True/False Most dr's dont believe in GOD

[J Lucas]

I was talking to a physician and somehow we got on to the topic of theology and the sorts. Anyway he told me that from what hes observed most people of "higher intellect and schooling" such as dr's and scientist dont believe in GOD. I was pretty shocked to hear this so I figure id come here and pick your brains. Whats your take?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jao86]

I'm not a doctor but I'm on my way there, and I believe in God.

 

[Blake]

I'm not a doctor but I'm on my way there, and I believe in God.

Same here. I believe in the producer GOD, president of the Big Bang studios. 😀

 

[omarsaleh66]

I beleive in God too.

I just look at birds flying, grass growing, complicated GI, cardiovascular system, CNS and reflect how can all this come from evolution?

I feel like there is Master Designer that makes all this stuff work, like how our heart beats perfectly from the moment we are born till we die..

how are all these things from the Big Bang theory

I am deep

 

[OTheHorror]

This thread will quickly get moved because it will undoubtedly unleash a fire of fury...but our "Oh so wisemen" are only doing what was known they would do...

"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

1 Corinthians 1:18-25

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools..."

Romans 1:20-22

 

[stoic]

I'm an agnostic.

I've heard statistics on this before, but I can't pull up sources. From what I remember, it's about 60% believe and 40% don't.

 

[finnpipette]

I think there is a higher proportion of scientists who don't believe as opposed to doctors.

 

[azzarah]

I believe in G-d too.

 

[Gleevec]

I was talking to a physician and somehow we got on to the topic of theology and the sorts. Anyway he told me that from what hes observed most people of "higher intellect and schooling" such as dr's and scientist dont believe in GOD. I was pretty shocked to hear this so I figure id come here and pick your brains. Whats your take?

How is this surprising? Im not saying patients shouldnt use faith in their own healing, but most doctors and almost all scientists have a scientific mindset. By that token, we are naturally skeptical to indoctrination such as "the universe and the sun revolve around the earth" "evolution does not occur" "women are inferior" and "homosexuals are evil." True, there have and still are scientists who
will try to use science to demonstrate these things to back up religion, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Also, if you made me choose between a doctor who said "I will do every procedure and use every drug I can to try and cure your illness" and another who said "I will try out some drugs, but the rest is up to the Creator" I would take the former doctor 100% of the time.

And that doesnt even include the religious fanatics who think they are God and believe they can not mention treatment options to patients because it goes against THEIR beliefs.

In a way, Im kind of glad most doctors and scientists are skeptical-- otherwise there wouldn't be much progress. Religion is fine in a personal setting, and doctors should definitely encourage patients to follow their own beliefs, but all too often I read about people on SDN invoking God to justify imparting their paternalistic beliefs on a patient rather than give the patient all the options and helping them come to a decision.

 

[LuckyMD2b]

I believe in God and I think most physicians do to, esp. the old heads.

As for scientists, I think in some fields most of those people don't believe in God (i.e. theoretical physicists etc.)

But why does it matter what other's think? It has no affect on what you know to be true in your heart.

 

[LuckyMD2b]

How is this surprising? Im not saying patients shouldnt use faith in their own healing, but most doctors and almost all scientists have a scientific mindset. By that token, we are naturally skeptical to indoctrination such as "the universe and the sun revolve around the earth" "evolution does not occur" "women are inferior" and "homosexuals are evil." True, there have and still are scientists who
will try to use science to demonstrate these things to back up religion, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Also, if you made me choose between a doctor who said "I will do every procedure and use every drug I can to try and cure your illness" and another who said "I will try out some drugs, but the rest is up to the Creator" I would take the former doctor 100% of the time.

And that doesnt even include the religious fanatics who think they are God and believe they can not mention treatment options to patients because it goes against THEIR beliefs.

In a way, Im kind of glad most doctors and scientists are skeptical-- otherwise there wouldn't be much progress. Religion is fine in a personal setting, and doctors should definitely encourage patients to follow their own beliefs, but all too often I read about people on SDN invoking God to justify imparting their paternalistic beliefs on a patient rather than give the patient all the options and helping them come to a decision.

I think that there are some aspects of science that requires quite a bit of faith too.

I never proved the Schroedinger eqn., or knew anything about a Fourrier transform, so I had to just believe that the people that came up with this stuff knew what they were talking about.

How do you know that everyone isn't making the same mistakes? There's tons of stuff that was once considered scientific fact that we now know to be untrue.

As for medicine, I think that although we are moving towards a rational evidence based medicine approach. Much of what we practice is still empirical and we go with experience rather than what has been proven. Which in some instances would be virtually impossible with human subjects.

 

[velo]

what a great time to be a 10-ft. pole salesman!

 

[Lion-O]

I will be a physician, and I don't believe in God. (So I voted no.)

 

[Gerg]

Much of what we practice is still empirical and we go with experience rather than what has been proven.

I don't see how exploring the universe around us has to be at the exclusion of an overriding, external, intangible presence that one has faith in.

An anatomy professor once told me, we're not interested in the "Why?" of the human body, but the "How?".

The two are completely different questions. As a student of the medical arts, I am concerned with the latter. I'll leave the former up to the philosophists.

(Yes, philosophists. I like that word better than philosophers.)

 

[LuckyMD2b]

And there's a lot about the "HOW" that we still DO NOT know.

But we still go ahead and treat patients based on the best information we have. We never have 100% certainty with what we do, in that sense we don't have an absolute truth.

Alot of medicine is still base on physician discretion and intuition. Not on what has been proven, because no one has yet to prove it.

 

[electric]

I never proved the Schroedinger eqn., or knew anything about a Fourrier transform, so I had to just believe that the people that came up with this stuff knew what they were talking about.

How do you know that everyone isn't making the same mistakes? There's tons of stuff that was once considered scientific fact that we now know to be untrue.

But you could prove Schroedinger's eqn or find out about a Fourrier transform if you wanted to. You don't have to take it on blind faith the way you do with a religion.

We know that everyone isn't making the same mistakes because not everyone agrees about everything. That's the power of having peer review in science; there's no check like that in religion.

It's true, science is revised when old theories are discarded. Would it be better to insist that the original theory was right, even after we have proof that it isn't? No. So we modify our ideas to explain what may seem, initially, inexplicable.

 

[delicatefade]

How is this surprising? Im not saying patients shouldnt use faith in their own healing, but most doctors and almost all scientists have a scientific mindset. By that token, we are naturally skeptical to indoctrination such as "the universe and the sun revolve around the earth" "evolution does not occur" "women are inferior" and "homosexuals are evil." True, there have and still are scientists who
will try to use science to demonstrate these things to back up religion, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Also, if you made me choose between a doctor who said "I will do every procedure and use every drug I can to try and cure your illness" and another who said "I will try out some drugs, but the rest is up to the Creator" I would take the former doctor 100% of the time.

And that doesnt even include the religious fanatics who think they are God and believe they can not mention treatment options to patients because it goes against THEIR beliefs.

In a way, Im kind of glad most doctors and scientists are skeptical-- otherwise there wouldn't be much progress. Religion is fine in a personal setting, and doctors should definitely encourage patients to follow their own beliefs, but all too often I read about people on SDN invoking God to justify imparting their paternalistic beliefs on a patient rather than give the patient all the options and helping them come to a decision.

Good Lord I've never seen so many straw men in one post in my life.

 

[Caesars0331]

what a great time to be a 10-ft. pole salesman!

 

[susannaQ]

I got to know a couple in France who were doctors. They did not beleive in God because they said it excluded too many other possibilities about the existence and creation of the universe. Practicing medicine showed them that God exists as part of man's psyche and as a power structure in the social system. For them, life was too mysterious and there was too much unknown to believe in God.
Thus, they didn't believe in God for a lot of the same reasons that many people do beleive in God. They didn't believe in God because, in studying medicine, they realized that life was too big and mysterious to know all of it so well that you could attribute it to one G-d. Likewise, a lot of people do beleive in God because life is so big and mysterious and they feel they must attricute it to one power called G-d. Interesting how the same reasoning can be used for opposite conclusions... I liked that couple very much.
But, in my opinion, no, they firmly did not beleive in God and I do not think most doctors believe in God either. I am planning to go to medical school and I do not believe specifically in the God of the bible or the God of the Koran but I do beleive that life is full of mysterious forces not under our control.

 

[Gleevec]

Also, I wonder if specialties or careers that deal with death (doctors, funeral home owners, etc) believe more or less in G-d.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

The answer will depend on how you ask the question. If you ask something vague, like, "Do you consider yourself spiritual?" or "Do you believe in a higher power?" you will get perhaps a 60% majority of physicians saying yes (though if you ask the average American, you'll get a 95% or so yes rate). For the higher power though, the belief may well be a nebulous faith in the order of the universe of something more abstract than an active, paternal, intervening God. If you ask something like, "Do you attend church regularly," or, "Is there an organized religion whose major tenets you accept," you'll get more like a 40% or lower yes rate.

This is a very cultural issue though. If you look in, for example, any country in Northern Europe, you'll find the rate of outright atheism to be much higher than in the US. I think last time I saw a survey, the "yes" rate to a direct, "Do you believe in God" was less than 50% in several European countries even among the general population.

 

[SaltySqueegee]

Shouldn't the question be:

Do you, as a future doctor believe in a God?

and not Do you think other doctors believe in God?
How the heck am I suppose to begin to think I know what other doctors believe.

Hmmm....

 

[EMDream]

I beleive in God too.

I just look at birds flying, grass growing, complicated GI, cardiovascular system, CNS and reflect how can all this come from evolution?

I feel like there is Master Designer that makes all this stuff work, like how our heart beats perfectly from the moment we are born till we die..

how are all these things from the Big Bang theory

I am deep

I'm with you. The more I learn the more it seems liek there was some sort of specific blueprint. How can all this be random? It's not logical.

 

[Fermata]

I've put forth my theory on this to others before, so tell me what you think.

At higher levels of intellecualism....religious beliefs become much more polarized.

For instance....I've met scientists/doctors/etc. that are really religious people while others can be very staunchly anti-religious. Contrast this with the general public who are much more moderate.

Professionals also tend to be more partisan than the general public.

Just my observations. Feel free to add anything.

 

[stoic]

Of course it could all be random. We might have just gotten "lucky" (that is if the star dust interacting to form a short term entropy sink can get "lucky"). It's called the anthropic principle.

"What if we choose the wrong god? Then every week we're just making God madder and madder, that's what"

 

[deleted19731]

well as a future doctor (God willing), I do believe in god. I really didn't have that much faith going into undergrad, but once I got into the sciences everything just seemed to just fit just right. Like in chemistry my professor and I both agreed that there has to be something to cause some of this stuff to happen. Much of my faith in god is built upon my discussions on the subject with a man who has a PhD in Chemistry from Purdue.

To me the only real question is if we have a destiny or if god just puts us on this world expecting us to do our best?

 

[automaton]

what is puzzling and amusing to me is how the white man, asian man, black man, indian man, native american man, and so many others can adopt a religion from a totally different culture or race and believe it to be relevant to them. for example i was in utah touring the mormon church and there were men and women from countries around the world volunteering for the church, translating different languages. there must have been hundreds of the book of mormon translated to various languages. it's funny.

 

[EctopicFetus]

I voted yes that most Mds believe in God, and frankly so do I. That being said this quote from below only shows that people have been "spreading" the word to these parts of the world. I mean its not like Asians or Africans believed in Jesus before those who believed came there and (hmm how do I put this mildly) "spread" the word sometimes with force.

To use your analogy since all these people have TV. What does that mean. All these people believe the same thing cause it was presented to them and some decided to adopt it.

Also since I know many on here are of a specific religion I just want to remind everyone that worldwide there is no religion that encompasses over 50% of the worlds population. Let the FIRE BURN!

what is puzzling and amusing to me is how the white man, asian man, black man, indian man, native american man, and so many others can adopt a religion from a totally different culture or race and believe it to be relevant to them. for example i was in utah touring the mormon church and there were men and women from countries around the world volunteering for the church, translating different languages. there must have been hundreds of the book of mormon translated to various languages. it's funny.

 

[Fermata]

I voted yes that most Mds believe in God, and frankly so do I. That being said this quote from below only shows that people have been "spreading" the word to these parts of the world. I mean its not like Asians or Africans believed in Jesus before those who believed came there and (hmm how do I put this mildly) "spread" the word sometimes with force.

To use your analogy since all these people have TV. What does that mean. All these people believe the same thing cause it was presented to them and some decided to adopt it.

Also since I know many on here are of a specific religion I just want to remind everyone that worldwide there is no religion that encompasses over 50% of the worlds population. Let the FIRE BURN!

On a side note, I always thought that the Tower of Babel was one of the most interesting stories in the Bible.

 

[theduke]

The God of the Bible? I don't believe in it. I don't see how anyone with a scientific mindset could believe in it. But I believe that there is a higher intelligence or consiousnesss though I am not sophisticated enough to explain it philosophically

 

[velo]

"What if we choose the wrong god? Then every week we're just making God madder and madder, that's what"

"Oh my God! I'm going to die! JESUS, MOSES, BUDDHA, I LOVE YOU ALL!!!"

 

[thewebthsp]

"Oh my God! I'm going to die! JESUS, MOSES, BUDDHA, I LOVE YOU ALL!!!"

Heh, sounds like that emperor who wore the signs of every known god in the world.

I think being a militant atheist is a narrowminded view -- it assumes all causes of existence have already been and/or will be discovered by man, and that there is no possibility of there being a unified force/consciousness that intiated the begininnings of the universe. Something caused the big bang to happen, but what? Also, why can't consciousness exist in places other than human brains?

On the other hand one can, on a practical level, be a lot like an atheist and still believe in God. Like Spinoza's belief that God lives in everything, and his consciousness is most present in the scientific laws of the universe. Most important, everything that happens (is observable) in the universe can be investigated, researched, discovered, and explained. I take the Chasidic view that God is the laws of the universe Plus. The Plus is what we cannot/do not observe, but which is still present.

As for teleogical proofs of God, they are insufficient because if many attempts at something very unlikely are made, the probability of those events becomes likely. (Product Rule, in statistics I think). Knowing what time and gravity truly are is more fascinating.

So I believe in God but I am totally unsure what form God is in. I don't know what to make of revelation, but I do have respect for prayer and for religious morality.

 

[Howard Roark]

3rd year medical student here

I DO NOT believe in god, the Easter bunny, or Santa Claus.

 

[Fumoffu]

Only the night before an exam.

 

[djohnston]

Shouldn't the question be:

Do you, as a future doctor believe in a God?

and not Do you think other doctors believe in God?
How the heck am I suppose to begin to think I know what other doctors believe.

Hmmm....

I bet that if everyone took this poll again, answering the above question, we'd nearly all vote the same.

 

[Trisomy13]

I'm with you. The more I learn the more it seems liek there was some sort of specific blueprint. How can all this be random? It's not logical.

natural selection is a powerful force that can shape a highly refined product with the illusion of design.

 

[sunkists]

aside from the argument of intelligent design or existential philosophical logic tables... i feel that if i didn't believe in God, things would just be so hopeless. there be no redeeming value in the midst of human suffering, there would be no absolute authority of goodness and much of the world's laws and regulations would be in place to keep people from killing each other. there would be no room for the noble values of honor, grace, mercy and love. all of these desires turn into selfish motives to live and succeed.

in short... without God, my life would be so plain and pathetically worldly.

 

[susannaQ]

aside from the argument of intelligent design or existential philosophical logic tables... i feel that if i didn't believe in God, things would just be so hopeless. there be no redeeming value in the midst of human suffering, there would be no absolute authority of goodness and much of the world's laws and regulations would be in place to keep people from killing each other. there would be no room for the noble values of honor, grace, mercy and love. all of these desires turn into selfish motives to live and succeed.

in short... without God, my life would be so plain and pathetically worldly.

I never understood this. So, doesn't this mean you really beleive in "a redeeming value in the midst of human suffering, an absolute authority of goodness, and noble values of honor, grace, and mercy"? I mean, to me, that has nothing to do with a God: God is just the idea of a one unified being, power, and force.

I don't really see why someone can't believe in having honor, grace, and mercy on others and not beleive in God at the same time. Obviously, honor, grace, mercy, and unselfishness are human choices and human creations and come from human beings, don't they? I mean, even if you were to want to interpret this from a hard-core strict religious viewpoint, all the religions in the world say that the choice to have these values are within your range of free will, regardless of any higher power and regardless of any God: they are human choices, regardless of any Godly intervention. So, even the religious books say that it is your choice to value these values and that no God can make you do this. So I don't see how beleiving in God can equal beleiving in grace and mercy and unselfishness. These seem to be defined as human choices.

Didn't mean to take away from the Original topic but didn't want to pm you over this. Just something I could never understand: its seems like bad jusgement.

 

[Scooby Moo]

I don't really see why someone can't believe in having honor, grace, and mercy on others and not beleive in God at the same time. Obviously, honor, grace, mercy, and unselfishness are human choices and human creations and come from human beings, don't they? I mean, even if you were to want to interpret this from a hard-core strict religious viewpoint, all the religions in the world say that the choice to have these values are within your range of free will, regardless of any higher power and regardless of any God: they are human choices, regardless of any Godly intervention. So, even the religious books say that it is your choice to value these values and that no God can make you do this. So I don't see how beleiving in God can equal beleiving in grace and mercy and unselfishness. These seem to be defined as human choices.

I largely agree with you. It seems unrealistic to say that everyone who believes in God also necessarily believes in honor, grace, unselfishness, etc. Ideally, I'd like to think that one naturally led to the other but it just doesn't work that way (I'm not saying that it shouldn't, just that it doesn't.) On the other hand, some of the most honorable, unselfishess, genuinely "good" people I have known happen to not believe in God.

Call me jaded, but despite my personal belief in God...I still believe that people are not inherently good but are instead of the "how much can I get away with" attitude. Being "good" is a matter of choice.

 

[tugbug]

Also, I wonder if specialties or careers that deal with death (doctors, funeral home owners, etc) believe more or less in G-d.

I wonder about this too. It seems that dealing with death and emotional pain on a daily basis could cause a person to go in either direction. Either take comfort in some idea of God or blame/not believe in a God because of the trouble you see people around you having. Either way, I think the necessary skepticism involved in science and medicine, along with the ability to critically examine the world, will tend to keep the percentage of believers lower IN science than in the general population.

At the very least, I think people in the professions you describe would have to comfort and treat most people "as if" they believe.

A really big question for me is will I be as effective at treating/comforting the 95% of the population who are religious, since I am not. I dont know if I can convincingly say things like "He is in God's hands now" or "hes in a better place" etc... Not that saying that stuff is required, but it might be comforting to many.

 

[Firebird]

But you could prove Schroedinger's eqn or find out about a Fourrier transform if you wanted to. You don't have to take it on blind faith the way you do with a religion.

We know that everyone isn't making the same mistakes because not everyone agrees about everything. That's the power of having peer review in science; there's no check like that in religion.

It's true, science is revised when old theories are discarded. Would it be better to insist that the original theory was right, even after we have proof that it isn't? No. So we modify our ideas to explain what may seem, initially, inexplicable.

But religion isn't blind faith. There are many cases where the facts fit the story of the Bible and where science does not confound things written in the Bible.

And why do you need peer review in religion? My Christian peers are just as falliable as I am. Luckily I have a Guidebook and Map written by someone just a little smarter and better than me.

And there's no proof that is proving Christianity (or Creation) wrong. In fact, science is pointing towards a Creator.

For example...think about our minds...I know, that's a moderately cryptic statement, but go with it for a minute. If man came from evolution, then we are a product of very complex chemistry. Our minds are therefore made up of nothing but neuronal circuits...again nothing but complex chemistry. If that is the case, then the most basic chemistry of our brains works in a random manner. Thoughts are nothing more than random firings of electric potentials down axons that are then received by dendrites...and so on.

That makes our thoughts nothing but random electron flow. If that's the case, then explain cognition. We can control our thoughts. Therefore, our minds can't be made of randomly occurring chemical reactions. Therefore, evolution can not be the only cause of our creation.

Besides this, many of the "icons of evolution" are being disproven. The Urey-Miller experiment has been thrown out. Embryology does not shown great similarities between species, as once was believed. The list goes on.

I'm a Christian. I know too much science to be an atheist.

 

[LuckyMD2b]

A lot of people have said they don't see how someone with a scientific mind can believe in God.

Having faith in God cannot be proven, otherwise it wouldn't be a faith.

2ndly I don't care what others think about religion or God. But my religion (Christianity) is the primary motivating factor in my choice of career and the way that I chose to live my life. I'm not perfect and I fall short of my high expectations all of the time. I'm very weak in some aspects of my life. But I believe that the best way to serve God is to use my abilities (gifts) in a way that will be truly helpful, meaningful, and inspiring to myself and others. When I see patients I try to show compassion and understanding without judgement, the way that my religion teaches me I should treat everyone.

The doctor that I wish to one day be uses his scientific knowledge of human biology to help people as a way of serving the Will of God. Not myself or other men or women, and I know that I will be happy doing it and all that I need in life will come to me through my faithfulness.

You don't need religion to wish to help others or do good things, but my religion helps me to want to do these things.

 

[stoic]

I'm a Christian. I know too much science to be an atheist.

HAHAHHA. you christians crack me up.

 

[adrenal_medulla]

I believe in God. I don't hate homosexuals, although I think homosexuality is wrong. I don't believe women are inferior, I haven't made up my mind about evolution other than believing that Adam and Eve were the first humans God put on this earth. I don't believe these things blindly, either. I am also very scientifically minded. The thing I have a problem with is ignorant people that assume that if another person is religious it is due to their being less educated or more ignorant. Such reductionistic philosophies are a religion in themselves. It requires a certain amount of blind faith to assume that nothing exists outside of what we can observe. A truly honest person in the pursuit of real knowledge can acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a Supreme Being. Personally, as flawed as man is, I'd prefer to put my faith in something that claims to be greater than man. Truth will always exist in spite of how we try to explain it or explain it away. For me, science helps me glimpse into how God has organized the world around us.

 

[ldona]

I believe in God, and I think that scientific study in any of its forms gives me the opportunity to learn about how He went about creating all that we are and the environment in which we live. I would say that the whole purpose of faith is that it requires belief in something without the proof that would normally be necessary to draw conclusions. But, I did not come to have faith over night, and I think that it takes a conscious effort to embrace the concept in general and is not an easy road to go down once the choice to beleive has been made. I think this makes sense, but if not I do apologize...

 

[Rapid Decomposition]

A really big question for me is will I be as effective at treating/comforting the 95% of the population who are religious, since I am not. I dont know if I can convincingly say things like "He is in God's hands now" or "hes in a better place" etc... Not that saying that stuff is required, but it might be comforting to many.

We actually had a big elective on spirituality in medicine at my school. I think the consensus at the end, if there was one, was that you have to yield to the patient's wishes to determine how far a doctor should go in bringing spirituality into the medical relationship. Like you say, some patients would find this extremely comforting while others would disapprove or even be offended. But I don't think that NOT bringing spiritual issues up, if you aren't religious, is a problem. There are religious staff in hospitals to take care of these things.

One spiritual issue that I dislike is that some believe so strongly in their faith that really aren't willing to yield to other peoples' beliefs. I mean, it's fine if people are committed to a particular perspective but I think that since there are so many faiths, and that no one can either prove or disprove their beliefs, that there should be a mutual respect between people with different faiths. In my opinion this should certainly apply in a doctor patient relationship.

I was raised Catholic but I guess I'm kind of a Christian agnostic. I view my religion more like a theory than a faith. Natural selection has been observed in the short term but it is difficult for me to wrap my mind around the theory that life arose from the primordial soup and from these early beginnings we eventually arose, so I think a creator is possible or even likely, but I certainly won't say that the Book of Genesis is fact or that evolution is not how it happened. I view organized religion as a human creation, and therefore susceptible to human faults, hypocrisy, the influence of politics, etc. so I am skeptical of some things, the Bible for instance. So I'm kind of in the middle.

 

[electric]

Firebird, why do we have organs that we don't use? Doesn't sound like a very intelligent design to me.

The idea that evolution is random is so crazy I can't even start to argue with you. Have you completed any biology courses at all? I really think you are missing some major concepts when you state that "If man came from evolution, then we are a product of very complex chemistry". So we aren't complex chemistry? Come on.

I would really recommend doing some reading. Find out what peer review actually is and how much of a joke 'scientific proof' of the bible can be. The information might suprise you.

 

[Seaglass]

Electric, it is troubling that you attack someone over something that generally people know little about, especially "scientists." So far you haven't said anything that suggests you know more than anyone else. So why don't you do a little reading. You can start with just about anything Thomas Kuhn has written lately. You see there is a very large field devoted to just this subject, made up of scientists and theologians, and you would be surprised just how deep it goes and just how little credence most of what you and I take for "scientific fact" is given.

As for peer reviewed studies, there are many out there that show a statistically significant effect for intercessory prayer even when the study populations don't know who is being prayed for. I will post a list when I get home and get my notes out.

C

 

[electric]

Seaglass, I'm sorry you feel that asking how vestigial organs follow the idea of intelligent design is 'attacking'. I would feel it's a valid question, but anyway...

I have done a fair amount of reading about evolution because I find it interesting. I don't bother reading much about 'scientific proof' of the bible because I find it about as interesting as 'scientific proof' of the Koran. In other words, not at all.

But if the study you are refering to was the one involving pregnant women in Korea, check out "http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,660053,00.html" and "http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040614/04/".

The bottom line for me is that you can believe whatever you want but when you try to 'scientifically prove' your beliefs, you're on shaky ground.

As far as Thomas Kuhn's 'latest' writings, what did you have in mind? If you mean just general paradigm shifts, I'm familiar with that. I'm not sure how you are applying it to this conversation.

Since we're trading reading material, check out Skeptic at http://www.skeptic.com
Micheal Schermer's column is one of my favorites.

 

[Gut Shot]

Besides this, many of the "icons of evolution" are being disproven. The Urey-Miller experiment has been thrown out. Embryology does not shown great similarities between species, as once was believed. The list goes on.

Been hittin' the Jonathan Wells, have we?

http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/

Cheers!