60 Percent of Doctors Polled Reject Neo-darwinism
Jonathan Witt has an interesting post on a recent poll of doctors and their views on evolution and I.D. The headline of the press release spins the findings of the poll as the Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design.
A closer look at the details of the poll, however, are quite revealing. Question seven asks, "What are your views on the origin and development of human beings?"
Only 38% of almost 1500 physicisians surveyed were willing to sign on to the following statement: "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role."
Since entrance into the design camp only requires that an intelligent agent played some role, it would seem that only 38% of physicians fall outside the design camp. This would seem to contravene the headline attached to this press release.
As our knowledge of the information systems within the cell grows, look for the number of those willing to cling to the "divinity had nothing to do with it" position to shrink further.
Jonathan Witt has an interesting post on a recent poll of doctors and their views on evolution and I.D. The headline of the press release spins the findings of the poll as the Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design.
A closer look at the details of the poll, however, are quite revealing. Question seven asks, "What are your views on the origin and development of human beings?"
Only 38% of almost 1500 physicisians surveyed were willing to sign on to the following statement: "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role."
Since entrance into the design camp only requires that an intelligent agent played some role, it would seem that only 38% of physicians fall outside the design camp. This would seem to contravene the headline attached to this press release.
As our knowledge of the information systems within the cell grows, look for the number of those willing to cling to the "divinity had nothing to do with it" position to shrink further.
Comments
Gadfly
The way that the questions were asked forced the respondents to fit themselves into pigeonholes that don’t really describe their views well. I would bet if there were an agnostic option that advocated evolution without either denying or advocating divine involvement, it would have drawn heavily from the respondents who ended up placing themselves in either the “no supernatural involvement” or the “God initiated and guided” camps.
It also seems that many of the respondents would not be comfortable with Jonathan Witt’s and Weekend Fisher’s interpretation of what constitutes the intelligent design camp. According to the responses to question 10, 58% of all respondents took the position that intelligent design is religiously inspired pseudo-science. Would this not mean that a minimum of 30% of those that Witt and Fisher are claiming to be in the design camp (58-40 = 18; 18/60= .3) stated that the theory of intelligent design is religiously inspired pseudo-science?
Gadfly
Hmm. I'm fairly sure I've never posted my views on ID. That's a topic I usually leave to those more interested in it and who keep on top of the literature. The only somewhat-related post I've made on this blog is how little of the debate actually focuses on the data, which is (to my thinking) a bad thing. There's a passing comment in there as to ID'ers having one thing in common with creationist literalists: a different view than pure naturalists as to why certain things happened.
As a blogger I'm glad to stand by the pieces I've posted. But I always say something when I notice someone putting my name (or pen-name in this case) by something I haven't discussed.
Take care & God bless
WF
Gadfly
Forget the labels for a moment, and reflect on the fact that only 38% of a group which is highly trained in science and biology were willing to say that human beings evolved in a 100% naturalistic way.
The choice for common descent via natural selection only was crystal clear. Sixty-two percent did not fill in that circle.
This is telling -- especially when the hard line Darwinists claim that the reason that so few are buying into naturalistic evolution in this country is because of a poor science education. This poll is not helpful to their case.