Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> writes:

>> 1. How many pharmacists refused to provide a drug (hard to call it
>> medicine - it's not a disease being treated, if I think I know what
>> you're talking about) on religious grounds? And of those, what
>> percentage of the cases did not have another pharmacist at the same
>> site, or within a reasonable driving distance? And of those, how many
>> were not reprimanded or lose their job (at least in the US)?
>>
>> 2. What percentage of religious engineers claim their expertise backs
>> their belief in religion, and of those, what percentage of those events
>> have been demonstrated to be damaging due to their beliefs?
>>
>> 3. What percentage of religious engineers/scientists, when being asked
>> to apply their expertise on a problem involving biology, have had their
>> work on that project been subpar compared to, say, an atheist engineer?
>>
>> Until you present such data, what you keep stating is without merit.
>>
> Specific statistics no. Just news reports, done by people that may have
> them. But, in case #1, this is irrelevant. It hardly matters if its only
> one person effected, by one pharmacist, in one town, which by shear
> chance happens to have only the one pharmacist they can go to, without
> driving for 3 hours (which, maybe, they can't do). You shouldn't take a
> job, if you can't, or worse, won't, do the job.

Lots of bad things happen to bad people. If it happened only once, I
don't see what the grave concern is for.

> 2. - I would say, among those that deny evolution at the same time,
> pretty much 100%. I can't say for those that do not deny basic sciences.

I asked for two percentages - which are you referring to?

> 3. Unknown. But, again, the issue isn't necessarily, despite your
> ignoring that point, whether they are religious, but whether their
> religion happens to specifically come into conflict with the subject
> they are being asked about. That is why I say I find it
> implausible. *Something* is bound to conflict, at some point, and when
> it does, why wouldn't the result be sub-par?

Did you even read the question I asked?

Post a reply to this message