Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations (2007)

Nope. At least not in an explicit way, because we saw those concepts in free fall problems and similar ones in physics as "instantaneous" quantities. Same with areas, but not that much.

My teacher tried to show us limits in one class, but she didnt had more time to do so.

At least here in Chile (South America), only the rich or with custom curriculum see those concepts at HS. Unless you go to pre-U paid schools or to bachillerato, calculus is only teached in Unis.

Yes. Well, kind of. More accurate to say shortage of MDs in specific specialties. DOs are much more likely to go into family/general practice/pediatrics/etc.

I kind of expect that long-term lots of DOs will be replaced by NPs and PAs. I've been to medical appointments three times this year and only saw a Doctor once. Got excellent care each time.

I don't think it should be surprising if biologists are the least likely group to believe in God.

One common reason for believing in God is how ingeniously designed living things often are. The reason why this turns out not to be a very good reason is that evolution explains this better (dealing e.g. with cases where the design seems needlessly complex, malicious, etc.). Biologists are more familiar with evolution and spend more time thinking about it than other scientists.

Relatedly, evolution has frequently been the target of attack from religious people and groups. Biologists are likely to notice this more and be more bothered by it (imagine a world where there's a strong anti-technology lobby motivated by religion; engineers would likely be more likely to be opposed to religion in that case).

Pure mathematicians are used to thinking of intangible things like numbers, sets of sets of sets of sets, equivalence classes of functions from manifolds to abelian groups, etc., as real things even though they clearly don't "live" in the physical universe, and perhaps even as more perfect than the tangible inhabitants of the material world. I think this may make the idea of a sort of spiritual universe with inhabitants like a Most Perfect Being Imaginable particularly congenial to pure mathematicians.

(On the other hand, pure mathematicians ought to be less vulnerable to some varieties of philosophical flim-flam used by religious apologists. For instance, the so-called "ontological argument" is composed mostly of logical errors, and I would expect pure mathematicians to notice this more readily than anyone else. ... But: Kurt Goedel, who was one hell of a good logician, actually put some effort into coming up with a logically sound version of the ontological argument. Of course it's no good because it relies on axioms there's no reason to think apply to the actual world, but it does indicate that a sufficiently ingenious mathematician may react to a terrible argument not by dismissing it but by finding a way to make it less terrible.)

[In case anyone cares: I am a pure mathematician, or at least I was one before moved into industry where one gets paid more for doing easier work. I was a religious believer for many years but am not any more.]

I don't know about you, but if I learned that my doctor, with whom I trust my health, spent 4-6 hours a week in a class where they learned to say "Circle Circle Dot Dot, now you got the cootie shot" like a kindergarten rhyme... I don't care if 95% of them know it doesn't work and is a waste of time. I'd have serious concerns about their entire profession that they were even allowed to waste their time on something so unscientific.

(Not to mention a deep fear that I might get one of the 5% that will try to re-sell me rhyme based medicine as proven science).