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.

[Junior]

The two ends of the ring are two separate species, but the middle populations shade from one to the other. You wanted an example of "macro" evolution (i.e., speciation) which you claim has never been observed. Or, are we just moving goalposts now that Plan A is shot full of holes?

The examples you ask for are known as "creationist strawmen."

[Last Visible Dog]

I choose not to devote my life to "maybes." But that's just me.

OK.

1. How do you think life on this planet originated?

(all answers are maybes so I guess this question does not cross your mind).

2. How was the universe created and what will be its future.

(all answers are maybes so I guess this question does not cross your mind).

3. Is there a God?

(all answers are maybe's so I guess this question does not cross your mind).

4. How do you invest your money for the future?

(all answers are maybe's so I guess this question does not cross your mind).

5. Where will your career/lovelife/golf game be next year? in 10 years?

(all answers are maybe's so I guess this question does not cross your mind).

I guess if you limit your thinking it is easy to avoid all those nasty "maybes"

[Last Visible Dog]

The two ends of the ring are two separate species, but the middle populations shade from one to the other. You wanted an example of "macro" evolution (i.e., speciation) which you claim has never been observed. Or, are we just moving goalposts now that Plan A is shot full of holes?

Two slight variations of the same bird does not seem to be evidence of macro evolution. Can you provide a source that claims this proves macro evolution?

[Last Visible Dog]

The examples you ask for are known as "creationist strawmen."

What are you talking about - I have not asked for examples. Clearly your statement is the strawman.

[whattajoke]

I think about those questions, sure, but I don't "devote" myself to a supernatural force because "maybe" he exists and if he does, I'd prefer to not burn in eternal hellfire.

1) Currently, I'll go with chemical reactions at underwater hydrothermal vents or smokers.
2) I do not know.
3) Currently, I see no reason to believe so.
4) In a nutshell, I tend to spread it around in a good mixture of stable growth options, mutual funds, equity, and my ISP. I'm pretty young, so I have more money in aggressive funds than I probably should... time will tell.
5) Career is going very well. Lovelife even better. I gave up on golf... it simply wasn't fun for me. In 10 years, I'd expect better from the first two.

Now you know.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Two slight variations of the same bird does not seem to be evidence of macro evolution. Can you provide a source that claims this proves macro evolution?

The usual definition of macroevolution is the formation of a new species. There are many species of birds. Saying "they're both birds" is true, but a human and a chimpanzee are "both Primates."

[Last Visible Dog]

Is the inability to reproduce insufficient to make them different species? What then, is your definition of species?

Clearly the biological definition of species refers to the ability to breed - but what macro evolution addresses (at least as I understand it) is one thing becoming something different (fish becoming a bird, etc). Two Gulls that can not reproduce is far from evidence that birds evolved from fish (or whatever).

[Last Visible Dog]

5) Career is going very well. Lovelife even better. I gave up on golf... it simply wasn't fun for me. In 10 years, I'd expect better from the first two.

Your career, lovelife, investments...pretty much life itself is all maybe's (and you don't devote your life to maybe's). Better question: what do you devote your life to? (or are you like many women I have dated - they know what they don't want to do but they don't know what they want to do)

:-)

[Doctor Stochastic]

So may we now assume that your comments in post 233 are now inoperative?

Your exact statement was: "Micro being evolution within a species and macro being one species becoming another."

[Last Visible Dog]

Saying "they're both birds" is true, but a human and a chimpanzee are "both Primates."

They are more then "both birds" - they are both the same kind of bird (Gulls), they just can not breed (beyond that they are pretty much identical).

[atlaw]

"Perhaps America was formed instantly from crater ejecta?"

Oh for crying out loud. Craters are the result of whirlpools during the worldwide flood. There was no catastrophic "ejecta" capable of forming a continent. The whirled up sediment in the whirlpool got spread out in lots of thin layers. Go look at the Grand Canyon. It's so obvious. Get a grip.

[Last Visible Dog]

So may we now assume that your comments in post 233 are now inoperative? Your exact statement was: "Micro being evolution within a species and macro being one species becoming another."

inoperative? No, Mr. Pedant.

Check it out (the two birds in question):

Lesser Black-Backed Gull

Herring Gull

Technically they are two different species but this is very far from evidence a lizard evolved into a bird or whatever. Technically correct but not really evidence of macro evolution.

[Abe Froman]

I will admit that many events described in the Bible cannot be understood by the scientific method. They cannot be proven by any human means. I believe that there is an existence and a power that is both greater than us and that is not bound by our sphere of existence, therefore that power (God) can cause to happen what is otherwise unexplainable from our limited perspective. My position stipulates the unprovable miraculous.

My problem is that evolutionists, while claiming to be devotees of cold, impartial science, get their undies in a bunch when some of us point out that their own stories are rather unscientific (re:spontaneous generation, among other things.)

[Abe Froman]

I tend not to think of our world in such black and white terms. I think it is wrong to do so. I believe the science and the religion can be readily separated. In fact, I believe that they must be.

How vaguely sophisticated of you. However, to dismiss the philosophical questions and conclusions that are reached as a result of considering the implications of the question of origins by simply saying "religion and science should be seperated" then you are intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

What does it mean to seperate the two anyway? Is it somehow improper to use anthropological and paleontological methods and expertise to discover the truth or falsity of the New (or even Old) Testament? Should this be disallowed? And who are you to be saying what others should and shouldn't do anyway? You don't believe what the Bible has to say so where do you get your moral compass from and why should I subscribe to it?

[Abe Froman]

"The evolutionists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start (examining evolution), and then forcing nature into their straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science--or of any honest intellectual inquiry."

Touche'.

[Abe Froman]

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

Scientists that arrogantly (or fearfully, in the case of ostracism and lost tenure in the event of dissent) consider evolution as fact ask us to believe, on faith, that several things happened contrary to current scientific understanding: spontaneous generation from inorganic material; that events on earth have been violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics for 5 billion years; that mutations are beneficial, and lastly, that we are to believe that a progression of events occurred, each with odds approaching so close to zero that to add the odds against it together would be a number with 40,000 naughts after it.

And this is the "fact" in need only of a few miscellaneous details cleared up?

[PatrickHenry]

I ask you, in all honesty ... what are the odds of a big rock falling from the sky and causing this crater? Has anyone ever seen such a thing happen? No. Can anyone prove that that's what happened here? Again, the answer is no.

So, what we have here is an unwitnessed event, one which can't be reproduced in the lab (except as absurdly unpersuasive micro-impacts), an event comprised of numerous features which can't be explained by themselves, but only as part of an integrated whole, an event which can't be dated due to the unreliability of radiometric dating techniques, an event which thus far has received only Godless, naturalistic "explanations" in the form of rocks randomly falling from the sky, an event which -- even if it happened as long ago as the naturalist, materialistic scientists claim -- can't be verified due to their ignorance of conditions so long ago, an event which seems to defy the odds by its very uniqueness, and this is the event which the Godless naturalistic, materialistic scientists want to teach to the children as a purely natural event.

[Junior]

What are you talking about - I have not asked for examples. Clearly your statement is the strawman.

Ahem.  Wrong again.  In your own words:

Post 353:  Two variations of the same animal is far from one species becoming another as in a fish becoming a bird, dog becoming an ape, worm becoming a platypus, or whatever.

Those examples will not be found in evolution literature, and indeed are nothing more than creationist strawmen.

[Skywalk]

You and the Last whatever are the prime examples of why people on the evo side distrust and even hate you guys. OK, I don't HATE you, but these debates are nothing more than an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

We have Last Cretin saying he isn't a creationist then asking whattajoke what he/she devotes his/her life to?? What the HELL does that have to do with evolution? Unless, of course, one makes the idiotic assumption that with evolution comes no "god" or "life force" or whatever you wish to label it.

Heck, why do people assume that with a God comes the afterlife??!

But in any event, you re-hashing quotes that have been explained numerous times before and constantly moving the goalposts is a form of dishonesty.

It is that dishonorable conduct which makes you VERY much like leftists and is the reason I began to hate and distrust them. Creationists and IDers are basically operating by the same principles of faith over honor or fact.

[Junior]

Creationists define "macro" evolution as speciation. The ring species shows speciation -- and it shows all the little changes in between that led to speciation. Again, you're moving the goalposts simply because we've shown you the examples you asked for.