Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christian medical students want anti-evolution lectures
Aftenposten (Norway News) ^ | 19 Nov 2003 | Jonathan Tisdall

Posted on 11/19/2003 10:15:28 AM PST by yonif

Medical student John David Johannessen and the leader of the Christian Medical Students Circle have petitioned the medical faculty at the University of Oslo for lectures "that not only argue the cause for evolution, but also the evidence against", student newspaper Universitas reports.

"The theory of evolution doesn't stand up and does not present enough convincing facts. It is one theory among many, but in education it is discussed as if it is accepted by everyone," Johannessen said.

Johannessen is a believer in creationism, based on the biblical account.

"Of course one has to know the theory of evolution, it is after all part of the curriculum. But certain lecturers demand that one believe it as well. Then it becomes a question of faith and not subject," Johannessen said.

Johannessen told the newspaper that he and his fellows are often compared to American extremists. Besides not being taken seriously or being able to debate the topic relevantly, Johannessen said that 'evolutionists' practically harass those who do not agree with them.

Dean Per Brodal said it was regrettable if any university staff were disparaging to creationists, but that there was no reason to complain about a lack of relevant evidence. Brodal also felt that evolution had a rather minor spot in medical education.

Biology professor Nils Christian Stenseth argued that instead of indulging an 'off-topic' debate the medical faculty should offer a course in fundamental evolutionary biology, saying that nothing in biology could be understood out of an evolutionary context.

The Christian Medical Students Circle want three basic points to be included in the curriculum:

1 According to the theory of evolution a mutation must be immediately beneficial to survive through selection. But many phenomena explained by evolution (for example the eye) involve so many, small immediately detrimental mutations that only give a long-term beneficial effect.

2 There is no fossil evidence to indicate transitional forms between, for example, fish and land animals or apes and humans.

3 Evolution assumes too many extremely improbably events occurring over too short a span of time.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: christianstudents; creationism; crevolist; evolution; evolutionisatheory; medicalschool; norway; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 601-615 next last
To: Unam Sanctam
I'm just glad to know that there are still some real Christian believers left in Norway.

My first thought!

Good for them, and I wish them much success.

41 posted on 11/19/2003 12:26:54 PM PST by k2blader (Haruspex, beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
" The evolutionist asserts that the laws governing matter, energy, thermodynamics, and biology as we know them all today, were at multiple points apparently violated,"

They were not violated. That is only your claim, not the claim of the biologist.

" the theory of evolution is a mountain of speculation built on a sand castle to a degree that makes securities trading look like hard science."

Same thing. It's your claim, because you don't know the subject, let alone understand it.

42 posted on 11/19/2003 12:30:11 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: job
But here's the deal: evolution, by its very definition depends on something having come before it. It can't happen, it can't even get started, unless there was an initial something to start from.

Exactly. Which is why evolution is in no way incompatible with the notion of a Supreme Creator, only with a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible.

43 posted on 11/19/2003 12:32:14 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: stanz
It seems that it would be difficult to be a doctor if you did not believe in antibiotics.
44 posted on 11/19/2003 12:32:33 PM PST by jsbankston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yonif; mgstarr
Radishes-carrots, kitchenaid blenders------>DIDACTIC EARTHWORMS!!!

spam cans lettuce---CLINTONRENO

45 posted on 11/19/2003 12:33:24 PM PST by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
To believe in spontaneous generation requires, in my opinion, far more faith than the creationist

Exactly. My God is an awesome God.

46 posted on 11/19/2003 12:33:49 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: yonif
If they want creationism - they should go to church.
47 posted on 11/19/2003 12:33:55 PM PST by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Creationism is a matter of pure faith. Evolution is a Theory created by the scientific process.

Note: Science does NOT determine Truth: you want Truth, seek it in the Philosophy or Theology departments. Science is the process of making MODELS of reality with as close of a match to reality as we can make it, with the end result being a model we can use to predict outcomes and do consistent engineering with. In the case of Evolution, it has been observed, in the micro sense, in the field and in the laboratory. That has been extrapolated, at a lesser degree of accuracy, to macro-level evolution, with support from the fossil record, geochemistry / geophysics, and the observed fact of microevolution.

Now, it could well be that the Lord God did in fact create the world in 6642BC, as Bishop Ussher had calculated, with a set of rules and evidence already in place supporting not just the theory of Evolution, but those of Astrophysics, Cosmology, and of the basic Physics of our Universe as we know it.

Or, he could have set it up from the beginning to happen in such a way that the Universe grew from the Big Bang (gee, that sounds AWFULLY like "let there be light", the formations of galaxies, suns, and planets from chaotic gas clouds, and the appearance and development of life and of man.) to our present situation. Heck, the order even matches that of Genesis. Strange coincidence, don't you think???

It really doesn't matter. But the latter premise makes me FAR more in awe of the power and majesty of God than the "poof, there it is" premise. . . .

48 posted on 11/19/2003 12:50:36 PM PST by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yonif
There are no right or wrong answers in medicine. What gives medical school professors the right to insist certain treatments are correct? If a doctor wants to prescribe leeches to treat cancer, shouldn't he have the right to do so? < /sarcasm
49 posted on 11/19/2003 12:50:55 PM PST by Modernman (What Would Jimmy Buffet Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yonif
Exactly what contrary-to-evolutionary-theory fact would help this man be a better doctor? What in Creationism suggests that comparative anatomy is of use in studying humans? What in Creationism suggests that using mammals for drug testing is better than using orchids?
50 posted on 11/19/2003 12:52:14 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
Abe Froman, the Sausage King of Chicago, writes:

The evolutionist asserts that the laws governing matter, energy, thermodynamics, and biology as we know them all today, were at multiple points apparently violated, yet not by a being that had the ability to do so (a Creator.) We are to believe they were simply violated in spite of all known observations to the contrary. That is not science. That is faith.

Somebody doesn't seem to know those laws very well. ALL of them have an element of probability involved: Yes, the Universe tends to go from order to randomness. But only AS A WHOLE, otherwise life is impossible: it would violate thermodynamics. Yes, if spontaneous generation had to occur, it was an exceptionally rare event. However, just as enough chimpanzees on enough typewriters will eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare (and your average Howard Dean speech in a matter of days. . .), the several billion years and planet full of opportunities would raise the chance of an individually rare occurance to happen. . .to near certainty.

51 posted on 11/19/2003 12:57:15 PM PST by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Why doesn't the university host a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist? The debate venue is not unusual in the university environment, is it?

Creationist debating tactics go something like this:

1) Put forward about 50 sound bites about why evolution doesn't work (no transitional species, dating techniques don't work etc.)

2) When your opponent is unable to answer all 50 of your points in the short time alloted to him in a debating context because the answers are much more complicated than the sound bites, declare victory.

52 posted on 11/19/2003 12:57:59 PM PST by Modernman (What Would Jimmy Buffet Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
You have been misinformed. "Spontaneous generation" is not equal to, or part of, the theory of evolution.
53 posted on 11/19/2003 1:01:45 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
If you can create life from non-living matter, or find anyone who can, or find and observe a natural instance of same, I will stick my foot firmly in my mouth (as I've said before.) Until then this is not science, no matter how insistent you are to the contrary. This is faith. Test and verify the method by which life is generated from non-living matter, please.

"Take the condition of sickle cell anemia."

You're using a genetic mutation that has negative consequences as an example to bolster an argument of evolution? Evolution by natural selection requires BENEFICIAL mutations. Find a clear case of actual genetic mutation (not the emergence or suppression of pre-existing genetic traits) that has a beneficial effect.
54 posted on 11/19/2003 1:05:00 PM PST by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Thanks - I actually kind of miss the old:

evilution - spontaneous hockey - can't argue now
DO NOT PASS GO - life from lettuce, NOT!!!!!!!

55 posted on 11/19/2003 1:06:03 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
Funny you should bring that up.

Artificially Created and Reproducing Virus

You want some salt, pepper, and ketchup to go with that foot ????

56 posted on 11/19/2003 1:08:41 PM PST by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
You're using a genetic mutation that has negative consequences as an example to bolster an argument of evolution? Evolution by natural selection requires BENEFICIAL mutations.

If I remember correctly, sickle-cell anemia is a recessive gene. If a person receives one gene, he gets the benefit of increased resistance to malaria. If he is unfortunate enough to get both genes, the effects are not beneficial and lead to a young death.

So, having one SCA gene is beneficial, while having both is not.

57 posted on 11/19/2003 1:09:50 PM PST by Modernman (What Would Jimmy Buffet Do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
BTW, Sickle-cell anemia provides a superior resistance to contracting malaria, a disease endemic to Africa. Remember, a beneficial mutation just has to be beneficial enough to allow better propagation of the genes, NOT a comfortable life AFTER peak child-bearing years. . .
58 posted on 11/19/2003 1:11:02 PM PST by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Abe Froman
The mutation that allowed one of the feline viruses to infect dogs was beneficial.
59 posted on 11/19/2003 1:12:07 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
And? The point being? There is no universally accepted theory for abiogenesis. So far, abiogenesis cannot even be accepted as a proven theory. If abiogenesis cannot occur, isn't that somewhat significant to the theory of evolution, or are you more comfortable compartmentalizing these ideas so that you can still cling to evolution?
60 posted on 11/19/2003 1:20:53 PM PST by job (Dinsdale?Dinsdale? (www.oklahomasooners.com/dontfiremackbrown/))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 601-615 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson