 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / April 200660 percent Of Doctors Doubt Darwinism
http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm Doctors Doubt Darwinism DRS. MICHAEL A. GLUECK & ROBERT J. CIHAK If you believe you are just a blob of cellular tissue, please raise your right protoplasm. Does your own doctor treat you like a human being, or just an accidental collection of chemicals, haphazardly arranged by dumb chance? A recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research suggests an answer. The poll finds that 60 percent of doctors reject the mechanistic Darwinian belief that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role." Only 38 percent of the doctors polled agreed with this statement. Given their "hands on" experience with individual human beings, doctors appreciate the intricate design implicit in every part of the body. For example, an eye surgeon knows the intricacies of human vision in detail; so vague evolutionary stories about how the eye appeared by a process of random variation and selection do not overawe him. Darwin himself said, "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Notice that Darwin shifts the burden of proof away from his theory. Despite this rhetorical sleight of hand, the eye is no friend of his theory, both because Darwinists have utterly failed to offer a detailed, plausible account of how it might have evolved, and because design theorists have laid out positive evidence showing that the eye has the hallmark of designed systems. And the eye is just one of countless organs and interdependent systems in the body whose origin defies Darwinian or other solely mechanistic explanation. Recent discoveries about the inner workings of the cell provide additional powerful evidence for design. In Darwin's time, the cell was just a black box, a great unknown. The discovery that in fact, all cells possess astounding complexity and meticulously calibrated function has convinced a growing number of scientists that modern evolutionary theory is utterly inadequate to explain how this complex organism could have developed. My fellow physicians and I were taught that evolution is how we came to be, starting from those first mysterious single-celled living organisms. Alternative theories are not usually presented to medical students or even to biologists studying for doctoral degrees, since such theories are quickly branded as "creationism," mocked, and dismissed. So how is it that 65 percent of the doctors surveyed by the poll, even though they obviously received the full dose of evolution-as-the-only-answer indoctrination in medical school, responded that they thought intelligent design should be allowed or required to be taught in schools along with Darwinian evolution? Why is this issue important to patients treated by doctors? If a doctor believes human beings and other creatures do indeed show evidence of intelligent design, those same human beings are due significantly more reverence and respect than if they simply reflect natural selection working on a pointless series of chance events. If a person is due no more respect than a chicken or lump of clay, he is as easily disposed of should someone more powerful (such as the doctor or a government agent) decide he has outlived his usefulness. That anti-human attitude isn't science fiction. It's the stated position of some contemporary bioethicists. Fortunately, mounting evidence in the medical sciences points in a different direction - toward the conclusion that you and I were designed for a purpose. Detailed poll results are here. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., and Robert J. Cihak, M.D. "Doctors Doubt Darwinism." NewsMax.com. (June 7, 2005). This article is reprinted with permission from NewsMax.com. THE AUTHOR Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., and Robert J. Cihak, M.D. are columnists on medical policy matters for NewsMax.com. Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., is a multiple award winning writer who comments on medical-legal issues. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow and a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Both contributors are Harvard trained diagnostic radiologists. 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.... > 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.... Around 385 million years ago the first aquatic species crawled onto land creating the first evolutionary branch of earth dwelling mammals from which man evolved BBC Today...... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm > 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.... Liar! I have irrefutable proof that the actual number is 91% > > 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.... > > Liar! I have irrefutable proof that the actual number is 91% The latest figure I have is that around 94% of people are inclined to modify statistics >http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > >Doctors Doubt Darwinism > >DRS. MICHAEL A. GLUECK & ROBERT J. CIHAK "Editor's Note: Robert J. Cihak wrote this week's column. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a Senior Fellow and Board Member of the Discovery Institute, the leading think tank and research facility on intelligent design theory." -- "O Sybilli, si ergo Fortibus es in ero O Nobili! Themis trux Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" >A recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and >Religious Research suggests an answer. The poll finds that 60 percent >of doctors reject the mechanistic Darwinian belief that "Humans evolved >naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any >role." Only 38 percent of the doctors polled agreed with this >statement. "Only 38 percent"? This figure indicates that physicians are much less, not more, likely than the general public to believe "God" played a role in human origins. Incidentally, another 42% agreed with the statement "God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings". -- "O Sybilli, si ergo Fortibus es in ero O Nobili! Themis trux Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" Pound of Crumpet wrote: > http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > > Doctors Doubt Darwinism [snipped] > Detailed poll results are here. And some of the results contradict the authors' conclusions more than once; Q6. Do you agree more with the evolution or more with intelligent design? Total N = 1482 More with evolution 63.16% (936) More with intelligent design 33.67% (499) No Opinion 3.17% (47) Q8. What are your views on Evolution? Total N = 1482 reject it 15.18% (225) accept it 77.73% (1152) undecided 7.09% (105) At least, the statistics indicate some confusion on the part of the good doctors questioned. Perhaps a statistician/pollster would care to comment? On a side note, I wouldn't care to visit a doctor that declared goddidit, on the basis that he'd probably suggest godshouldfixit.  SignatureRegards Alex McDonald > Pound of Crumpet wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > good doctors questioned. Perhaps a statistician/pollster would care to > comment? I'm not an expert pollster but I conduct some survey work. One of the problems with this work is that inorder to be valid, the responses must contain my actual beliefs as an option. Otherwise I'm trying to make my beliefs fit the "inappropriate" responses I'm offered. It's easy to manipulate results this way; or obtain bogus results. I can simply believe in god, believe in evolution, and not really give much thought about or even care how the two beliefs are reconciled; or have some ideas of my own about how they are reconciled. Either way, my beliefs were not represented in the response choices, so it's not a valid representation of what I believe. How should one who believes in god and evolution answer these stupid questions? No one knows!!!! Thus, if these types of options are not given, it's impossible to know what the results they obtained mean, and they probably do not mean anything. finally, as you did here, in order to gain a picture of what the results might really mean, you need to look at all of the responses to all of the questions (assuming there are some good ones asked), and create a possible explanation. The authors did selective reporting, probably for a good reason, as you point out. > On a side note, I wouldn't care to visit a doctor that declared > goddidit, on the basis that he'd probably suggest godshouldfixit. Previously, on alt.atheism, alextangent in episode <1144269637.716586.94500@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... > Pound of Crumpet wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > At least, the statistics indicate some confusion on the part of the good > doctors questioned. Perhaps a statistician/pollster would care to comment? I suspect it's that the either/or nature of the questions didn't allow room for the ones who take a theistic interpretation of evolution. There are shades and degrees in that view. Running from the rather deistic "an organizing force started it but it's been natural forces since" to "god oversaw and guided the process all the way." The former might say "more evolution" and the latter "more intelligent design" when *both accept evolutionary theory. SignatureMark K. Bilbo -------------------------------------------------- "As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans for everything bad that happened during and after Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people who lived here were much more prepared for a big storm than the federal government that promised us flood protection." http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC I just love this one... "For those of us who grew up in Louisiana, 'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary. Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras." http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC "Everything New Orleans" http://www.nola.com > Previously, on alt.atheism, alextangent in episode > <1144269637.716586.94500@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > The former might say "more evolution" and the latter "more intelligent > design" when *both accept evolutionary theory. Exactly. I caught the same thing. I've known several theistic scientists and they all accept evolution as a natural process which may have been initiated by a god, but after that is was all biology. SignatureJohn Hachmann aa #1782 "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -Voltaire Contact - Throw a .net over the .com > http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > > Doctors Doubt Darwinism If you have a doctor who is using any vaccinations in treatment, he or she has already bought into evolution. turk SignatureMy last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place. -- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004) Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote in alt.atheism > http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > Doctors Doubt Darwinism > DRS. MICHAEL A. GLUECK & ROBERT J. CIHAK > If you believe you are just a blob of cellular tissue, please raise > your right protoplasm. > Does your own doctor treat you like a human being, or just an > accidental collection of chemicals, haphazardly arranged by dumb > chance? Do you ever respond to any of your threads? SignatureElroy Willis www.elroysemporium.com Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism > Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote in alt.atheism >> http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm >> Doctors Doubt Darwinism >> DRS. MICHAEL A. GLUECK & ROBERT J. CIHAK >> If you believe you are just a blob of cellular tissue, please raise >> your right protoplasm. >> Does your own doctor treat you like a human being, or just an >> accidental collection of chemicals, haphazardly arranged by dumb >> chance? > Do you ever respond to any of your threads? No response to even a simple yes/no question as above. SignatureElroy Willis www.elroysemporium.com Elroy Willis schrieb: > Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Elroy Willis > www.elroysemporium.com He spends so much time with writing, he can't waste his time with reading. I call such people trolls. Does anyone have a better name? Wieland the Smith <reneschulz@gmx.net> wrote in alt.atheism > Elroy Willis schrieb: >> Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in alt.atheism >>> Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote in alt.atheism >>>> If you believe you are just a blob of cellular tissue, please raise >>>> your right protoplasm. >>>> Does your own doctor treat you like a human being, or just an >>>> accidental collection of chemicals, haphazardly arranged by dumb >>>> chance? >>> Do you ever respond to any of your threads? >> No response to even a simple yes/no question as above. > He spends so much time with writing, he can't waste his time with > reading. I call such people trolls. Does anyone have a better name? Blowhards? SignatureElroy Willis www.elroysemporium.com > Elroy Willis schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > He spends so much time with writing, he can't waste his time with > reading. I call such people trolls. Does anyone have a better name? I do. *cracks open thesaurus* a.s, blockhead, boob, booby, cretin, dimwit, donkey, dork, dumb ox, dumbbell, dunce, dunderhead, fool, halfwit, ignoramus, imbecile, idiot, jackass, jerk, kook, meathead, mental defective, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, pinhead, pointy head, simpleton, stupid, tomfool, twit, yo-yo I got more. Signature**************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * "Torture has never been a reliable means of * * extracting information.... One wonders why it * * is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard * **************************************************** -- > Elroy Willis schrieb: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > He spends so much time with writing, he can't waste his time with > reading. I call such people trolls. Does anyone have a better name? In other words you cannot refute the evidence he presented so you respond by calling him a troll. Since you are NOT qualified, all your statement amounts to, is saying that only those who believe as YOU do, are considered to be "qualified" by you, which only means that you've proved your bias. Thank you. :) In other words, since you can't dispute it, try to change the subject. "Richard Dawkins" meckerte (German for bitched): > In other words, since you can't dispute it, try to change the subject. If you had read the thread, you would have noticed, that the subject had already been changed in this thread: >> > Do you ever respond to any of your threads? >> No response to even a simple yes/no question as above. But reading seems to be not evereyone's strong side, you for example seam to be much better at bitching > "Richard Dawkins" meckerte (German for bitched): > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > seam > to be much better at bitching And spelling seems not to be everyone's strong side,you for example *seem* to be much better at being an illiterate idiot. > "Richard Dawkins" meckerte (German for bitched): > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > seam > to be much better at bitching And spelling seems not to be everyone's strong side,you for example *seem* to be much better at being an illiterate idiot. snip > In other words you cannot refute the evidence he presented so you respond by > calling him a troll. > Since you are NOT qualified, all your statement amounts > to, is saying that only those who believe as YOU do, Riiiiiight dorkins: noun (as posted) a.s, blockhead, boob, booby, cretin, dimwit, donkey, dork, dumb ox, dumbbell, dunce, dunderhead, fool, halfwit, ignoramus, imbecile, idiot, jackass, jerk, kook, meathead, mental defective, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, pinhead, pointy head, simpleton, stupid, tomfool, twit, yo-yo and godbothering spamming diddler of newsgroups > snip >> In other words you cannot refute the evidence he presented so you respond [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > yo-yo > and godbothering spamming diddler of newsgroups My only stipulation in the continuation of the crippling of your God hating a.s of a grease stain upon the floor of our pristine newsgroup goes to at least one one meal hence one thread per day from now on.Since I am an expert in the care and feeding of you confused rain soaked morons.Face it mongoloid, you're nothing but an overblown sack of cat sh.t. Your talent is at best mediocre and at worst, makes velvet yowie look like John Steinbeck. If it wasn't for your humongous ability to take an a.s whupping, you'd have no realgame, you gimp. >> snip >>> In other words you cannot refute the evidence he presented so you [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > look like John Steinbeck. If it wasn't for your humongous ability to take > an a.s whupping, you'd have no realgame, you gimp. Awww, isn't that cute, Dorkie managed to find his way to an insult generator program again. That, or it's another one of his plagiarized posts. >>> snip >>>> In other words you cannot refute the evidence he presented so you [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > generator program again. That, or it's another one of his plagiarized > posts. Awwww isn't that cute,drumming up false accusations because you can't refute the evidence or possess a sharp whit like me. Tell us God-Hater,why are you here? >>>> snip >>>>> In other words you cannot refute the evidence he presented so you [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >the evidence or possess a sharp whit like me. >Tell us God-Hater,why are you here? Once again you refuse to acknowledge your lack of understanding and lack of evidence while making ever more absurd accusations. It becomes ever more clear that you are the enemy of Christianity. >>>>> snip >>>>>> In other words you cannot refute the evidence he presented so you [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > of evidence while making ever more absurd accusations. It becomes ever > more clear that you are the enemy of Christianity. Now lets properly translate this again: Once again you refuse to acknowledge your lack of understanding and lack of evidence while making ever more absurd accusations. It becomes ever more clear that you are the enemy of atheism. >>>> snip >>>>> In other words you cannot refute the evidence he presented so you [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > refute the evidence or possess a sharp whit like me. > Tell us God-Hater,why are you here? Tell me Asswipe, what does it feel like to be a sharp 'whit' :-)))))? > http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > role." Only 38 percent of the doctors polled agreed with this > statement. What is here DOES NOT support the conclusion that "doctors reject the mechanistic Darwinian belief". It would seem to indicate SIMPLY that at least 60% believe in god. We can't be sure from this data that the 60% mentioned believe in god, but it's a good bet; and we cannot say what proportion of the 38% are believers either. All that can be concluded for sure from what is presented here is that an unknown % of physicians believe in god, and an unknown % may/maynot believe in evolution. Not very conclusive. [snip] > So how is it that 65 percent of the doctors surveyed by the poll, even > though they obviously received the full dose of > evolution-as-the-only-answer indoctrination in medical school, > responded that they thought intelligent design should be allowed or > required to be taught in schools along with Darwinian evolution? Given the moronic interpretations of teh previous data, one would have to see the detailed methods, and the questions that were asked before anything could be believed from survey work, and interpretations that these (apparent) fools conducted. > http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > Fortunately, mounting evidence in the medical sciences points in a > different direction - toward the conclusion that you and I were > designed for a purpose. What is the purpose of the designer? RS Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode <1144268310.216848.125590@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>... > Detailed poll results are here. So, I went to the cited poll and found things like this: http://www.hcdi.net/polls/J5776/ Only 18% believed "god" created humans as they are. 80% believe evolution was involved either solely or as a process used by "god." 78% accept evolution. Only 15% reject it. > So how is it that 65 percent of the doctors surveyed by the poll, even > though they obviously received the full dose of > evolution-as-the-only-answer indoctrination in medical school, responded > that they thought intelligent design should be allowed or required to be > taught in schools along with Darwinian evolution? Interesting that. 35% said "prohibit" ID. 15% said "require." 50% said "allow." So you can also look at it that 85% are against requiring ID. 58% characterized ID as "religiously inspired psuedo-science." So, no, 60% don't "doubt Darwinism," almost 60% believe ID is *crap. > This article is reprinted with permission from NewsMax.com. Gee, NewsMax being deceptive. How *unusual. (not) SignatureMark K. Bilbo -------------------------------------------------- "As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans for everything bad that happened during and after Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people who lived here were much more prepared for a big storm than the federal government that promised us flood protection." http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC I just love this one... "For those of us who grew up in Louisiana, 'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary. Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras." http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC "Everything New Orleans" http://www.nola.com > http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you believe you are just a blob of cellular tissue, please raise > your right protoplasm. Protoplasm raised. > Does your own doctor treat you like a human being, or just an > accidental collection of chemicals, haphazardly arranged by dumb > chance? I'd prefer he treat me like a collection of chemicals and fix whatever problem I might have. SignatureDenis Loubet dloubet@io.com http://www.io.com/~dloubet On 5 Apr 2006 13:18:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrotC:DRIVE_E >A recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and >Religious Research suggests an answer. The poll finds that 60 percent >of doctors reject the mechanistic Darwinian belief that "Humans evolved >naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any >role." Only 38 percent of the doctors polled agreed with this >statement. Given that only 5 percent of the general populace is atheist, this is quite impressive -- it means those who actually know what an incredible broken mess the human body is are about EIGHT TIMES more likely to realize no designer, much less an 'intelligent' one, was evolved. Of the remainder, as many have noted, the majority take a deistic 'god guided evolution' approach, which is basically a way of reconciling childhood conditioning with the way the world actually is. If it makes them feel better to believe that, every few million years, God sent an angle down to tinker a bit with some DNA, I can live with that. The author, of course, is lying about evolution -- as most critics do. No evolutionist claims that 'a cell' spontaneously appeared. Eukaryotes -- the ancestors of all animal life -- took two billion years or so to come into existence after the first self replicating molecules appeared. Two billion years is a long, long, long, time. Further, the eye is about the worst example he could have picked, since eyes in every possible state of development from light-sensitive splotches to full developed organs *currently exist* in nature -- and computer experiments have shown how easily the 'design' of the eye can appear by chance *and selection*. (It's worth noting how those who don't understand evolution or who lie about evolution (there is no one who does not 'believe' in evolution -- it's not a matter of belief) keep saying 'random chance', when, in fact, evolution is not random. It driven by ruthless selection, with beneficial developments being constantly reinforced.) So we have a 'doctor' who is either lying about evolution or who didn't pay any attention in his biology classes. Either way, I hope he never operates on me. SignatureNewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth > On 5 Apr 2006 13:18:30 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet" > <soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrotC:DRIVE_E >>A recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and >>Religious Research suggests an answer. The poll finds that 60 percent [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > likely to realize no designer, much less an 'intelligent' one, was > evolved. The way that the Creationists always single out the human eye as the perfect example of Gawd's wonderful design has always struck me. Particularly considering that due to my own genetics, I have vision worse than 20/450. I guess Gawd's Intelligent Design didn't include me being able to read. Some of the poll results are interesting, though: http://www.hcdi.net/polls/J5776/CumulativeReportNoGraph.htm Notice, for example, the high number of Creationists among Muslims. (And in general, the inclusion of religions other than various Christian sects provides some interesting data.) SignatureDan Clore My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_: http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/ News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind. -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms" >http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >accidental collection of chemicals, haphazardly arranged by dumb >chance? My own doctor? Surely you live in a dream world where people have their own doctors...Now then, how would I discern whether or not I am being treated as either a human being or an accidental collection of chemicals? Has it been shown that these are mutually exclusive? snip >Why is this issue important to patients treated by doctors? If a doctor >believes human beings and other creatures do indeed show evidence of >intelligent design, those same human beings are due significantly more >reverence and respect than if they simply reflect natural selection >working on a pointless series of chance events. Why would you think that? An automobile is a product of intelligent design but I actually respect it less than my ability to walk. The idea that you meter out your reverence based upon origin would cause me to mistrust you. >If a person is due no more respect than a chicken or lump of clay, he >is as easily disposed of should someone more powerful (such as the >doctor or a government agent) decide he has outlived his usefulness. Not if one has enough respect for chickens and lumps of clay. >That anti-human attitude isn't science fiction. It's the stated >position of some contemporary bioethicists. Your anti-chicken attitude is worrisome... >Fortunately, mounting evidence in the medical sciences points in a >different direction - toward the conclusion that you and I were >designed for a purpose. And now that you're so far down the road towards that conclusion, why don't you enlighten me as to what that purpose is? Also, having existed as a species for 0.0001 per cent of the earth's history, what's the deal with the almost interminably long opening act? >Detailed poll results are here. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Surgeons. Both contributors are Harvard trained diagnostic >radiologists. >http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >design theorists have laid out positive evidence showing that the eye >has the hallmark of designed systems. These "intelligent design" twits have never been able to show how one would distinguish a designed from an undesigned system -- and in any event, the poor design of the human eye (including blind spot) argues *against* an intelligent designer. Not to mention that there's no lack of ideas about how the eye could have evolved. Typical creationist pap -- can't do its job and lies about Darwinism to boot. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth >http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >role." Only 38 percent of the doctors polled agreed with this >statement. I guess that this study was conducted in the USA. In a civilised country it would be more like 99.8 versus 0.2%. Groetjes Albert -- SignatureAlbert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters. albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst >>http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Essays%20on%20Science/doctors_doubt_darwin ism.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >I guess that this study was conducted in the USA. In a civilised >country it would be more like 99.8 versus 0.2%. Actually, it's far closer to that here in the states too. SoT is a liar. >Groetjes Albert > >-- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.