[classyT]

Tj3,

Interesting. The church I go to believes the earth is around 6,000 years old. But there are lots of Godly men who believe the world is billion of years old and they believe the earth was created in literally 6 days. My father is one I guess it is considered the "gap" theory or something. I don't know. I'm not real scientific OR logical.. lol . I tend to go with the earth being relatively young. I went to a Creation museum that Ken Ham was involved with building last March. I found it very interesting. By the way I LOVE hearing about evolutionist who come to their senses!

[Shelesh]

Well, am still searching for an answer. I don't believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.. The answer is in the Bible and I'll find it..

[Tj3]

Tj3,

Interesting. The church I go to believes the earth is around 6,000 years old. But there are lots of Godly men who believe the world is billion of years old and they believe the earth was created in literally 6 days. My father is one I guess it is considered the "gap" theory or something.

Yes, I agree that there are many godly persons who hold to an OEC position. I am familiar with the gap theory. I do not find it compelling because it depends upon assuming that scripture left something out.

I don't know. I'm not real scientific OR logical.. lol . I tend to go with the earth being relatively young. I went to a Creation museum that Ken Ham was involved with building last March. I found it very interesting. By the way I LOVE hearing about evolutionist who come to their senses!

I'd like to go there some time. We have a world class research center near us which studies fossils and I have been there a number of times. If you ask questions, I have found that they will be honest and admit where the assumptions are in how they came to their conclusions. In my view, that is a sign of a good scientist - one who can admit and is willing to acknowledge where the line between assumption and fact lies.

[inthebox]

Yes,

Religious Characteristics of U.S. Physicians

I think belief in God AND science can co-exist.

In this survey 76% of physicians vs 83% in the general population believe in God.

Physicians have a science background and the majority have bachelors in biology or other "hard" science before going to medical school and years of reidency. So no one can claim they are not thinking for themselves and are they are exposed more to evolutionary theory than the general population.

As opposed to bench scientists these professionals deal with science and the human condition daily. And the biggest human condition they see is human suffering.

Despite this, more than 75% of hysicians in this survey believe in God.

The degree that they believe in the Bible was not studied in this study, so I can't comment on that, but the point of this link is that to the OP's ?

A definite YES, science and religion can and do exist.





G&P

[asking]

These numbers for doctors fit in well with the other numbers I posted earlier, fitting between the average for ordinary scientists and all Americans together, and, in particular, closer to the numbers for average Americans.

The medical schools I'm familiar with do not require medical school applicants to have an undergraduate degree in biology. While many do major in biology, many have majored in history or literature or sometimes chemistry.

In medical school it would be quite unusual for students to be exposed too much in the way of evolution or natural history.

Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine

The emphasis is on human anatomy, physiology and pharmacology. If you took a comparative approach to learn these topics in the context of how things work in other animals as well as humans, you would learn a lot about evolution, but the majority of doctors are not exposed to that. They have to memorize what to do if a patient comes in with a certain set of symptoms, how to calculate dosages, and so on. The most important thing is to prevent an imminent death. Everything else can wait.

Most doctors are highly educated technicians and have no reason to think like scientists. It's not what they do day to day and it's not how they were trained. This is not a fault. It's just not what they do.

So it sounds about right that they would be only a bit different from the general population.

I am of course not talking about the few MD/PhDs or MDs involved in quality research programs.

[Akoue]

Hi asking.

I've found the numbers you've offered very interesting, but I'm not sure what, if anything, to make of them. Clearly sociological data don't speak to the question whether science and religion are incommensurable frameworks. You've mentioned that, in your experience, many good scientists just don't pay any attention to religion. Do you suspect there is much else going on here? Are you willing to hazard any guesses about what the data may be reflective of? You have suggested that perhaps scientists find their worldview sufficiently satisfying that they aren't looking to supplement it with religion. Do you suspect this is a widespread phenomenon? (I won't hold you to anything you say, since I'm really just asking for guesses based on anecdotal evidence.)

[asking]

I'm more of a pragmatist than a philosopher, so I'm reluctant to hazard more than guesses about what the data mean.

I will say that I think they mean SOMETHING. They are too dramatic, I think, to be mere coincidence.

But what's cause and what's effect, I don't know.

In brief, I think that either people who are indifferent to religion are disproportionately drawn to science or else the practice of science fills a psychic gap that might, in other circumstances, be filled by religion. I think that whichever it is is more the case with very intelligent people, the sort who end up in the National Academy of Sciences. I guess I lean toward the latter but it could very easily be both. I don't see any reason to choose.

I need to repeat that science and religion clearly are compatible in some good scientists' minds. That's why I posted John Horgan's interview with Francis Collins.

But, that said, I don't think it's coincidental that Collins is a bench scientist with an emphasis on genetics and medicine. A scientist who, further, has devoted himself mostly to management and long range planning for big institutions.

An epidemiologist has to grapple with wild populations. But scientists who work on things that don't vary much, don't always grasp the messiness of real life. Those who work with lab animals or viruses and bacteria in dishes don't get a sense of the sweep of nature. Lab organisms are specifically chosen for rapid reproduction, minimal variation, development that is unaffected by environment, and various other traits that make them easy to work with but which are NOT representative of wild populations of animals, including ourselves.

On top of all that, most genetics experiments deliberately control environmental variation, so traditional geneticists/molecular biologists have come to expect that anything interesting that happens is going to be caused by genes, not the environment. But it is environment that shapes the path of evolution. And that's a whole long other story.

I think that exposure to the enormous variation and the complex interactions that go on in nature predispose people to understand evolution regardless of their education. It doesn't matter if the person encounters nature as a cattle breeder, a hunter, or a field biologist, the effect is significant. Being out in the world allows people to see for themselves that what science says is true. Water does visibly erode mountain ranges, filling rivers with silt and moving beaches. The immense time spans needed to build layers of sandy sediments that are a mile high tell their own tale. Where did all that sand come from? How many winter storms did it take to build the individual grains eroded from older mountains into a towering mountain range like the Rockies?

So I think that although the numbers don't explore it, I would predict that field biologists (and probably field geologists) would be less more likely to think in very long time spans and less likely to believe in God than comparable people in fields that do strictly lab work, such as someone in drug development, an industrial chemist, or an engineer who designs bridges.

These are just tendencies, not absolutes. I would predict lots of exceptions, so some of you, please don't inundate me with examples otherwise. I take those as a given.

[inthebox]

These numbers for doctors fit in well with the other numbers I posted earlier, fitting between the average for ordinary scientists and all Americans together, and, in particular, closer to the numbers for average Americans.

The medical schools I'm familiar with do not require medical school applicants to have an undergraduate degree in biology. While many do major in biology, many have majored in history or literature or sometimes chemistry.

In medical school it would be quite unusual for students to be exposed to much in the way of evolution or natural history.

Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine

The emphasis is on human anatomy, physiology and pharmacology. If you took a comparative approach to learn these topics in the context of how things work in other animals as well as humans, you would learn a lot about evolution, but the majority of doctors are not exposed to that. They have to memorize what to do if a patient comes in with a certain set of symptoms, how to calculate dosages, and so on. The most important thing is to prevent an imminent death. Everything else can wait.

Most doctors are highly educated technicians and have no reason to think like scientists. It's not what they do day to day and it's not how they were trained. This is not a fault. It's just not what they do.

So it sounds about right that they would be only a bit different from the general population.

I am of course not talking about the few MD/PhDs or MDs involved in quality research programs.

If evolution was really pertinent to the care of human beings don't you think that it would be part of medical school curriculum?

In fact, evolution is contrary to medical care. Medical care is about caring for the weak, the sick, the poor, ------- these are the folks that evolution would select out.

As to physicians being just technicians I have to disagree.
For example, your phycsician has to know the presenting evidence from history and physical, come up with a list of potential diagnosis based on probabilty, order tests that would have pertinence, know what to do with the results whether they support or do not support a presumptive diagnosis, and then often times has to choose and tailor fit the best treatment plan.


Your cardiothoracic surgeon not only has to have the technical skill to perform the surgery, but know if surgery is indicated, would the patient survive surgery, would the patient benefit with surgery versus pharmacologic therapy alone, and deal with any postoperative complications. This is not just being a "technician" and should not be placed in the same skill as the technical ability to change a flat tire, for example.


The fact that lab / research scientists do not deal with the human condition on a daily basis, allows them the luxury to theorize. Wat practical use is evolution in daily life?
At least with God, the bible, and religion there is practical advice on the way to live your life.



What would an evolutionists tell a cancer patient? Sorry you inherited or acquired mutations that caused oncogenes and your cancer? Sorry you are in sickle cell crisis and in excruciating pain, but did you know you have an evolutionary advantage against malaria?

NEJM -- Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes

Here is an example of the "research" -- the statistical analysis is enough to cure insomnia.
they deal with numbers, facts, and draw conclusions even they may contradict previously held assumptions.


I would argue that the research and the evidence required for medical research is stricter than that in evolutionary biology or cosmology. You can't do a randomized placebo controlled double blind, reproducible study with evolution.







G&P

[inthebox]

Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biolog...ml#post1261628

[asking]

In fact, evolution is contrary to medical care. Medical care is about caring for the weak, the sick, the poor, ------- these are the folks that evolution would select out.

Oh, no! Many animals cooperate and take care of their own. It is not at all unusual in social animals and it is certainly not contrary to evolution in any way.

As to physicians being just technicians I have to disagree.
For example, your phycsician has to know the presenting evidence from history and physical, come up with a list of potential diagnosis based on probabilty, order tests that would have pertinence, know what to do with the results whether they support or do not support a presumptive diagnosis, and then often times has to choose and tailor fit the best treatment plan.

That's right. Those are technical skills. Some doctors are very good at it Others, not so good. Most of them these days don't remotely have enough time to do a good job on a difficult case. House, after all, is just television. So I disagree.

Your cardiothoracic surgeon not only has to have the technical skill to perform the surgery, but know if surgery is indicated, would the patient survive surgery, would the patient benefit with surgery versus pharmacologic therapy alone, and deal with any postoperative complications. This is not just being a "technician" and should not be placed in the same skill as the technical ability to change a flat tire, for example.

There are many kinds of technical skills that are far more difficult than changing a flat tire, so that's hardly a fair comparison. I stand by my assertion. I knew that this post would offend some people, but I let Akoue draw me out. :)


[QUOTE]The fact that lab / research scientists do not deal with the human condition on a daily basis, allows them the luxury to theorize.

No. Just the opposite. People who deal with the human condition in situations they cannot control, and people who deal with wild populations -- of deer and fleas and rats and plants -- you name it -- do not just theorize. They are in the trenches of life.

Wat practical use is evolution in daily life?

You'd be amazed what you can learn from watching the other kinds of life around you.

As for morality and values, I learned those from my parents, like most people, and from other loved ones, from living, from making mistakes, from getting it right, just like most people. Don't ever tell me that you can only learn right and wrong from a book.

What would an evolutionists tell a cancer patient? Sorry you inherited or acquired mutations that caused oncogenes and your cancer? Sorry you are in sickle cell crisis and in excruciating pain, but did you know you have an evolutionary advantage against malaria?

There's a place for every kind of technician. If your computer crashes you don't call a doctor and you don't call a biologist. If your car makes a nasty sound and the "check engine" light comes on, you don't call your minister or a cardiac surgeon, no matter how good he is. When you have cancer, you go to the doctor, because they've been taught what to say to you and the pharmaceutical reps have taken them to lunch and given them a list of things that might help you. Or not.

I would argue that the research and the evidence required for medical research is stricter than that in evolutionary biology or cosmology.

I won't argue cosmology, 'cause it's not my field. But for biology, most of the time you'd be wrong. Medical research is often really bad. I've read enough papers with sample sizes consisting of one doctors 7 patients and no controls. That's why they've been trying to make them better. Have you heard of "evidence based" medicine? That they even have to say that is an indication that they didn't used to consider evidence. I saw an ad for a job at a company that does "evidence-based" biomedical research. They think there's another kind??

You can't do a randomized placebo controlled double blind, reproducible study with evolution.

Actually, you can.

Are you a doctor, by any chance?
If so, let me repeat that I am talking generalities, not about specific people.

[asking]

Darwin in medical school - Stanford Medicine Magazine - Stanford University School of Medicine


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/biolog...ml#post1261628

"Doctors are not scientists" does not meant "doctors are not good doctors."

There is such a thing as medical research that is done scientifically. But dispensing antibiotics to children with earaches and -- even -- cutting open a heart patient is not research. It's treatment.

Would many doctors be better doctors if they understood more biology? Sure. Do they all need it? I seriously doubt it. The doctor at my local clinic who gives out antibiotics or doesn't clearly does not understand what causes antibiotic resistance. If he understood evolution, I'd be able to explain it to him. But with only a 6 minute appointment, there's no way. But I kind of doubt the gap in his knowledge has a huge impact because the rules he's following are set by the clinic and the insurers.

Should medical researchers have a solid foundation in evolutionary biology? Absolutely.

[Tj3]

Would many doctors be better doctors if they understood more biology? Sure. Do they all need it? I seriously doubt it. The doctor at my local clinic who gives out antibiotics or doesn't clearly does not understand what causes antibiotic resistance. If he understood evolution, I'd be able to explain it to him. But with only a 6 minute appointment, there's no way. But I kind of doubt the gap in his knowledge has a huge impact because the rules he's following are set by the clinic and the insurers.

Should medical researchers have a solid foundation in evolutionary biology? Absolutely.

What you are describing here is micro-evolution. As we have discussed before, there is no proof for macro-evolution, and a lot of holes in the theory.

[inthebox]

House


- yes a TV show, where else do 4- 6 doctors spend days on end taking care of one patient.


How gorilla gestures point to evolution of human language

Is something like this what is considered science?

How exactly do you get from 102 estures in Gorillas to human langauge?

Where is the reproducible study?

How do you draw the conclusion that gorilla gestures and human language are even similar?

Is that the same as saying a bicycle has wheels and a car has wheels so they are the same? Oh wait, I'm using examples of design.

Why don't these scientists use the same train of thought when comparing dolphin sonar and human language? Or human sonar? Oh wait, humans used there intelligence to develop sonar and radar.









G&P

[Akoue]

In brief, I think that either people who are indifferent to religion are disproportionately drawn to science or else the practice of science fills a psychic gap that might, in other circumstances, be filled by religion. I think that whichever it is is more the case with very intelligent people, the sort who end up in the National Academy of Sciences. I guess I lean toward the latter but it could very easily be both. I don't see any reason to choose.

I suspect you're right that there's no very compelling reason to choose. I also think you are right about what the candidates are for an explanation.

So I think that although the numbers don't explore it, I would predict that field biologists (and probably field geologists) would be less more likely to think in very long time spans and less likely to believe in God than comparable people in fields that do strictly lab work, such as someone in drug development, an industrial chemist, or an engineer who designs bridges.

Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that. I hadn't considered this but I'd be very surprised if you aren't right.

[inthebox]

"Doctors are not scientists" does not meant "doctors are not good doctors."

There is such a thing as medical research that is done scientifically. But dispensing antibiotics to children with earaches and -- even -- cutting open a heart patient is not research. It's treatment.

Would many doctors be better doctors if they understood more biology? Sure. Do they all need it? I seriously doubt it. The doctor at my local clinic who gives out antibiotics or doesn't clearly does not understand what causes antibiotic resistance. If he understood evolution, I'd be able to explain it to him. But with only a 6 minute appointment, there's no way. But I kind of doubt the gap in his knowledge has a huge impact because the rules he's following are set by the clinic and the insurers.

Should medical researchers have a solid foundation in evolutionary biology? Absolutely.

And how did they come to the conclusion that bypass would be helpful?

ACC/AHA guidelines and indications for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on C


Start at page 47 and see how much research was done to come to some nuanced indications for bypass.

What would the "evolutionist doctor"
Doctor say to the parents of a kid with an ear infection:
Otitis Media: Overview - eMedicine Emergency Medicine
Note the possible cause, bacteria being among the majjor causes with viruses also a consideration.
There is no sure fire way to know the exact cause in an office so:
No antibiotics, the kid gets worse, has damaged hearing, maybe a brain infection or death, if this is an untreated bacterial cause. Or it is a virus and self limited.
Do you risk doing nothing and hope that it is a virus or do you play the percentages and treat? Add into that consideration the medico-legal environment and parental expectations. Also consider that half the times a doctor prescribes an antibiotic it is taken improperly, not taken all the time or long enough, and this contributes to antibiotic resistance [which is not macro -evolution as Tom points out]




Now you provide the proof that further evolutionary studies in medical school in residency would make better doctors?










G&P

[inthebox]

eMJA: Spirituality, religion and health: evidence and research directions

There is mounting scientific evidence of a positive association between religious involvement and multiple indicators of health. The strongest evidence exists for the association between religious attendance and mortality, with higher levels of attendance predictive of a strong, consistent and often graded reduction in mortality risk.

Religious involvement and mortality: a meta-analyt...[Health Psychol. 2000] - PubMed Result

Here is more proof that religion and science do co-exist and are mutually beneficial






G&P

[asking]

I think that whichever it is is more the case with very intelligent people, the sort who end up in the National Academy of Sciences.

I suspect you're right that there's no very compelling reason to choose. I also think you are right about what the candidates are for an explanation.

So the interesting question here to me is how being intelligent or --at least -- being very good at what you do affects religious experience. Why are only 7% of NAS members believers compared to (what was it?) 30% for scientists generally? Is it just brains? Does science turn people away from God? Is there an interaction between being a scientist AND being a workaholic that drives down the numbers of believers? I don't have a handle on this at all. Are NAS members workaholics? Seems likely. Maybe they just don't have time for two things in their lives. Good male scientists tend to be married, with small families (I have no data, this is just observational). Good women scientists tend not to have children. I alluded to the demanding nature of academic science before. But the pressure isn't all coming from the outside. People like this tend to be driven generally.

This is basically somebody's dissertation topic.

[inthebox]

Maybe it is pride?

To believe in ones self or intellect alone leaves no room to consider the Creator.

Use to be doctors thought themselves as god, or so the stereotype went, but over the past several decades that is less true.

When you see how once healthy vibrant people can get sick and die, or just decline to the point of just being shells of their former selves, and despite doing all you can... it is humbling... all the brain power, logic, reason, technology is of little use at that time. That is not to say that basic research and development should not occur... but at that moment, it is kindness, empathy, compassion, patience, listening, and someone just being there or available that helps.

Probably anyone taking care of elderly parents understands this.

--------------------------------------------

I know to literally take the story of Noah's ark, and how he got a pair of every living thing on that ark, REALLY stretches the imagination...

But can you imagine, the Son of God, the Creator of the universe... washing feet?

Which is more believable?















G&P

[NeedKarma]

To believe in ones self or intellect alone leaves no room to consider the Creator.

Millions of us in the world are just fine with that.





















NK.

[excon]

Does science turn people away from God?

Hello again, asking:

That's the question!

The simple answer is YES. It turns them away, the same way growing up, turns people away from Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

Indeed, when faced with objective evidence to the contrary, most people give up their childish notions - except when it comes to religion.

excon