A quickie for the creationists

Originally posted by Diodorus Siculus
Remote prayer has no evidence to support it as a adjunct in medical science. On the contrary, actually praying for someone appeared to lead to a death in the MANTRA (Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic TRAinings) study on morbidity/mortality data.

“If one takes the trouble to read the MANTRA I study,” says Skolnick, “ one can see that the pray ...[text shortened]... itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

that is one study- and nothing to do with the abstract i referenced

the latest systematic review (abstract) i found says:
"Meta-analysis indicated small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer (g =–.171, p =.015). "

don't get me wrong, i have no axe to grind and am not necessarily suggesting prayer be used in hospitals (i am not religous per se- just as open minded as i can be)

my interest in this is piqued, but not substantial atm, so i have not read the papers themselves, so cannot say if they are flawed or not

apologies, link for systematic review above:

http://rsw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/174

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't know the term 'pure science'.

"The observational science, is where religion can back up their beliefs."
Would you kindly elaborate this a little?

I didn't say that as well as I should have. That is the only science available to them if say they want to support their beliefs of creation.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I didn't say that as well as I should have. That is the only science available to them if say they want to support their beliefs of creation.

I did some looking on wiki, and pure science is science for the sake of knowledge. Applied science is for the sake of practical use of scientific knowlege. Observational science is where one cannot set up an experiment because of human limitations, but is science none the less.