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.

[Dimensio]

1. There is no God.

This is a misunderstanding of atheism.

Theism encompasses the belief that a god -- at least one, possibly more -- exists. Atheism is simply the abscence of this belief. That is not the same as "the belief that there is no God" (for one, that begs the question of "Which God?", which only has meaning from the perspective of a theist).

Atheists proposed a couple of hypothesis to get around these problems.

People have proposed hypothetical scenarios to explain the origin of the universe. "Atheism", in and of itself, does not encompass any belief regarding the origin of the universe whatsoever.

[bluejay]

Theism encompasses the belief that a god -- at least one, possibly more -- exists. Atheism is simply the abscence of this belief. That is not the same as "the belief that there is no God" (for one, that begs the question of "Which God?", which only has meaning from the perspective of a theist).

This is semantics. Atheists have no proof that there is no God. They must believe.

People have proposed hypothetical scenarios to explain the origin of the universe. "Atheism", in and of itself, does not encompass any belief regarding the origin of the universe whatsoever.

The problem with all scenarios that deny the concept of intelligent design is they rely on having infinite space/time - either by postulating infinite Universe or infinite number of Universes. This defeats their primarily argument against God - anything you can not prove physically can not exist. You cannot prove that infinite Universe or infinite number of Universes exists; therefore, using atheist argument, they do not. Now, atheists have to explain why our Universe is so incredibly well designed to support life.

[Dimensio]

Atheists have no proof that there is no God.

The burden of proof lies upon the positive claimant. You claim that a specific God exists, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that your claim has merit. I simply choose not to believe you, just like I don't believe Hindus.

The problem with all scenarios that deny the concept of intelligent design is they rely on having infinite space/time - either by postulating infinite Universe or infinite number of Universes. This defeats their primarily argument against God - anything you can not prove physically can not exist. You cannot prove that infinite Universe or infinite number of Universes exists; therefore, using atheist argument, they do not.

You failed to address a word that I said.

Explanations for the origins of the universe are not part of the definition of atheism. Further, atheists don't have to make an argument against any gods -- atheism is a lack of belief in gods, it does not encompass an argument against gods or any specific god.

Now, atheists have to explain why our Universe is so incredibly well designed to support life.

No, they don't have to explain this. They can easily say "I don't know" and still be atheists.

[bluejay]

The burden of proof lies upon the positive claimant. You claim that a specific God exists, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that your claim has merit. I simply choose not to believe you, just like I don't believe Hindus.

I do not agree. I believe in God. You do not. Please explain why.

You failed to address a word that I said.

What point did I not address?

Explanations for the origins of the universe are not part of the definition of atheism. Further, atheists don't have to make an argument against any gods -- atheism is a lack of belief in gods, it does not encompass an argument against gods or any specific god.

In a way, they are. I have explanation for how Universe came to be. You can choose not to accept my explanation, but they you will need to provide your own.

Of course, you may respond: "I do not know". However, that would be an admission that my version of events could be correct. This would make you an agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist is convinced that there is no God, and that intelligent design had no part in creating the Universe. This is rather close-minded, don't you think?

[stuartcr]

I believe God created evolution. Debating how it all started is a waste of time, as no one will ever now how it really happened.

[Dimensio]

I do not agree.

Your failure to understand the rules of logic are not my concern.

I believe in God. You do not. Please explain why.

I'm not convinced that the God that you believe exists actually exists. Further, I'm also not convinced that Vishnu, Odin, Zeus or Baal exist either. I suspect, however, that you won't be demanding any detailed explanations as to why I lack belief in any gods other than your own.

. I have explanation for how Universe came to be.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

You can choose not to accept my explanation, but they you will need to provide your own.

Incorrect. It is not invalid for me to say that while I have insufficient information to formulate an explanation on the origin of the universe, I don't find your particular explanation terribly convincing.

Of course, you may respond: "I do not know". However, that would be an admission that my version of events could be correct.

They may well be. Thus far, however, I've seen nothing to convince me that it is.

This would make you an agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist is convinced that there is no God, and that intelligent design had no part in creating the Universe.

An atheist is one who lacks belief in gods. It is not one who makes the declarative statement "God does not exist" -- in fact, that definition is silly, as it posits a specific named god in it, but your god is no more "real" to an atheist than any other god. Why would an atheist need to specifically single out your god out of all of the thousands worshipped throughout human history for consideration when defining him or herself?

An atheist is one who lacks belief in gods. While I cannot claim absolute knowledge to rule out the possibility that the god that you worship exists, I've thus far not been convinced of its existence. Moreover, I've not yet been convinced that any gods worshipped throughout human history -- or any god at all -- exists. Because of this lack of belief in any and all gods, I am an atheist.

[Dimensio]

Of course, you may respond: "I do not know". However, that would be an admission that my version of events could be correct.

I should have responded more in-depth here, because this claim is based upon faulty logic.

An "I don't know how X happened" statement is not an admission that "all current explanations offered for X could be valid". It is entierly possible to correctly rule out explanations for an event while not actually determining a correct explanations.

[PatrickHenry]

Name one of these beliefs.

A wet bird sings off-key.

[VadeRetro]

If you think that's good, try this: TIME CUBE .

I'm not sure about that TIME CUBE guy sometimes, but I do think Flat Earth Theory needs to be taught alongside Round Earth Theory so the kids can be exposed to more than one theory and have a chance to decide things for themselves.

[balrog666]

Time Cube placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Much needed links for the classroom:
The Earth is Not Moving!.
Earth Orbits? Moon Landings? A Fraud! .
Flat Earth Society Homepage! .

[VadeRetro]

I myself didn't know Columbus's real name was Efimovich and that he used mirrors to fake going to India. We gotta get this stuff into the schools!

[PatrickHenry]

I'll bet you didn't know that South America is a hoax. There's a cloning lab right across the Rio Grande, not far from the edge of the earth. That's where they make all those illegal aliens who cross our border.

[VadeRetro]

I'll bet you didn't know that South America is a hoax.

All parts of the world that I have not directly witnessed are a hoax. For that matter, you're probably a robot.

[bluejay]

An "I don't know how X happened" statement is not an admission that "all current explanations offered for X could be valid". It is entierly possible to correctly rule out explanations for an event while not actually determining a correct explanations.

Fair enough. What is the logical process by which you rule out existence of God?

[bluejay]

Your failure to understand the rules of logic are not my concern.

You have yet to provide logical arguments. So far, all your statements have been assertions. For example:

I'm not convinced that the God that you believe exists actually exists. Further, I'm also not convinced that Vishnu, Odin, Zeus or Baal exist either. I suspect, however, that you won't be demanding any detailed explanations as to why I lack belief in any gods other than your own.

I accept the fact that you do not share my belief. I have simply asked for your reasons why you do not believe in God.

I must say, however, I find it encouraging that in this paragraph you mentioned that you are "not convinced" that God exists, rather then convinced that God does not exist. This makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. If that is so, if, in fact, your mind is open to the possibility of existence of God, then yes, it would be up to me to justify my faith.

An atheist is one who lacks belief in gods. It is not one who makes the declarative statement "God does not exist" -- in fact, that definition is silly, as it posits a specific named god in it, but your god is no more "real" to an atheist than any other god. Why would an atheist need to specifically single out your god out of all of the thousands worshipped throughout human history for consideration when defining him or herself?

This definition may be silly, but it is the commonly accepted one. Merriam-Webster dictionary (available on-line) defines atheist as "one who denies the existence of God". Please note - denies, not merely lacks belief. Please also note the capitalization of God.

The same dictionary defines agnostic as ": a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god". Please note some important differences - agnostic claims lack of knowledge, which implies that he is willing to alter his beliefs if and when knowledge becomes available. This is significantly different from atheist, who claims that no amount of knowledge would ever cause him to alter his belief.

[PatrickHenry]

Your dictionary definitions are not quite adequate. There are at least two different flavors of atheism:

1. Strong atheism: Certainty that no gods exist.
2. Weak atheism: Provisional lack of belief in gods, due to a perceived lack of evidence or persuasive argument.

I think you assume that all atheists are type 1. I belive most are type 2, and could be persuaded to believe if they were presented with sufficient reasons to believe.

[bluejay]

Your dictionary definitions are not quite adequate.

These are not my dictionary definitions. These are quoted verbatim from Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/home.htm).

There are at least two different flavors of atheism:

1. Strong atheism: Certainty that no gods exist.
2. Weak atheism: Provisional lack of belief in gods, due to a perceived lack of evidence or persuasive argument.

I am not sure where you got these definitions. I was unable to find any entry under "strong atheism" or "weak atheism". The commonly accepted terms are "atheist" - which matches your definition for "strong atheism" - and "agnostic" - which matches your definition for "weak atheism".

I think you assume that all atheists are type 1. I belive most are type 2, and could be persuaded to believe if they were presented with sufficient reasons to believe.

I guess what you are saying is most people who define themselves as atheists are actually (using Merriam-Webster's definition of the term) agnostics. I am glad to hear this. Personally, I think that agnosticism (or, if you prefer, "weak atheism") is a much more intellectually defensible position then atheism ("strong atheism").

[PatrickHenry]

What I've presented as "weak atheism" is indeed a form of atheism, and probably the most common form, because the person doesn't believe in gods. I think the agnostic is one who hasn't been able to make up his mind one way or the other. To me, agnosticism is intellectually indefensible. One is either persuaded or he isn't. I personally see no in between position, yet many people claim it.

[Dimensio]

I accept the fact that you do not share my belief. I have simply asked for your reasons why you do not believe in God.

And I gave you my reason. Why should I believe in your God and not the gods of any other religion? Why should yours be given special consideration requiring special justification for lack of belief?

I must say, however, I find it encouraging that in this paragraph you mentioned that you are "not convinced" that God exists, rather then convinced that God does not exist. This makes you an agnostic, not an atheist.

No, it makes me an atheist. An agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not gods exist. Agnosticism is orthagonal to atheism/theism.

If that is so, if, in fact, your mind is open to the possibility of existence of God, then yes, it would be up to me to justify my faith.

It's also up to Hindus to justify their faith, and Muslims to justify their faith. Once again, yours isn't the only religion out there and to me, an atheist, your religion is no more "special" than any other.

This definition may be silly, but it is the commonly accepted one. Merriam-Webster dictionary (available on-line) defines atheist as "one who denies the existence of God". Please note - denies, not merely lacks belief. Please also note the capitalization of God.

I've seen that definition. It's crap. Try the American Heritage dictionary for a better definition (it encompasses both lack of belief and outright denial of both general gods and a named -- though not specifically defined -- God). Also look at the roots of the word: "a" means without, "theism" means "belief in a god or gods", therefore "atheism" means "without belief in a god or gods".

The same dictionary defines agnostic as ": a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god".

Well, that would actually be in line with the definition of agnostic, but it doesn't apply to me. I don't believe that all gods are ultimately unknowable, I believe that a god matching the right definition could make its existence absolutely known. I simply haven't seen evidence for any gods, thus I lack belief, making me an atheist (by the proper definition, not the Webster's begging-the-question one).