World Review)

A recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research suggests an answer. The poll finds that 60 percent of doctors reject the mechanistic Darwinian belief that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement — no divinity played any role." Only 38 percent of the doctors polled agreed with this statement.

Given their "hands on" experience with individual human beings, doctors appreciate the intricate design implicit in every part of the body. For example, an eye surgeon knows the intricacies of human vision in detail; so vague evolutionary stories about how the eye appeared by a process of random variation and selection do not overawe him.

Darwin himself said, "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Notice that Darwin shifts the burden of proof away from his theory.


That is still three times as many believers in Darwinism as in the general population, but then they're more thoroughly indoctrinated.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 22, 2005 12:00 AM
Comments

More from the same poll:

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.

The study was conducted by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research at The Jewish Theological Seminary and HCD Research in Flemington, New Jersey, from May 13-15. The study was conducted as part of a continuing investigation of the social, political, and economic issues confronting the U.S. health care system. The margin of error for the study was plus or minus 3% at a 95% level of confidence.

The responses were analyzed based on the religious affiliation. Among the findings:

* When asked whether they agree more with intelligent design or evolution, an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (88%) and more than half of Catholic doctors (60%) said they agree more with evolution, while slightly more than half of Protestants (54%) agree more with intelligent design.
* A majority of Catholic doctors (67%) agree with the statement that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings, while 11% believe that "God created humans exactly as they appear now." By contrast, less than half of Protestant doctors (46%) believe that God initiated and guided an evolutionary process, while 35% believe that God created humans as they appear now. The majority of Jewish doctors (65%) agree more with the statement that “humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.”
* The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it and, of those, Jews are most positive (94%), Catholics are next (86%) followed by Protestants (59%).
* Half of the doctors (50%) believe that schools should be allowed (but not required) to teach intelligent design.
* More than half of Catholic doctors (62%) feel that schools should be allowed (not required) to teach intelligent design, conversely, more than half of Jewish doctors (59%) believe that schools should be prohibited from teaching intelligent design.
* When asked whether intelligent design has legitimacy as science, an overwhelming majority of Jewish doctors (83%) and half of Catholic doctors (51%) believe that intelligent design is simply “a religiously inspired pseudo- science rather than a legitimate scientific speculation,” while more than half of Protestant doctors (63%) believe that intelligent design is a “legitimate scientific speculation.”


Posted by: creeper at June 22, 2005 8:50 AM

The Jews are still wrestling with God. They are pissed about the Holocaust, and not inclined to let him off easily.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 22, 2005 11:30 AM

"...Notice that Darwin shifts the burden of proof away from his theory"

Just a small point, this is something that always irritates me. NO scientific theory is ever "proved." Induction, the kind of reasoning used, doesn't prove things. (As opposed to "deduction," such as doing a proof in Geometry.) It's only a THEORY that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It can't be proved.

But any scientific theory MUST be falsifiable. Darwin is correct to point out ways to falsify his theory, and to not claim that it is "true."

Posted by: John Weidner at June 22, 2005 12:35 PM

If you parse Darwin's paragraph, you'll note something interesting:

Darwin himself said, "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

The key phrse is "could not possibly". This means that the person doing the refutation must demonstrate 0 probability. This is a high standard to demand: What if the chances were one in a million? One in a billion? One in a million billion? As long as it "could possibly" happen, as long as he or some other evolutionist can come up with a convincing enough "just so" story that scientific consensus is willing to buy, the criterion of "could not possibly" can be held to not be met. The odds can be infinitely long, and still, as long as it is not zero, then Darwin would hold that his theory is not disproven. (he can't prove it, but he sets the bar so that it's unreasonably tougher to disprove it.)

He HAS to demand a "could not possibly happen" standard, because anything more reasonable would have cracked up against the complexity of the eye, the blood clotting process, and the sheer combinatorial explosion arising from the composing of a reasonable protein from a sea of amino acids (among other things). His fossil record prediction of finding a continuum of development WAS WRONG, even though it was a logical deduction from his thesis of "successive, slight, modifications" being the main driver of evolution. No matter: there is a just-so story not needing physical proof or experimental verification, but just needing to be convincing, that is available to explain the difficulties away.

SOCIOLOGISTS and PSYCOLOGISTS have specific statistical methods for determining significance of deviations from theory, quantifies them numericallyk, and have cutoffs in the form of bands of values that say: "Proven", "probable", "not significant", and "too perfect to be true." I'll forgive darwin for not knowing enough of statistics to be ignorant that his demand is unreasonable, but his more modern adherents ought to know better.

Posted by: Ptah at June 22, 2005 3:39 PM

These guys better watch out quoting Darwin back to Darwinists, and doing research that contravenes his conclusions. As I chronicle at DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS they are in danger, as Huxley's Brave New World character 'The Controller' nearly was, "of being sent to an island."

Posted by: Steve Bragg at June 22, 2005 4:05 PM

Ptah, your comment about statistics is irrelevent. The process you are referring to is an example of deductive logic. I could say that 100 flights around the world without falling off an edge statisticaly proves that the Earth is round. But that only "proves" it within the framework that I've created. Scientifically, it would still be just a theory.

Darwin's "could not possibly" is not really objectionable, because normally in science people don't line up like giant-killers to falsify someone's theory. You come up with a better hypothesis, or just ignore a theory that doesn't work well. The situation with evolution is unique, with large numbers of people trying to falsify a theory, without being interested in the scientific work of actually unravelling the truth.

And also unique, because there are lots of "Darwinians" who are equally uninterested in truth, because they have a faith that satisfies them. Neither position has much to do with science.

Posted by: John Weidner at June 22, 2005 9:54 PM
« | Main | GENTLEMEN, START YOUR ENGINES?: »