Changes

{{cquote|The study never asked about belief in God in general, but about belief in a very personal God who answers [[prayer]]s and communicates actively and effectively with people. In other words, respondents didn’t comment on    God in general, just this specific formulation of a very personal God. The    questions would likely put many deists, as well as theists who tend to doubt people’s reports of God communicating directly with them, in the category of unbeliever...

{{cquote|The study never asked about belief in God in general, but about belief in a very personal God who answers [[prayer]]s and communicates actively and effectively with people. In other words, respondents didn’t comment on    God in general, just this specific formulation of a very personal God. The    questions would likely put many deists, as well as theists who tend to doubt people’s reports of God communicating directly with them, in the category of unbeliever...

The questions were worded poorly.6 So much so, that [[Eugenie C. Scott]], executive director of the [[National Center for Science Education]], examined the study and concluded that the questions were so poorly worded  that that the survey was “not well designed for investigating the religious views of scientists (or anyone else).<ref>[http://randalrauser.com/2013/06/are-top-scientists-overwhelmingly-atheists/ Are Top Scientists Overwhelmingly Atheists?] by Randal Rauser</ref>}}

The questions were worded poorly.6 So much so, that [[Eugenie C. Scott]], executive director of the [[National Center for Science Education]], examined the study and concluded that the questions were so poorly worded  that that the survey was “not well designed for investigating the religious views of scientists (or anyone else)."<ref>[http://randalrauser.com/2013/06/are-top-scientists-overwhelmingly-atheists/ Are Top Scientists Overwhelmingly Atheists?] by Randal Rauser</ref>}}

Scott, who is an atheist, also declared: "The title of the recent Larson and Witham article in ''Nature'', 'Leading scientists still reject God' is premature without reliable data upon which to base it."<ref>[http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/modern_scientists_NAS_God.htm  NAS Scientists, God and Atheism]</ref>

Scott, who is an atheist, also declared: "The title of the recent Larson and Witham article in ''Nature'', 'Leading scientists still reject God' is premature without reliable data upon which to base it."<ref>[http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/modern_scientists_NAS_God.htm  NAS Scientists, God and Atheism]</ref>