Okay. In that case, I assume you claim we are intellectually powerless to figure out what caused this:
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.
Okay. In that case, I assume you claim we are intellectually powerless to figure out what caused this:
But, I also don't think the theory of evolution should be taught as anything more than what it actually is: a THEORY. It should not be taught as a fact if it can't be proven to be factual. Good science requires that a theory be presented as a theory; professors should teach the cases for and against evolution (which can be done without including creationism. I think evolution hinging on such "Dark Ages" beliefs as spontaneous generation, etc. should suffice as appropriately scientific arguments against evolution).
That professors don't generally do this, leads me to believe there's more going on here. I believe they are allowing their faith (or lack of it) to muddy science. If I can keep my religion out of the science department, then I think they should do the same.
So why do evolutionists argue with creationists?
Never believe anybody when they pretend to read the minds of their opposition.
In the sense that the theory of gravity just jumps over the question of where matter came from, or electric theory just jumps over where the first electron came from. Science can explain some things, but not everything. The fact that we can't explain where electrons came from or why they have a negative charge doesn't mean that we can't build an electric light.
I am a theistic evolutionist. I believe that, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and that in due course he created life, and eventually gave me a soul which-- to quote the Talmud-- I will someday have to return to Him, and give Him an account for how I used it.
I have little use for "scientists" who use what we do know about the world to make giant unsupported leaps into what we don't know, and argue that there is no God and life arose from nothing. Such fools are, in fact, a small minority of scientists, although they are disproportionately represented in the popular press. (Real scientists are too busy publishing in scientific journals.)
That does not mean, however, that we don't know certain things with reasonable degree of certainty. Some of those things, supported by mountains of evidence, are that the earth is billions of years old; that life is, at least, many millions of years old; that all living things now on earth share a common ancestry; and that different species arose from a process which includes imperfect reproduction and natural selection, though it might also include other processes not yet fully understood.
The phrase you quote ["Creationist debating tactics go something like this:"] has absolutely nothing to do with mindreading and doesn't offer any appearance of such. Odd. Did you not know that? Did you merely hope no one else would notice?
If you have to infer something, that means you don't really know it.
What are you talking about? Meteors are verifiable and they do repeat quite often (thus making them testable). Your statement is silly.
Whose mind am I purporting to read? Care to give an accounting of what you consider to be the typical creationist approach to debate?
True, the statement "Creationist debating tactics go something like this:" does not require mind reading but what you typed after this statement does.
If not mind reading then what gives you the power to know exactly what somebody else is going to say? Please enlighten us on exactly how you know the thoughts of all creationists? Or did you merely hope no one else would notice?
Wrong again! You either believed what you wrote or you didn't.
If not mind reading then what gives you the power to know exactly what somebody else is going to say? Please enlighten us on exactly how you know the thoughts of all creationists? Or did you merely hope no one else would notice?
What are you talking about here? When did you establish that anybody but you is either talking about mind reading or doing it?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
This is rather odd. This debate is about teaching the weaknesses in theory of evolution in medical school but all our Orthodox Darwinist friends can do is ramble endlessly about Creationism.
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.