Christian medical students want anti-evolution lectures

Aftenposten (Norway News) ^ | 19 Nov 2003 | Jonathan Tisdall

[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.

[Abe Froman]

Whatever floats your boat.

[Last Visible Dog]

Lack of belief in gods is not, in and of itself, a "cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Some atheists might make their atheism a "religion" in that sense (in which case it still isn't a religion like Christianity, as explained above), but that does not make atheism in and of itself a religion, just like not using a turn signal when changing lanes is not in and of itself a religion despite the numerous morons I witness doing just that and doing it "religiously" every day.

Atheism is a belief system based entirely on faith. Where Christians believe in God, Atheists BELIEVE there is no God. Nothing an Atheist nor a Christian can prove their believe system. Atheism is very much a religion. Agnostics don’t fall into that trap because Agnosticism is not based on faith.

Using turn signals is not a faith-based activity (per se); atheism is.

[Last Visible Dog]

This is not science. You and he offer no knowledge, only ignorance and confusion (your own).

Behold, the Evolutionist Victory Dance

[Last Visible Dog]

Nothing an Atheist nor a Christian can prove their believe system.

Make that: Neither an Atheist nor a Christian can prove their believe system.

[Abe Froman]

"Lack of belief in God or gods implies belief that God or gods may not exist."

No, it implies a lack of belief in gods.

You are apparently a nihilist with regard to religous belief. "Ya vee beleef in nossing Lebowski." Nihilism can certainly be considered a belief 'system', but I digress.

Anyhoo, yes, I submit that it implies belief that God may not exist. The definition of a spiritual God or god(s), for most people, is one that places He or they outside our realm of existence and the rules that govern it. I'll take your definition of a-theism which was stated "lack of belief in God or god(s)", qualified with the reason that you have seen no evidence suggesting God exists. Now, whether a-theist or theist, one cannot know scientifically whether one's stance regarding God or god(s) is true. A percieved lack of evidence is not proof of God's (or god's(s')) non-existence, therefore you have faith that your personal perception of lack of evidence is sufficient reason to dismiss belief in God. If I do not believe in God because my lack of information tells me to, then I believe that He (or whatever) may not exist. If I did not believe that it is possible for God or god(s) to NOT exist then I would believe in Him (or whatever) in spite of any percieved lack of evidence.

Therefore, a lack of belief in God or god(s) is an implicit admission of belief that God or god(s) may not exist because if one did not believe it possible for God or god(s) to NOT exist one could not claim non-belief in the existence of God (or god(s)).

[Last Visible Dog]

No, it implies a lack of belief in gods.

That would be agnosticism. Atheists believe (most claim to be certain) there is no God. That is a belief, not a lack of belief.

[Abe Froman]

"but that does not make atheism in and of itself a religion, just like not using a turn signal when changing lanes is not in and of itself a religion despite the numerous morons I witness doing just that and doing it "religiously" every day."

The use of turn signals has little if anything to do with the belief or non-belief in God or god(s) or anything of a spiritual nature. The use of the word 'religiously' in this context is consistent with the 3rd definition in the MW dictionary, apparently added after the hyperbolic use of the word became commonplace, but in this case not having anything to do with actual religious belief:

3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

[whattajoke]

Atheists believe (most claim to be certain) there is no God. That is a belief, not a lack of belief.

Ergo, Abe Froman et. al., are also atheists since they apparently do not believe in "God," under any other name. (ie, Vishnu, Buddha, Mohammad, Ra, Thor, Great Spirit, etc).

(Just seeing how many latin abbreviations I can use in one short post. ; )

[Abe Froman]

Ergo, Abe Froman et. al., are also atheists since they apparently do not believe in "God," under any other name.

I don't know where you got that assumption. It is demonstrably false, as I believe in Jehova (God of Abraham.) I also believe in Jesus (Son of God, but also God Himself as part of the Trinity [one God in three persons].) Those are "other names", aren't they?

In my previous posts I was merely using the capitalised word "God" to encompass any and all belief systems that believe God is a singular, personal, knowable being. I merely refrain from injecting my own beliefs into the conversation because this is a crevo thread and arguing from uncommon premises is pointless.

[Dimensio]

Atheists believe (most claim to be certain) there is no God.

To which "God" do you refer?

You see, to me -- an atheist -- "G-O-D" is a letter string that is only meaningfully defined by other people. It has no inherent value or meaning to me, so I really don't understand what you mean with your definition without further clarification.

[Dimensio]

Atheists BELIEVE there is no God.

Here's a hint. I'm an atheist. I know what I believe and what I don't believe. I believe that you don't understand what "atheist" means. Despite my constant explanations, it has slipped you by. Just in case you really just have missed every explanation that I've offered and you're not just ignoring them, I'll present it again.

Prefix "a" = "without". "Theism" = "belief in a god or gods". Therefore "a"+"theism" = "without" + "belief in a god or gods", or "without belief in a god or gods".

That's it. No implication of any specific beliefs regarding the non-existence of any deities. Atheism is not "the belief that there is no God" -- this is a bad definition anyway as it assumes a single specific deity named "God", even though to an atheist, deities are concepts of other peoples' beliefs. Atheism is not specific to the Christian God, it is a lack of belief in all gods.

[Last Visible Dog]

Ergo, Abe Froman et. al., are also atheists since they apparently do not believe in "God," under any other name. (ie, Vishnu, Buddha, Mohammad, Ra, Thor, Great Spirit, etc).

That does not make sense. Believing there is no god is a belief – a faith. Believing there is a God is a belief – a faith.

I am guessing you are trying to be “cute” but you missed the mark. Believing in any God would ipso facto make one ineligible to believe there is no god. (I like playing the Latin game too – except when I am around someone that is actually proficient in Latin)

[Last Visible Dog]

To which "God" do you refer?

My answer to this question would be "yes". Any and all Gods are considered Gods. The point in this context is faith, not the nature of the God.

You see, to me -- an atheist -- "G-O-D" is a letter string that is only meaningfully defined by other people. It has no inherent value or meaning to me, so I really don't understand what you mean with your definition without further clarification.

It is pretty simple. You BELEIVE there is no god. It is really very simple no matter how much sugar coating and lexiconical tap-dancing you add.

[Dimensio]

You BELEIVE there is no god.

No, theists BELIEVE (you may have capitalized it, but I capitalized it and boldfaced it, so mine is the stronger point) that there is at least one god. I simply haven't found reason to accept their claims.

Some people BELIEVE that extraterrestrials have visisted earth, but I don't yet have reason to believe their claims. I don't deny their claims, since I can't provide absolute proof that the claims are false, but thus far I've not seen sufficient evidence to indicate that their claims are true. The burden of proof falls to the positive claimant. It's not a matter of "faith" to refuse to accept an asserted object without evidence, it's a matter of logic.

[Last Visible Dog]

Here's a hint. I'm an atheist. I know what I believe and what I don't believe. I believe that you don't understand what "atheist" means. Despite my constant explanations, it has slipped you by. Just in case you really just have missed every explanation that I've offered and you're not just ignoring them, I'll present it again.

You just skewered yourself with your own words!!! In your third sentence you admit your atheism is a belief system.

I see you added the brain-dead victory dance to the end of your statement (A Victory Dance is where one claims to be correct without actually providing evidence they are correct).

You are in denial.

Unless you can prove God does not exist, your atheism is based on faith – a belief system.

Game over.

[PatrickHenry]

Just seeing how many latin abbreviations I can use in one short post.

Most admirable. However, the attempt was flawed. In my never-ending quest to bring some class to these threads, permit me to point out that et al. requires no period after "et" because that word isn't abbreviated. In Latin, et alia means "and others."

On the other hand, i.e. does require two periods. It is an abbreviation for id est, meaning "that is." And in this context, I gratuitously mention the ever-popular e.g., with two periods, being an abbreviation for exempla gratia, roughly meaning "for example."

I could go on, ad nausiam, but it's best to quit while the audience is begging for more. And so, amid tumultous applause, I close this post. Exit (meaning "he leaves"), a typical Shakespearian stage direction, not to be confused with exeunt, meaning "they leave."

[Last Visible Dog]

No, theists BELIEVE (you may have capitalized it, but I capitalized it and boldfaced it, so mine is the stronger point) that there is at least one god. I simply haven't found reason to accept their claims.

Are you not certain there is or is not a god and don’t have enough evidence to prove it one way or another? If so, you are agnostic. If you boldly claim your faith “there is no god”, then you have a faith-based belief system called Atheism.

Just in case you really don’t understand what the word Atheism means:

Atheism - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

This is REAL simple – if your position is based on faith: it is a belief system. Atheism is based on the BELIEF there is no god. Agnostics do not draw conclusions so it is not a faith-based endeavor.

[Last Visible Dog]

permit me to point out that et al. requires no period after "et" because that word isn't abbreviated. In Latin, et alia means "and others."

Very interesting but it brings up a question - why bother abrevating alia with al. when it only saves one character

[BMCDA]

I get the impression that they really, really need this strawman. If 'atheism' doesn't mean what they want it to mean they cannot point with their fingers and shout: "neener, neener, irrational too!"

Well, if it makes them happy...

[PatrickHenry]

why bother abrevating alia with al. when it only saves one character

Donno. The same objection might be raised as to et ux., short for et uxor, meaning "and wife."