Creationism among doctors and the general public

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

A few years ago there was a survey of Creationism among medical doctors. The short of is that though medical doctors are not as Creationist as the general public, a large minority are Creationists. The N’s for some of the groups are rather small, but I thought it might be illustrative to compare the proportion of doctors who believed that humans were created by God as they appear now, and those who mostly or complete disagree with the contention that evolution is the best explanation for human life. Since the medical survey didn’t disaggregate Protestants into evangelical and mainline, I substituted from another survey.

Acceptance of Creationism for Humans
     
  Doctors General Public
Jewish 3 17
Catholic 11 35
Hindu 11 14
Orthodox 37 36
Muslim 43 51
Protestant 35 66

13 Comments

  1. It would also be interesting to see data for age groups for each category.

  2. I am glad that several of my doctors are Hindu, but I will look for Jewish ones in the future.

  3. I went to medical school and so I can say from personal experience that actually practicing medicine calls on only a fairly narrow range of scientific knowledge. In other words, you can easily be a good doctor while believing any number of utterly idiotic things about any number of scientific questions.

  4. Check with Polynices. As a genetics graduate student, I can attest that many of the MD students–while very smart and despite excellent memories–often know little genetics and can scarcely explain little more than the fundamental principles of biology (i.e. DNA -> RNA -> protein). In fairness, even professors have difficulty explaining how an RNA world could have developed into functional cells. But answering the latter demands far more.

  5. I went to medical school and so I can say from personal experience that actually practicing medicine calls on only a fairly narrow range of scientific knowledge. In other words, you can easily be a good doctor while believing any number of utterly idiotic things about any number of scientific questions
     
    As another physician, I disagree 
    you can be an adequate doctor 
    you cannot be a ” good ” doctor

  6. I notice that at this website the word creationist is used to mean anyone who believes in God.  
     
    Since the word creationism appeared, it has always meant belief in the literal biblical account of the creation, creation in seven days, and belief that the earth is around 5,000 years old.  
     
    But now, according to Razib, all people who believe in God (or even all people who believe that there is a reality beyond matter) are creationists. This eliminates the distinction between creationists, properly defined, and religious believers who accept the age of the earth and who think that life came out of God, but don’t claim to have a theory as to how this happened. Which, by the way, even the materialist scientists don’t have. No one knows how life began. Repeat: no one knows how life began Also, no one knows how the universe began. Also, no one knows how consciouesness began. Given that no one knows the origin of the most basic facts of the universe, some modesty before the mystery of existence is in order.  
     
    Indeed, such modesty is beginning to appear even among the Darwinisans. As stated in a New York Times article by Carol Yoon on February 9 (discussed and quoted by me here), the Darwinians admit they don’t know how species began. The upshot is that both the materialist scientists don’t know how life began, and even some admit that they don’t know how it evolved, and many religious believers make no claim to knowing how exactly life began and how it evolved.  
     
    Creationists, by constrast, do claim to know how life began and how all species came into existence: they were all created by God in their present form. There has been no gradual appearance of new life forms on earth over hundreds of millions of years. 
     
    My point is that the application of the word creationist to all theists is highly mischievous, meant to disparage all theists by putting them on the intellectual level of those who believe in a 5,000 year old earth in which all species were created in their present form.  
     
    Why does a website devoted to science use words in such an improper, tendentious, and misleading fashion?

  7. “I notice that at this website the word creationist is used to mean anyone who believes in God.” 
     
    No, just anyone who believes a deity or similar being directly created the world / biological organisms / humans. 
     
    There are plenty of theists who aren’t creationists.

  8. Why does a website devoted to science use words in such an improper, tendentious, and misleading fashion? 
     
    Ahem… 
    Not that this is a justification but, can you cite religious websites (of any kind) that does NOT “use words in an improper, tendentious, and misleading fashion”?

  9. please people: DO NOT FEED THE AUSTER!

  10. For a variety of reasons, a lot of intense Christians go into medicine (both nursing and medicine). There’s a long tradition of this. My bet is that Christian nurses are more creationist than Christian doctors. 
     
    People who go to school for tech training and job training frequently ignore everything else.

  11. Auster’s comment may be slightly confrontational but he does reveal a potential source of ambiguity in our discussions. There are many technical scientific terms that frequently pop up in the posts and comments section of this site. Oftentimes it seems that disagreements arise from different semantic interpretations of these terms. 
     
    My modest proposal is the creation of a companion link or wiki to house a glossary for gnxp.com to define the most important terms and concepts (e.g. SNPs, QTLs, linkage studies, homoplasy, etc.).

  12. razib said: 
    “please people: DO NOT FEED THE AUSTER!” 
     
    And from having been on the receiving end of Auster’s attacks I know how he consistently lies and distorts everything about the quarrel he started. His site is highly edited: the comments are highly edited, his exchanges with other people are highly edited, he posts selected parts of private conversation when and how he feels like it. He picks and chooses to paint the picture that he wants. And when you know, as I do, the real facts behind, before the manipulation of the image by Auster. When you, as I, have seen him lie and distort so consistently. Then you just cannot take him seriously anymore. All these other stories where he depict himself as the poor little righteous man under vicious attack from wicked people, why should they be believed since he so systematically lies and manipulates? 
     
    If I hadn’t been such a decent person I would have published selected parts of our private conversations (something Auster regularly does himself), in order to show how systematically he’s lying, and what a sanctimonious hypocrite he really is. 
     
    http://conswede.blogspot.com/2008/07/austers-tone-deaf-attacks-on-spencer.html

  13. ok now…i don’t want to get bogged down in sidelights. i’m closing this thread since i suspect we’ll soon be inundated with a long line of people who have gotten into disputes with larry. he already has put up a post on his blog, and no doubt soon his correspondents will start emailing him about how my treatment of him presages the collapse of western man and the Götterdämmerung. life is short.

a