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.

[MEGoody]

"Species either survive or go extinct."

We've observed observation. We've observed extinction. We've observed what is often called "adaptation" (e.g. changes in beak size). What hasn't been observed is one type of creature turning into another. That is presumed to happen and takes a huge leap of faith.

"to gain insight into the workings of how, developmentally, we are related to other species and how this may affect our own evolutionary destiny."

And exactly why is that important for a doctor to 'know' and believe? I don't see it as relevant to the skills/knowledge a doctor needs to treat human beings.

[metacognative]

If you think there are transitional fossils..you are the gullible idiot. Haven't you read Gould? Stasis is the evidence of the bones. All species abruptly appear and some have gone extinct. That is THE fact.

[Abe Froman]

"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." -----H.J. Mueller, Nobel Prize winner for work on mutations


I still contend that SSA is not a "good" mutation. SSA is possibly a fatal disease in and of itself. Resistance to malaria (as a side effect) doesn't do you much good when you're doubled over in abdominal pain, have ulcers in your legs, and critical anemia potentially resulting in death anyway. DDT has and can once again render SSA useless to prevent malaria. Trading one (preventable) fatal disease for another (that is inherited and impossible to completely prevent) is a strange way of benefitting someone.

[whattajoke]

Darwinites believe matter whipped up out of nowhere for no reason and magically became hgighley organized biology

I'm afraid you've confused a few things. Firstly, the term "Darwinites" is a fictional construct of creationists. There is no such thing. Secondly, the terms, "Whipped out of nowhere" and "magically" are good descriptions of creationism, and have absolutely no application to biology or evolutionary theory. But you know that already, right?

[Abe Froman]

Arguments that dismiss the "given" as "of another field" and ignore the philosophical implications surrounding the subject at hand are particularly non-convincing.

[whattajoke]

If you think there are transitional fossils..you are the gullible idiot. Haven't you read Gould?

I'm afraid that you are mistaken again. For one, you obviously have never read anything by Gould other than the out-of-context quotes on creationist websites. To slur a dead scientist is disgraceful, but I believe you are just a pawn of the creationist machine... which, of course, makes you the gullible idiot.

[whattajoke]

What hasn't been observed is one type of creature turning into another.

OJ was innocent!!

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

[Modernman]

So is that why evolutionists are afraid to debate creationists?

The debating context does not lend itself well to evolutionists trying to explain complex scientific issues. Creationists have it easier because their positions can be reduced to easy soundbites- "There are no transitional species in the fossil record."

Let's turn the question around- Creationist debaters are generally unwilling to engage in a debate format where both sides are limited to debating a small number of pre-selected questions submitted to both parties in advance of the debate. Why is that? Could it be because Creationist debaters know that each one of their points, when properly examined in a thorough manner, fall apart?

[Salgak]

Abe, Abe, Abe. . .

You missed the point entirely. SSA is a recessive gene: if you have it, you have vastly superior immunity to malaria. And thus, are more likely to survive and breed, passing the gene on.

SSA only gets expressed as a illness if BOTH parents contribute the recessive SSA gene, which should happen in one birth out of four, statistically. Which leaves three of four children able to grow and breed where you only had two parents. The remainder of the math should be obvious, and is left as an exercise for the alert reader. . .

[whattajoke]

So is that why evolutionists are afraid to debate creationists?

I wouldn't use the word, "afraid," but rather, "too busy." Scientific debate is done via the written word, not carnivalesque sideshow huckster shouting matches. I, and many ohters here, would be more than happy to engage in an honest debate in this very forum with any bigwig creationist scam artist you can provide. That way, each and every single point can be broken down, evidence and studies can be provided, and we can thoroughly pick apart every hackneyed erroneous claim put forth.

To stand in front of a creationist crowd and have the creationist spew 50 widely varied and absurd statements and try to respond to them in a few minutes, is simply impossible.

Think of it this way; at your next company picnic a guy stands up and accuses you, MEGoody of being a thief, a liar, a cheater, a racist, a rapist, and adulterer, an alcoholic, a pedophile, a dope, a Satanist, an illiterate, and a lout, how many of those presumably absurd contentions can you address in 3 minutes? I'd guess one, as you could prove that you can read, thereby dismissing the illiterate claim. Get it?

[VadeRetro]

Sure, but why should a student dictate curriculum...?

This particular brand of student already knows everything and just needs to complete legally required course work to get some silly certificate before being allowed to operate on humans. The important thing which they already know is that modern science is a house of cards which may be falsified totally any day now by the next discovery.

[Abe Froman]

Well it would be quite a feat to implant an elephant's heart into a human, though I would LOVE to be in that operating room gallery watching them try.

[VadeRetro]

If you think there are transitional fossils..you are the gullible idiot.

Here is where the crevo debate falls short of being an intelligent dialogue. The main article quotes some Luddite med students making the "no transitional fossils" claim. Already, someone offered that statement as perfectly defensible, was challenged on it's total and complete falsehood, and fell silent.

But that doesn't stop the broken record; it just changes the voice. Your turn.

[Modernman]

SSA only gets expressed as a illness if BOTH parents contribute the recessive SSA gene, which should happen in one birth out of four, statistically

Thank you- that was the point I was trying to make. One SSA gene is a beneficial trait to have in malaria-rich parts of the world. Two genes are certainly bad. So, even with both parents having one SSA gene, SSA ends up being beneficial to 75% of their offspring. As an evolutionary advantage, the cold hard numbers are clear that this is a beneficial mutation.

[VadeRetro]

There are no humans walking around with pig hearts beating inside their chests. Not literally, anyway.

[Abe Froman]

Are you entirely knowledgeable of SSA anyway? I admit I'm not. However, with this discussion of a "recessive" gene, it would appear that SSA is not a mutation at all but a pre-existing genetic trait of those who have it. It is manifested when both recessive genes are there. This is different than a mutation.

[Salgak]

Abe, Abe, Abe. . .

1. The data is easily found on the web.

2. I was originally pre-med, and worked one summer in a downtown clinic, got to see a LOT of Sickle-Cell anemia up close and personal.

3. Where do you think the recessive gene came from in the first place ? It was a minor mutation of an existing gene....

[skraeling]

The debating context does not lend itself well to evolutionists trying to explain complex scientific issues.

That's one of the funniest lines to come along in years! Could be right out of Orwell.

[VadeRetro]

The data is easily found on the web.

So much of this debate turns into appeal to ignorance. No matter what science claims to know, anything the creationist himself has deliberately avoided investigating is highly questionable and probably false. It's a variation of the "ostrich defense," except ostriches don't actually bury their heads in the sand.