Egnor explicitly states here that most doctors "...don't believe that
human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection.", but
unless most doctors believe that there's a designer who has been
repeatedly nudging and prodding evolution throughout its course from
some 4 billion years ago until now, then Egnor is not correct in what
he claims.

Well, maybe most doctors do believe that. Doctors who chose option
2 are saying that is what they believe. They are also saying that they
don't believe that the world was made in 6 days, that man was made on
the sixth, etc. Egnor should try mentioning that. Most doctors do not
believe in a Biblically literal account. If he thinks their opinion is
so valuable, maybe he ought to reexamine his beliefs with this
regard.

The actual published survey states: "Results of a national survey of
1,472 physicians revealed that more than half of physicians (63%)
agree that the theory of evolution is more correct than intelligent
design." Egnor and others at the Discovery Institute are trying to
spin it in the opposite direction - suggesting that most doctors
believe in Intelligent design and (implictly) reject evolution.

This statement was not available to me in your link. Egnor was
definitely spinning. However, from you initial description it wasn't
clear. It sounded like crankiness on your part.

What the survey asked about is the following three
possibilities, also quoted in your link:
"The choices are as follows: 1. God created humans exactly as they
appear now; 2. God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that
has led to current human beings; 3. Humans evolved naturally with no
supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role."

To merely state that you believe a god was involved at some point, or
has guided evolution is not the same thing as saying that humans were
directly intelligently designed. In fact, the claim that some
designer needed to prod and nudge evolution repeatedly actually
detracts from any meaningful claim that this designer was
intelligent. It suggests that he was less of an intelligent designer
than he was a simple tinkerer.

In my view and others, intelligent design includes the
possibility that god was only involved at some point.

The simple
tinkerer model is a view held by some religious people, including
those doctors. Alot of religious fundamentalism is really opposed to
such a model, but in fact that is what many if not most religious
people believe. They may think ID is a step toward enforcing
fundamental religion, but it is not. If one gets a child to adopt the
Simple Tinkerer model, he or she may be very much inclined to collect
more information leading to a Designer Free model. On the other hand,
the child may not be inclined to collect information if a rigid
deterministic model is mistakenly presented in place of natural
history.

In other words, to use Egnor's loose approximation, almost two-thirds
of doctors explicitly *reject* ID. Answering the question you cite to
the effect that they think some god guided evolution is *not* the same
as a wholesale buying into the ID movement, and *this* is where Egnor
(and each of the DI commentators on this topic) is misrepresenting the
survey.

Furthermore, the word adequate in Egnor's paragraph
probably means unique.

Thanks for jumping in and clearing that one up for us. I, for one,
was agonizing over the meaning of that very word. Obviously you have
the inside track on what's going on in Egnor's mind.

I was pointing out the polemic strategy in Egnor's statements.
Most people have difficulty with sorting out issues of redundancy and
uniqueness. These are abstract concepts (formal in the Paiget way of
looking at things). A lot of nonrational people have learned to
exploit this confusion. Egnor is a theatrical magician, using words
instead of cards. I am merely trying to point out Egnor's sleight-of-
hand. Screaming "liar" when a theatrical magician is showing his
tricks is a great distraction, often useful for the magician.

And where did I make that comment, speaking of misrepresentation? The
quotation I gave said that. I did not. But the fact is that he *is*
saying the opposite of what the survey implied, as Reuland's 58%
comment reveals. Doctors do *not* buy into ID at a level of two-
thirds. They reject ID at almost that level.

I don't fully understand how they can say ID is totally wrong and
say that God had a role in the origin of mankind. I suspect there is
some lack of clarity with respect to what these issues really
represent.

Saying that they believe a god was involved somehow is not the same as
subscribing to the ID movement's position.

Do any IDers disagree? The impression that I got is that is
exactly what IDers are saying (right or wrong). The fact that most of
the movement is being pushed by Creationists tells me that we should
be fighting it. However, I suspect their is a polemic trap here. Maybe
Egnor is playing games with the definition of design as a way to
corner us nonreligious types into an unreasonable position. I thought
the word design, by human beings at least, includes a chaotic trial-
and-error component. A fashion designer is still a designer. Those
nonrepresentational artists that take buckets of paint and pour it on
their canvases are still designers. There is no moral foundation in
such designs, although there may be some aesthetic ones. I suspect
that many people believe in this sort of God , one with lots of
aesthetics and no morals. My point is: the Creationists are not lying
when they say there are such people. Emotional accusations of lying
are counterproductive. Maybe one should merely point out the exact
nature of the Intelligent Design "most people" believe in.

On Mar 14, 2:50 pm, "Lucifer" <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 14, 1:03 am,

Actually, both you and Egnor are misrepresenting the doctors in
this survey. Your misrepresentation is a little worse in a legalistic
sense. I am a rabid opponent of Creationism and ID. I just wish to
curb the over reaction before it comes back on us atheist-agnostic
types.

What Egnor actually said, according your link, is the following:
"Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to
the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design.
That's why most doctors-nearly two-thirds according to national polls-
don't believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural
selection. Most doctors don't accept evolutionary biology as an
adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of
life."

What the survey asked about is the following three
possibilities, also quoted in your link:
"The choices are as follows: 1. God created humans exactly as they
appear now; 2. God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that
has led to current human beings; 3. Humans evolved naturally with no
supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role."

Most doctors chose either option 1 or option 2. Both option 1 and
option 2 imply evidence of design. Therefore, his opening statement is
correct. Doctors believe there is evidence of design. Most doctors in
this survey did not believe that human beings arose MERELY by chance
and natural selection. They believed that God had A role in the origin
of human beings. Furthermore, the word adequate in Egnor's paragraph
probably means unique. Evolutionary biology is not the UNIQUE
explanation for life according to these doctors. Your comment that
"the survey really says the opposite" is wrong. The majority of
doctors (right or wrong) in this survey appear to have believed in an
Intelligent design component to the origin of life.

Egnor was misleading in that he implies chance is not an
important part of creation. Egnor says, "That's why most doctors-
nearly two-thirds according to national polls-don't believe that human
beings arose merely by chance and natural selection." Not exactly
true. Option 2 shows that includes the possibility that natural
selection was the main tool by which the Designer created human
beings. The Designer of option 2 may have set things initial
conditions up a certain way, but he most certainly let chance take
care of the rest. A gambler throws dice with a plan (a design) of what
to do when he wins, but he definitely relying on chance." Egnor says,
"Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to
the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design."
Well, their work as doctors surely insures most of them of the
absolute capriciousness of our bodies.

Careful reading of option 2 shows even worse. Option 2: God
initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current
human beings. However, he doesn't have to have been designing a human
being per se. He could have been designing a fish, and the human being
was merely a side branch of the evolutionary process that led to us.
In fact, option 2 implies the coldest type of diesm. The designer may
have been building HIV as his favorite creator, and human beings are
merely the growth media that he chose to design. Egnor is specifically
twisting the doctors statement to imply that they think that human
beings are the Intelligent Designers focus.

I don't hink that Egnor is legalistically lying. Therefore, lets
not get ourselves caught in a legal misrepresentation.

The words "merely by chance" are weasel words and render the whole
survey invalid.

--

Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor

The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom

Convicted by Earthquack

"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"

The survey isn't invalid. You just need to understand how to read
it. Clearly Egnor and his cronies lack that understanding.

Budikka