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]

Nope. I stick with one definition of "macro" evolution. You're the one who changed definitions in mid-argument. And, the only folks who have heartburn with the Theory of Evolution ARE creationists. Other folks may have heartburn with one or more of the mechanisms of evolution, but never deny the existence of it.

[Last Visible Dog]

Nope. I stick with one definition of "macro" evolution. You're the one who changed definitions in mid-argument.

Hey Mr. Gotcha - this is not a lexiconical debate. I did not change definitions because I am not debating definitions – I am debating concepts. Clearly you are playing “Gotcha” Unlike many of our evolutionist friends, I am not claiming to be an expert. And while you may get your rocks off by pointing out my alleged misuses of terms – all it shows is you are not following the topic of the thread – you are merely looking for Gotcha’s.

And, the only folks who have heartburn with the Theory of Evolution ARE creationists. Other folks may have heartburn with one or more of the mechanisms of evolution, but never deny the existence of it.

Talk about shooting from the hip – where did you come up with that statement? (I think you are going to find it nearly impossible to defend your narrow-minded absolute statement) Who specifically are you claiming denies the existence of evolution? BTW: your statement is self-contradictory. First you claim “the only folks who have heartburn with…evolution are creationists” and they you say “other folks may have heartburn with…evolution” – get your story straight (those darn absolute statements will get you every time).

Using your definition of “creationist” I can safely say there has not been one Creationist in these debates related to evolution (at least none that I have seen) so basically your entire argument/Gotcha game is focused on a non-existent strawman.

[PatrickHenry]

Whatcha gonna do now, Junior? You have no evidence for evolution, and there are no creationists anyway. Kinda leaves you with an empty feeling ...

[Junior]

How can one debate anything, including "concepts" if the definition of what one is debating changes to fit the whims of one's opponent. Debates are not possible unless all parties agree on a definition of terms. You initially equated "macro" evolution with speciation; we assumed that was your definition. Later, when your position based upon that definition became untenable, you switched definitions (moved the goalposts, as it were). Then you try to obfuscate the switch by crying about debating "concepts." It doesn't hold water. Define the terms and we'll debate on them, otherwise everyone here sees your efforts for what they are.

[Junior]

I think you are going to find it nearly impossible to defend your narrow-minded absolute statement

Not really. The folks who claim not to be creationists but attack the Theory of Evolution have a tendency to use old, refuted creationist arguments to attempt to make their cases. I defy you to name one argument used to "refute" the Theory of Evolution that hasn't, at its core, the underlying notion to advance creationism.

[Junior]

Back to work, monkeyboy.

This has been a presentation of Darwin Central.  Contact us at 1-888-DARWIN for our free brochure, World Conquest Through the Evil Teachings of Darwin, or visit our website, www.darwin.evo.

[Last Visible Dog]

Not really. The folks who claim not to be creationists but attack the Theory of Evolution have a tendency to use old, refuted creationist arguments to attempt to make their cases. I defy you to name one argument used to "refute" the Theory of Evolution that hasn't, at its core, the underlying notion to advance creationism.

Problem is this was your statement "the only folks who have heartburn with the Theory of Evolution ARE creationists" - I am certain you are wrong. There are people other that creationists that have issues with evolution.

BTW: Who is trying to refute the theory of evolution?

[VadeRetro]

Victory-dance placemarker.

And Patrick says I dance like a sloth! (See if he ever takes me out again!)

[Last Visible Dog]

How can one debate anything, including "concepts" if the definition of what one is debating changes to fit the whims of one's opponent.

What silly statement. If you are talking about my statement – clearly you are trying to blow smoke up somebody’s butt (never fully understood that colloquialism but it is fun to type). I did not change the meaning of any term – I tried to define a concept. Often the dictionary definition of a term does not fully explain every possible meaning. The term in question was on the periphery but you choose it as your gotcha thus completely overlooking the concept that was being debate. What you are doing makes about as much sense as quibbling over the meaning of the word “is”

Debates are not possible unless all parties agree on a definition of terms.

Utter nonsense. Often the debate is over the definition of terms (I am guessing you have very little experience with debate – Gotcha seems to be your game)

You initially equated "macro" evolution with speciation;

No I did not. I have never used the term speciation.

we assumed that was your definition.

Are you schizophrenic? What is this we stuff? Do you read other people’s minds? Funny other people have been able to debate the topic without the pedant focus on one word (quibbling over the meaning of “is”). I think you only speak for yourself (unless of course you are schizophrenic or you can read minds)

Later, when your position based upon that definition became untenable, you switched definitions (moved the goalposts, as it were).

WRONG. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I never changed the meaning of the term – you made that one up. Dishonesty does not help your position. Seems you have one or two Gotcha diatribes and you attempt to apply them even when they are not applicable. Like I said, now you are being dishonest – you are twisting and distorting what I said – a pointless endeavor.

Here is what I said:

“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.”

Notice I accept the meaning of the term and go on to explain the concept. The debate is over a concept not the meaning of a word (that seems to have gone over your head).

Then you try to obfuscate the switch by crying about debating "concepts."

I have already pointed out you are being dishonest. This is just more of your dishonesty.

(you are actually claiming I am “crying” – clearly you live in a world of your own creation that has little to do with reality)

[VadeRetro]

The folks who claim not to be creationists but attack the Theory of Evolution have a tendency to use old, refuted creationist arguments to attempt to make their cases.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the "secular evolution skeptics" don't know anything about evolution except certain peculiar items not generally known but which Duane Gish and the Morrisses have been telling creationists for decades.

• There is a special version of 2nd Law of thermodynamics which forbids any order arising from chaos except by design;
• Transitional fossils are totally absent; [Most only-casually-interested people who read the news have some impression that fossil hominids in East Africa, feathered dinos in China, legged whales in Pakistan, etc. have bridged some former gaps.]
• There exists a Godless materialist conspiracy to advance evolution; [And why does a secular skeptic care about that anyway?]
• Fossils date strata and strata date fossils;
• Mutations are random and anything random doesn't do anything;
• Natural selection means "the survivors survive" which is a tautology and doesn't mean anything;
• Long, rambling, disjointed lists of quotations prove that evolutionists don't really believe in evolution; [Yes, the Discovery Institute betrayed its creationist roots with this trick.]
• Radiometric dating is so error-prone as to be usless. [Kinda leaves open the possibility of a 6000-year-old Earth, huh? Johnson or Wells--I forget--used this in a book.]

[Junior]

You initially equated "macro" evolution with speciation;

No I did not. I have never used the term speciation.

True, but you did equate "macro" evolution with speciation:

Post 258: Macro evolution is not just a “bigger” evolution – it is a different process (one species becoming another – we have very little idea how that is supposed to take place).

Speciation is the process of one species becoming another. 

Darwin Central

Corrupting the world's youth for more than 150 years.

Contact us at 1-888-DARWIN for our free brochure, World Conquest Through the Evil Teachings of Darwin, or visit our website, www.darwin.evo.

[Last Visible Dog]

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the "secular evolution skeptics" don't know anything about evolution except certain peculiar items not generally known but which Duane Gish and the Morrisses have been telling creationists for decades.

Pretty much every FR debate remotely associated with evolution ultimately turns into the FR Orthodox Darwinists passing judgment on nonexistent creationist strawmen.

[Last Visible Dog]

True, but you did equate "macro" evolution with speciation:

...and your point is? You are a pedant? You can play gotcha? What is your point?

If you think two all but identical gulls that can not breed is all the evidence of macro evolution you need - that is your personal position – all I said is I don’t think that is all the supporting evidence of macro evolution that is needed.

[Junior]

My point is, you defined the term and I debated using that definition. "Mr. Pedant," pah!. I feel like I'm talking to "Mr. Obtuse."

Darwin Central

Corrupting the world's youth for more than 150 years.

Contact us at 1-888-DARWIN for our free brochure, World Conquest Through the Evil Teachings of Darwin, or visit our website, www.darwin.evo.

[bluejay]

The question wasn't meaningless -- it crossed a lot of peoples' minds when the transplant was announced.

I don't know much about medicine, but given the fact that pig is a viable source of transplanted organs, perhaps evolution is not a necessary consideration when utility of animals, for the purpose of organ transplant, is considered. This is actually my main beef with people who accept evolution as a theology (rather then as a scientific theory) - they try to force it into many situations where it does not belong.

[Abe Froman]

I have read arguments and rebuttals about the population of the earth issue.

At today's approximate worldwide growth rate of 2% per year, it would take about 6500 years to achieve 6 billion people starting with 8 (creationists usually assume this number of people got off the Ark of Noah.)

The evolutionist's (reasonable) rebuttal is that the growth rate has only been that high recently, due to technical and medical advancements. So the numbers must be adjusted. Evolutionists posit that for much of human history it was only .002%, and for recorded history perhaps .5%. However, even a .002% growth rate would result in 6 billion people in approximately 1 million years. If true, it would be expected that the number of people on earth in recent antiquity (the last several thousand years) would be much higher than recorded information suggests; and the acceleration of the growth rate by a factor of 1000 (.002 to 2%) in modern times, applied to this larger-than-observed number, would result in a seething mass of humanity far beyond the numbers that actually exist. In addition, the number of people who lived and died throughout human history would be nearing, if not into, the trillions.

Let us take another example: evolutionists have suggested a "stone age" of approximately 100,000 years, during which time the population of the earth was 10 to 100 million. To be far more conservative----if, on average, the population of the earth only averaged 1 million people during this time, assuming a generation span of 25 years (life expectancy wouldn't have been much greater) about 4 billion people would have lived and died in that single period of 100,000 years. This is to say nothing of the time periods before and after the "stone age". I am no expert on this but I did take calculus. One can disagree about the numbers but not about the math. It would take, in my opinion, an argument stretched to absurd lengths to explain this away from an evolutionary perspective.

I'll let the evolutionists fire away at this with no response because I don't want to spend any more time debating this. A reasonable discussion requires fact-checking and referencing that quickly becomes a second job.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The Bible is not a science book and it does not claim to be a science book...

I agree with this part. You'll have to take up your complaint with the creationist folks. I'm just passing on their message.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Yikes! I didn't actually expect you to do the calculation. There is simple exponential equation for this kind of calculation but I was too lazy to look it up. Nice. ;)

[Abe Froman]

one last thing-----are you accusing those experts in every field that contest virtually every single piece of evidence available as creationists at heart, even when they themselves proclaim their evolutionary stance? Why do you believe evolutionary theory is settled fact when the evolutionists themselves are far from monolithically in agreement in even one single field of research?

I would also like to point out something on my interpretation of Gould's quote on punctuated equilibrium. The quote shows a major change in the theory over classical Darwinism, yet there are those on this thread that insist that evolution is gradual change through time using natural selection to create macro evolution through innumerable micro evolutionary changes. Eminent evolutionists discarded this years ago as not supported by the fossil record. Those that argue from this position and insist that the transitionals are there apparently aren't aware that evolutionary paleontologists have admitted that the constant evolutionary drift over glacial time periods is not what they see. Instead the theory of punctuated equilibrium was posited, which was at root, simply a reduction in the standard of evidence needed to square with the rest of the theory generally. We have never observed any changes in nature that would suggest that the equilibrium is punctuated by sudden and large change. Such a discovery would surely be deemed bizarre and miraculous if observed, and its notoriety would be world-wide.

[Abe Froman]

I didn't even go that far, but insofar as the checking of the facts would take about 30 seconds with my HP TI-85, I am not too concerned. I got the info from another source. I read this objection to evolutionary theory some time ago and went and looked it up again.