Just goes to show that biology/medicine can be studied by a large variety of simpletons. They memorize facts/information and then spew it out without much thought. Why isn’t this an entrance test for university/medicine? Do you believe in god/creationism? If yes, then you don’t get allowed in. Why would I want some nutjob who believes in a magical sky wizard and who believes in creation myths that have absolutely no factual ground, to operate on my body?

When you move over to chemistry/physics/math, you don’t see the same trend (at least from my experiences). We actually have to analyze, interpret, and expand on ideas and then problem solve.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Nice one, Eric the smoth, or smooth.

A magical sky wizard, awesome!!!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

While I share the disdain for latching on to religious beliefs, it really isn’t accurate to claim that believers are unintelligent.  A person can become quite accomplished in a field of learing and still hold on to religious belief.  I think the author is quite right that the problem lies in belief itself, and more specifically, how we treat certain beliefs as “taboo” and insular from criticism in ways that “beliefs” in any other field of discourse are not.  No person to be taken seriously has “beliefs” about mathematics that are too sensitive from a political correctness standpoint to be challenged.  If anyone claimed that they just “believe” that 2 plus 2 equals 49 as a matter of faith, and could not support that belief with any reasons (“I just feel that 2 + 2 is 49.  I don’t want to live in a world where 2+2 doesn’t equal 49”) we would instantly dismiss that person’s belief as irrational.  We might even suggest they see a doctor or psychiatrist to see about that “issue” they have.  When it comes to religion, we don’t deal with beliefs that way.  Somebody claims they believe the world was created by an omniscient, omnipotent dictator, have no evidence, no reasons that can be detected, measured, reproduced, evaluated, and we leave that “belief” right where we found it generally.  It’s too touchy to say that it’s unfounded, that the believer should have their head examined.  Why is that?  Why is the religous field of discourse the only area where we let “belief” operate unexamined?  That’s the problem.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.