Anyone else have a hard time believing in evolution?

[rentedmule]

---

Members don't see this ad.

...That's the beauty of the concept of God - a being postulated to exist outside the confines of the physical universe is unamenable to investigation by rules of inquiry developed within that universe. Sure, science can disprove occurrences recounted in biblical mythology, or explanations of how things are the way they are, but if that's what it means to "completely undermine," then it would seem by extension that science is incompatible with itself, as history is rife with instances in which fastidiously-held "scientific" beliefs have been refuted....

Well, isn't that convenient? A bunch of tribes in the desert come up with the idea that an all powerful being, who is not confined by anything we can ever conceive of, created us. By those parameters, not science and not anything else can disprove or question this idea because it is simply impossible. Must be nice to be clinically insane and ineligible for the asylum at the same time since you belong to the majority.

The difference between science and those biblical mythologies that it disproves (99.9999ad infinitum) is that science acknowledges when it's wrong and it acts to correct itself-- the refuted mythologies (most) maintain their claim of infallibility regardless. How exactly is science incompatible with itself when by definition science is a work in progress and it claims no absolutes?

....Evolution may be incompatible with creationism, but it is not incompatible with faith. After all, a theist can always fall back on the "why anything" argument. It's a stretch, but a number of people maintain that a god gave raise to the matrix of matter and physical laws which provided the context for evolution to occur....

That stance is the product of the evolution of thought 🙂eek🙂 in many religious dogmas. Like the Earth being flat position of The Church, it changed from a position that God created man as is, in his image to God seeding (I was going to use a better term, but alas...) the universe then things took their "natural" course. And, as you previously noted, there's always the question of where this God comes from. There are too many holes to address and not enough time...

Your attempt at devil's advocacy is admirable, but even you can't provide a good enough argument to sway the average thinking person out there.

 

[austinblnd]

I can't help but see God as an artifact of antiquated belief systems. Throughout the course history we've attributed less and less of what we observe around us to myths and fairytales and more to logical, understandable processes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion

 

[ponyo]

usually those "everything that happens for a reason" people follow eastern religions which is heavily based off of karma and reincarnation, which go hand in hand.

to them, the concept makes everything fair, a child dying is usually the karma of a previous life to them.

im not saying this is right, but a lot of times you see other faiths "importing" an idea or not understanding it and then giving lectures on it. I know the Bible says "you reap what you sow", and because I am not too fluent in the Bible, I cannot argue that they can support why a child dies according to their faith, im sure there is or not.

There are countless elaborations on the "everything happens for a reason" thing. One of the really famous ones was by Leibniz who believed that God chose the best of all possible worlds, such that it cannot be improved without greater net harm. If one imagines God as an atemporal being able to simultaneously analyze all the butterfly effects from every single occurrence in the course of history, it is conceivable that the sufferings visible to us, in the world ultimately chosen, in fact are small compared to the horrors that may transpire in the other possible configurations. Because God gave humans free will we can imagine that we can't have an absolutely perfect world on Earth, and so the existence of evil and suffering is a question of degree, which is consistent with the best-possible-worlds hypothesis.

I am by the way not remotely Christian or a philosophy major so I might have completely slaughtered the thoughts of some very intelligent people all at once. Sorry for that.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

to those of you who are saying something to the effect of "oh burnett's law lol live and let live lololol" - a person who rejects evolution as the most plausible scientific explanation to life as we know it today*, is one who does not possess a scientific mind. medicine is not a field for such a person. yes there is a lot of hocus pocus in medicine today, but this does not change the fact that medicine is a scientific discipline. end of story, no kumbaya-let's-all-be-friends. if you reject revolution, you in fact will make a terrible doctor. it indicates, loudly and clearly, that you are unable to shake your preconceived biases in light of overwhelming evidence. or you like to remain ignorant. either way, no dice.


*let's note here that evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories.

 

[Narmerguy]

Why are we even discussing this again? When has this argument ever lead to any type of compelling arguments or useful information? I don't understand why people get this angry about what other people believe.

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

Why are we even discussing this again?

Because this is SDN, the gathering of great minds and intellectuals! 😎

 

[Mithril]

Einstein wasn't religious, but I don't think he was an all out atheist. He was more of an agnostic. He did reject the personal God, but didn't call himself an Atheist.

I'm sorry but I hate it when people assume that agnosticism is some form of weak atheism. It's not. Stop trying to assume it is. Seriously, stop it. Agnosticism refers to the knowledge of the existence of gods. Atheism refers to the belief of the existence of god. Any self-respecting scientist should be an agnostic; however, you can be both an agnostic and an atheist (an agnostic atheist, someone who doesn't claim to have knowledge of whether a god does or does not exist, but doesn't believe in a god), which is what most people in this thread are and is what Einstein was.

Likewise, you can be an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist, although being a gnostic atheist is sort of weird.

 

[gravitywave]

Seriously, please take an upper division bio course on evolution.

Also, I know you probably hate Richard Dawkins, but read The Selfish Gene and/or Climbing Mount Improbable.

i'm a committed "evolutionist" and i despise Dawkins. Problem?

I respect what you are trying to do here, but if you do any deeper research in to the life and beliefs of Einstein, you will find that this quote was more whimsical than serious. Einstein was an atheist.

eh, saying Einstein was an atheist is a bit of a stretch, but if anything he believed in the 'god' of Spinoza, not the "God" of Abraham. props to whoever brought up the idea that he was a little coy on the subject, given his high public profile.

 

[flatearth22]

brb blindly worshipping 2000 year old jewish zombie and ceremoniously eating his flesh, drinking his blood and telepathically telling him he's my master to avoid eternal torment because that's what some people who didn't even know basic science and how the world works wrote in a book

brb questioning evolution, a scientific theory backed up by countless fossil, DNA, geological, and present day evidence.

 

[rentedmule]

The problem with staunch atheists that attack religion is that they don't understand religion and therefore can't attack it. If you use any permutation of the above arguments, you're just perceived as a fool. This is why Richard Dawkins does atheism a pretty deep disservice in serving as the informal spokesman for the movement.

They attack religion precisely because they DO understand it. They understand the importance of being born into a Catholic family vs. an Islamic family vs. a non-religious family has enormous ramifications on you as a person and how you will make decisions throughout your life. If you are a president who believes in a personal God and that God spoke to him the night before he decide that invading a country is the best method of solving X, Y, and Z problem then I have a big problem with you. That decision based on your "faith" directly affects me as a citizen of this country.

Not all theists are fundamentalists, obviously, but the problem is the same, just different magnitudes of it are manifested with the degree of belief in scripture or "revealed truth." The idea of believing something just because you have been conditioned to believe it as a child and not question it without any/much critical thought is scary to me, especially when your decision-making and how you live your life are guided by it.

the belief that religion and science can not coexist is a fallacy. the astrophysicist neil degrasse tyson describes how a star dies, explodes its guts of carbon and nitrogen and oxygen out into the universe. and it that process, the dust cloud forms planets and we are all connected to each other and to the earth chemically. that we are IN the universe, and it in us.

and when he looked into the sky, he was filled with reverence, awe, and a sense of belonging. the same feeling many feel during religious practices. you see, if the universe created mankind (through the big bang or whatever future relevant theory), then IT can be the creator. IT is the god.

religion does not HAVE to be the God of the abrahamic faiths. it does NOT have to be a magic man in the sky that zaps things into being. in fact, that is the most common and narrowminded thinking when it comes to what religion really can be.

btw how would you describe the religious scientists? they just dont THINK hard enough?

and back to the OP, just because you cant grasp the concept, doesnt make it hold any less ground.

That's all fine and dandy. I have no qualms with you believing in this spiritual mother universe "god" as long as you don't shove it down everyone else's throats, don't think less of people who don't share your belief, and don't base your whole life on it.

 

[DeltaPlaya]

I'm sorry but I hate it when people assume that agnosticism is some form of weak atheism. It's not. Stop trying to assume it is. Seriously, stop it. Agnosticism refers to the knowledge of the existence of gods. Atheism refers to the belief of the existence of god. Any self-respecting scientist should be an agnostic; however, you can be both an agnostic and an atheist (an agnostic atheist, someone who doesn't claim to have knowledge of whether a god does or does not exist, but doesn't believe in a god), which is what most people in this thread are and is what Einstein was.

Likewise, you can be an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist, although being a gnostic atheist is sort of weird.

I didn't assume that at all... lol lets not get butt hurt, I'm an agnostic, chill out.

 

[DeltaPlaya]

brb blindly worshipping 2000 year old jewish zombie and ceremoniously eating his flesh, drinking his blood and telepathically telling him he's my master to avoid eternal torment because that's what some people who didn't even know basic science and how the world works wrote in a book

brb questioning evolution, a scientific theory backed up by countless fossil, DNA, geological, and present day evidence.

 

[StoicJosher]

Religion is like a penis.. It is good that you have one and great that you are proud of it.. But I don't want you pulling it out in public or shoving it down my throat.

And to contribute more to the discussion - Evolution is a theory and a fact. Theory because it leads to more research and search for more information to add to the arsenal. It is a fact because there is enough information available to accept it as a fact in scientific circles.

 

[OnDemond]

I am not really a practicing Catholic and I consider myself a 'scientist', but I am having a hard time believing 'fully' in evolution. I guess it might play a role but it is hard for me to believe that all the minute mechanisms in, say, the human body, could have been produced by random mutation. The timeframe doesn't make sense to me (yes I know it has been over millions of years...but still).

Any thoughts?

Wow - you really seemed to have generated some response here - and some of it down-right nasty. It says more of what types of doctors "theWUbear" and the like will be.
Here's a 2-part short answer:
1) There a major difference between evolution and adaptation. Every species in the world must be able to adapt to their environment, whether it's a bacteria which picks up a gene which gives it resistance to a drug, or a bird which undergoes beak morphology change following migration. However, they will remain the same species and will not differentiate into species with radically different characteristics. A chimpanzee will never "evolve" into a human - not even in a million years.
2) The whole "big bang" theory is ridiculous from a logical standpoint. The idea of two particles (where did they come from) colliding to form enough matter for entire galaxies is laughable. The only way it makes sense is if you figuratively press the rewind button on history. If you had no starting point, or the point of time when creation happened, then there's no way to explain the universe other than the big bang. This is how the chicken/egg question arises. However, according to the Judaic school of thought (which is very different than the Christian Creationism), everything was created in its climax of its natural development, i.e. modern human was created as a 20-year-old, the chickens started out as young, fertile rooster and hen, etc.

 

[Mithril]

I didn't assume that at all... lol lets not get butt hurt, I'm an agnostic, chill out.

When you say Einstein wasn't an all out atheist but rather an agnostic, it implies that agnosticism is a weaker position than atheism like the two ideas are on some sort of gradient. Agnosticism and atheism are two completely non-mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[DeltaPlaya]

When you say Einstein wasn't an all out atheist but rather an agnostic, it implies that agnosticism is a weaker position than atheism like the two ideas are on some sort of gradient. Agnosticism and atheism are two completely mutually exclusive ideas.

Ok, bad wording, I just didn't want to be blunt about saying Einstein was not an atheist I guess.

Mah bad.

 

[Amba]

lol at the narrow definition of religion as being "what's in that stupid book, the Bible" or "evolution exists, science demonstrates the causes of many natural phenomena, therefore religion is stupid"

The problem with staunch atheists that attack religion is that they don't understand religion and therefore can't attack it. If you use any permutation of the above arguments, you're just perceived as a fool. This is why Richard Dawkins does atheism a pretty deep disservice in serving as the informal spokesman for the movement.

I suppose I'll add a couple notes. To start, I'd probably identify as a "fundamentalist," and I'm not a big fan of modernism. The prevalence of NickNaylor's comment here in this thread is astounding. For every crazy un-biblically sound Christian out there, there seems to be an equally ignorant atheist (quite a few in this thread). Not going to bother responding to most of them though, because sometimes it's best to not answer a fool according to his folly.

As for the evolution vs. intelligent design debate, I just have a hard time believing that evolution and Big Bang account for all the diversity we have on earth. Too many questions about the beginning of time, the amazing complexity of life, etc.. for me to believe evolution is the end all answer. Can I buy into microevolution and adaptation? Of course. Macroevolution? Partially, perhaps. Only learned about evolution in intro bio so I can't say I'm overly educated in it, though I probably will look at it more deeply in the future. I'll be doing a study on Genesis soon, so I'll be interested to see what John McArthur says in his commentary in my study bible.

 

[OnDemond]

When I was an undergrad, as a bio major, I took a few courses heavy in evolution from a very intelligent professor. He started off the course with a caveat, saying that evolution has not been proven to be true, has some major conflicts and contradictions, and leaves many areas unexplained.
The only reason, he said, that evolution is taught in the context of science and not God, is because we cannot fit God into science. Science is about teaching what we can explain, and we in our limited minds cannot fit God into that picture. So instead of saying God created the tiger with a set of sharp teeth because otherwise he couldn't survive and the food chain will be disrupted, we say that the tiger "evolved" teeth via natural selection. As I wrote earlier, natural selection can allow you to change between certain characteristics, but does not allow you to change species.
And no, my college was state-funded with no "religious" affiliations.

 

[TallScrubs]

and back to the OP, just because you cant grasp the concept, doesnt make it hold any less ground.

Just so we're on the same page, this was a clear troll. My honors thesis was on the possibility of phage therapy supplanting antibiotic therapy due to their superior (yet still limited) capacity to mutate and evolve.

 

[bubbadoc]

the belief that religion and science can not coexist is a fallacy. the astrophysicist neil degrasse tyson describes how a star dies, explodes its guts of carbon and nitrogen and oxygen out into the universe. and it that process, the dust cloud forms planets and we are all connected to each other and to the earth chemically. that we are IN the universe, and it in us.

and when he looked into the sky, he was filled with reverence, awe, and a sense of belonging. the same feeling many feel during religious practices. you see, if the universe created mankind (through the big bang or whatever future relevant theory), then IT can be the creator. IT is the god.

religion does not HAVE to be the God of the abrahamic faiths. it does NOT have to be a magic man in the sky that zaps things into being. in fact, that is the most common and narrowminded thinking when it comes to what religion really can be.

btw how would you describe the religious scientists? they just dont THINK hard enough?

and back to the OP, just because you cant grasp the concept, doesnt make it hold any less ground.

Well said.

I've never thought of it that way,
not to mention I've been jaded by the years of torture at the hands of my family and their religious beliefs.

 

[Amba]

There are countless elaborations on the "everything happens for a reason" thing. One of the really famous ones was by Leibniz who believed that God chose the best of all possible worlds, such that it cannot be improved without greater net harm. If one imagines God as an atemporal being able to simultaneously analyze all the butterfly effects from every single occurrence in the course of history, it is conceivable that the sufferings visible to us, in the world ultimately chosen, in fact are small compared to the horrors that may transpire in the other possible configurations. Because God gave humans free will we can imagine that we can't have an absolutely perfect world on Earth, and so the existence of evil and suffering is a question of degree, which is consistent with the best-possible-worlds hypothesis.

I am by the way not remotely Christian or a philosophy major so I might have completely slaughtered the thoughts of some very intelligent people all at once. Sorry for that.

One of the major Christian views is that even with all the suffering and death in this world, we shouldn't be amazed at the fact that it all happens; what we should be amazed at is the fact that God has let us live in the first place. Comes back to the idea of everyone being sinners and God's grace. Listen to the first ten minutes or so of the sermon "Don't Waste Your Life" by John Piper if you want a more in depth explanation.

 

[OnDemond]

I love the self-righteous application of Burnett's law in this thread.

It actually scares me. Are these commentors seriously considering medicine, which will require that they be open-minded, courteous, and respectful to those with whom they interact? I mean, wow, look at the animosity!! It's almost as if you were promoting slavery or genocide!

 

[dbeast]

BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION AND BEING RELIGIOUS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!! WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Yes, creationism is stupid just like the numerous other contradictions in every religious text. But if a certain "zombie Jew" (<<flatearth's words) chooses to heal the rejected lepers of society (who I'm assuming were uninsured at the time, or at least had a crappy HMO), I don't get how believing in that will make you a bad doctor. Burnett's law fail.

Brb, praying that God closes this thread. [<<not srs]

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

It actually scares me. Are these commentors seriously considering medicine, which will require that they be open-minded, courteous, and respectful to those with whom they interact? I mean, wow, look at the animosity!! It's almost as if you were promoting slavery or genocide!

But but...There is no place to put that on the application, they only ask you about your GPA and MCAT scores. 😱

 

[911 Turbo]

BELIEVING IN EVOLUTION AND BEING RELIGIOUS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!! WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Yes, creationism is stupid just like the numerous other contradictions in every religious text. But if a certain "zombie Jew" chooses to heal the rejected lepers of society (who I'm assuming were uninsured at the time, or at least had a crappy HMO), I don't get how believing in that will make you a bad doctor. Burnett's law fail.

Brb, praying that God closes this thread. [<<not srs]

I agree

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

Jesus was bankrupting the health insurance providers by providing free health care, socialist!!! 😱

 

[911 Turbo]

And although I am personally not religious, I don't see why being religious is a hindrance when practicing medicine...after all, most of the patient population is religious. However, with all these correlations between intelligence and atheism, I think that religion within the scientific and medical communities is beginning to become more stigmatized.

 

[OnDemond]

But but...There is no place to put that on the application, they only ask you about your GPA and MCAT scores. 😱

Your interview...where you will be evaluated by the interviewer, secretaries, janitor, and student who brings you lunch. Heheheh...
Nevertheless, you're right. Many of my classmates, unfortunately, are the worst d-bags I've met...I honestly don't know why they've chosen medicine.

 

[SexyDoctor]

Obvious troll is trololololollolling.

 

[IwannabeDrP]

..

 

[911 Turbo]

Yes, I think it is important to have an open mind with respect to origins as it is representative of your larger framework. However, just because someone believes in a big guy in the sky and another believes in the spontaneous coming together of matter does not make either a "better" doctor. It's better not to speak in absolutes.

Yeah...... after all, Ben Carson is a creationist

 

[EvilSponge]

I know what you mean. I'm not religious at all and believe in evolution, but at times it can be hard to actually believe that it did happen.

 

[911 Turbo]

I know what you mean. I'm not religious at all and believe in evolution, but at times it can be hard to actually believe that it did happen.

Why?

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

if you reject revolution, you in fact will make a terrible doctor. it indicates, loudly and clearly, that you are unable to shake your preconceived biases in light of overwhelming evidence. or you like to remain ignorant. either way, no dice.

That's not a fair claim to make. You can be a perfect doctor even if you do not agree with revolutions. They can be hurtful economically and bring the potential of anarchy rising, bringing disorder everywhere. Rise in crime, drug dealing, etc. Revolutions might sound good on paper, but you have to understand that there are consequences with one occurring, and afterward will require a number of years for the government to be rebuilt and order reestablished.

😴

 

[Etorphine]

TLDR, but evolution is the easy nut to crack, abiogenesis on the other hand.....I think right now there is the "competitive amino acid hypothesis," and then the "space meteor carrying life forms from a distant planet theory." The latter seems like a major cop-out...."we don't know what happened, so let's just say a meteor came and solved that problem.

From Wiki: "An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially, either in space or on Mars, a nearby planet."

 

[EvilSponge]

Why?

To make things clear, I believe in evolution 100%. But at times, I am simply shocked that everything came through by mutation and random chance. Yes, I still believe in evolution, but at times it is hard for my human brain to wrap around it all.

 

[911 Turbo]

To make things clear, I believe in evolution 100%. But at times, I am simply shocked that everything came through by mutation and random chance. Yes, I still believe in evolution, but at times it is hard for my human brain to wrap around it all.

hmm...but evolution is the opposite of "random chance"

 

[OnDemond]

hmm...but evolution is the opposite of "random chance"

Actually, evolution is by definition random chance...

 

[Suncrusher]

But it's not that everything works perfectly by random chance, it's that mutations occur by random chance, most of them are fail, and the very small amount that are advantageous are maintained through selective pressures. People who think that evolution is mind-blowing because everything can't work so beautifully or be so complex by random chance are demonstrating a fundamental gap in their understanding of the theory

Fundamentalism represents a "significant proportion" of religious people?

No, no, no.

When something like 40% of the US population rejects evolution in favor of young-earth creationism, I'd say that is a significant proportion of people holding fundamentalist religious beliefs. What would you call it

 

[GooseWing]

There is no God. Our lives have no purpose. We, and all living things around us, are simply the product of molecules, that inherent solely in their chemistry, were able to replicate themselves. Some were better at replicating than others. Flash forwards billions of years, all living things today are exquisitely tuned for survival. We are the vehicles that these molecules "use" to keep replicating.
Therefore, make use of the blink of time available to you, where everything in your body manages to hold itself together, to make life better for yourself and for those around you.

 

[Mithril]

This thread is hilarious. As an agnostic atheist who really doesn't give a damn of what other people's beliefs are, it's entertaining to see the age-old bickering is still going strong.

 

[911 Turbo]

Actually, evolution is by definition random chance...

Sorry...I meant that the mutations are random, but natural selection isn't.

 

[Gigantron]

It actually scares me. Are these commentors seriously considering medicine, which will require that they be open-minded, courteous, and respectful to those with whom they interact? I mean, wow, look at the animosity!! It's almost as if you were promoting slavery or genocide!

What you did there....I saw it. 😱

 

[NickNaylor]

They attack religion precisely because they DO understand it. They understand the importance of being born into a Catholic family vs. an Islamic family vs. a non-religious family has enormous ramifications on you as a person and how you will make decisions throughout your life. If you are a president who believes in a personal God and that God spoke to him the night before he decide that invading a country is the best method of solving X, Y, and Z problem then I have a big problem with you. That decision based on your "faith" directly affects me as a citizen of this country.

Not all theists are fundamentalists, obviously, but the problem is the same, just different magnitudes of it are manifested with the degree of belief in scripture or "revealed truth." The idea of believing something just because you have been conditioned to believe it as a child and not question it without any/much critical thought is scary to me, especially when your decision-making and how you live your life are guided by it.

That's all fine and dandy. I have no qualms with you believing in this spiritual mother universe "god" as long as you don't shove it down everyone else's throats, don't think less of people who don't share your belief, and don't base your whole life on it.

Do you see the hypocrisy in this? You're doing exactly what you say you have "no qualms" with.

Also, atheists most certainly don't understand religion other than in an academic context. Religion is as much a mindset as it is believing what is written in [insert miraculous book here]; how can atheists possibly understand that dimension of religion when they don't believe in it? Dawkins' childish arguments illustrate his limited and superficial understanding of religion extremely clearly.

I'm not an atheist hater. I'm just saying that Dawkins' arguments are pretty weak, and if you accept his books as some sort of amazing revelation and the final "GOTCHA!" on religion, that's pretty sad.

 

[OnDemond]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC6UrMTC73A[/YOUTUBE]

Warning: if you're an avid Mr. Bean fan, and have never watched Blackadder or any of his stand-up comedy, you might be crushed by the fact that Mr. Bean can talk...
Enjoy!!

 

[Suncrusher]

^ Put the url inside [youtube*] [/YOUTUBE*] tags (without the asterisks, and maybe without capital letters, i dunno. It works for me)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC6UrMTC73A&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

 

[Onres]

OP: I strongly suggest you reconsider your proposed career in medicine, and instead consider something more along your line of intelligence/education. For the sake of our future patients

A little harsh. I don't think believing in creationism makes for a bad doctor. I personally don't really care about religion, but it serves its purpose. You know what patients value in doctors? Respect for theirs (the patients') values, beliefs, and general open-minded attitude.

SDN truly blows my mind. The way people respond to each other. Think about what you are studying towards. You are studying to serve people during what is likely to be some of the worst times in their life. Please everybody stop pretending that because you are premed that you are somehow above other people's intellectual level or social status. It really makes no sense.

 

[NickNaylor]

When something like 40% of the US population rejects evolution in favor of young-earth creationism, I'd say that is a significant proportion of people holding fundamentalist religious beliefs. What would you call it

That's actually a significantly higher proportion than I'd expect; I'd be interested in seeing where you got that from.

Even so, the beliefs of 40% of the members of ONE faith doesn't at all speak for religion as an abstract entity. And I'm assuming that poll was limited to the US, which itself isn't representative of the beliefs of all Christians.

 

[MeowMeowCAT]

Everyone relax. Most medical schools require only 8 hours of biology, essentially just biology 1 and 2. While those semesters are nice and informative they do not exactly go to far in depth, they are somewhat very general and try to cram a lot of topics in two semesters. To get a more in-depth understanding you would have to take classes like microbiology, genetics, and other higher level biology course. There you would get much more appreciation for the complexities that is our world. It is not just evolution, there is so much more than that. It is a whole microscopic world that is constantly active on the microscopic level that makes the general view of evolution laughable.

However, since medical school admission believes that only 8 hours of biology is enough then you can not really blame the fact that there are doctors that do not believe in evolution. It is just general biology, it is not enough to change one's beliefs.

 

[Suncrusher]

That's actually a significantly higher proportion than I'd expect; I'd be interested in seeing where you got that from.

It's a pretty famous poll from December 17 2010 conducted by Gallup.