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.

[Prodigal Son]

To me, agnosticism is intellectually indefensible

Aye, neither side likes agnostics, this is true. But it is a defensible position, like it or not. It is defensible thus- I am an agnostic. I do not believe in a God for very simple reasons. I have not encountered a God nor do I find strong evidence that one exists. But one might exist- sure. Who knows? The universe is big. I am small. I have only seen a tiny portion of the universe. God might be elsewhere.

Be that as it may, let's say God showed up tomorrow. Atheists would be sh!t out of luck. They had always said that God definitely did not exist. Yet there God would be. Therefore their argument crumbles, their worldview invalidated. Mine, however would still be intact. I could with a straight face inform this God "well, I never saw a good reason- but neither did I deny you might exist- I'm just slow on the uptake perhaps". My worldview would only be modified by new information, not destroyed.

I think it is dangerous to assume we know what we plainly- to this point- cannot know.

Think about it like a missing person. Now, if I think the missing person might be in my house, I can search my house. I can come back to my front porch and say pretty matter of factly "He's not in there"- even though at the moment I said that I would not have "eyes on" every room. But it would be a reasonable thing to say based upon the world as I know it. But in the case of God, it is not my house. I have not searched it thoroughly. To wit, I don't even know how many rooms it has.

Being an agnostic is about being reasonable. No reasonable person would claim to have knowledge of the entire universe when he plainly cannot have. A reasonable person might argue that "God is not here on Earth or in our immediate surroundings" but the other side of the universe? It's a bit of a stretch to me. We let people get away with murder if we can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt their guilt. I see no reason why "reasonable doubt" should not be applied to other areas.

[balrog666]

Amused placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

English as a second language P L A C E M A R K E R

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

Evolution as a concept can not be denied but from a cosmological perspective, there are more questions than answers related to evolution and there seems to still be giant holes in man's knowledge of this subject...

We are agreed! ;)

[forsnax5]

Being an agnostic is about being reasonable.

Reasonable post.

I don't like to label myself, but I agree with your position...

:)

[stuartcr]

Why do you guys feel it necessary to bind God to the rules of our earthly logic?

[RightWingNilla]

We can't even see one beneficial mutation,

On the contrary there are literally thousands of instances of beneficial genetic changes in the literature. If you put a rapidly growing organism such as bacteria or yeast under a selection pressure, you are virtually guarteed that spontaneous mutations will occur and eventually dominate the population.

[bluejay]

Why do you guys feel it necessary to bind God to the rules of our earthly logic?

I am sorry; I do not understand your question. Could you clarify?

[Abe Froman]

My issue with evolutionary argument and their evidence is that the evidence can only be described as 'evidence' for evolution if one assumes the conclusion anyway (something evolutionists invariably fail to discern). Your links show a bunch of creatures, fossils, etc. that are somewhat, but not entirely, similar, in one form or another. That is the only undisputable 'fact' that can be declared from this evidence. The second to last (I think) link, about the sea-cow, is simply pronounced the 'missing link' upon its discovery.

In this way, evolutionists basically presume to know the mind of God, or a god, etc......by their assumption that if God HAD created the universe and everything contained within, He wouldn't have done it this way. The possibility that there may be other reasons for biological similarities (other than common descent) is summarily dismissed. This is the foundation on which certain facts are declared to be indicative of evolution. Evolution, and only evolution, would have produced life forms that may be classified by their similarities. As long as one believes this, it is easy to believe evolution is undisputable fact.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy76.html

[PatrickHenry]

My issue with evolutionary argument and their evidence is that the evidence can only be described as 'evidence' for evolution if one assumes the conclusion anyway (something evolutionists invariably fail to discern).

All right. You are looking at the evidence absolutely free of any irrational evolutionist bias. Please, if you would, from the purity of your perspective, answer this question:

1. Given the age of the earth, as shown by astronomy and geology;

2. and given the millions of fossils which have been uncovered, and chronologically arranged according to the age of the rock strata in which they are found (and when possible by carbon dating of the fossils as well);

3. and given the visually striking pattern of apparent descent when these fossils are further arranged, not only by age, but also by their structural similarites;

4. and given that the relationships thus suggested are also supported by DNA evidence;

5. and given that after generations of fossil-hunting, and now DNA study, there are no counter-examples of species which upset the above-described visually striking pattern of apparent descent;

6. and given that, in nature, feeble creatures will usually fail to survive and populate the next generation, while strong, capable creatures will most often be the ones who will pass on their genetic material to future generations;

7. and given that we observe mutations frequently occur;

8. and given that any mutation which is injurious will likely be bred out of a population, while a mutation that gives individuals an advantage will likely be passed on to future generations;

9. and given that isolated populations can, over time, become sufficiently differentiated from their parent stock that they can no longer interbreed;

10. and given that all of the foregoing suggests a natural mechanism by which all species on earth could have gradually developed;

The question for you is this -- if you don't conclude that all these forms of life are related, the later ones descended from the former, then what is your explanation of all this evidence?

[Concerned]

DIMENSIO RESPONDED TO MY EARLIER COMMENTS: "Well now, you've tossed any hint of being rational out the window."

I HAD WRITTEN: "It's called the religion of ATHEISM."

DIMENSIO REPLIED: "Atheism is not a religion. Strike 1."

I HAD WRITTEN: "If it is okay to teach the THEORY of evolution-atheism..."

DIMENSIO REPLIED: "There is no theory of "evolution-atheism". There is a theory called the "theory of evolution", but no theory in science has "atheism" in either the title or the implications. Strike 2."

I HAD WRITTEN: "...it should also be okay to teach the FACTS of creationism."

DIMENSIO REPLIED: "What facts? I'll hold off on calling this one until you provide better information."

------------------------------------------

I AM RESPONDING: "I guess there must be a LOT of Ministerial people who are not as informed as you are then about Atheism being a religion. Please see the following URL for "religion of atheism" on Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22religion+of+atheism%22&btnG=Google+Search

Among the findings, you can find will find the following comments about Atheism being a religion at:
http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/thereligionofatheismx.html
(Bold and underlinings are mine)

The Religion Of Atheism
By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Editor

INTERNET DAILY CHAPEL
Public Domain

A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. [Please note that it says nothing about BELIEVING IN God; it says BELIEFS ABOUT God.] Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest monotheistic religions, with belief in one God, Creator of the universe.

Some other religions are polytheistic, with belief in many ("poly") gods, each with different functions.

Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.

Atheists don't worship God; they worship themselves or nothing at all. They don't take moral instruction from God; they take it from themselves or from nobody. They don't recognize God as Creator; they think the universe somehow created itself by some kind of natural process we don't yet understand. They deny the overwhelming evidence of design, and they prefer to think of Creation as a big accident.

Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on separation of church and state.

But this is like saying that black, (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. The car I drive is a big, old Chevrolet, whose color is black. In common practice throughout the world, black is understood to be a color, just as red is a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, Atheism is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.

If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.

If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching and promotion of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching and promotion of other religions is prohibited.

But where is Atheism being taught and promoted? Masquerading as science or religious neutrality, Atheism is being taught by default in places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools and other public places.

When creation of the universe is taught without reference to God, that is teaching that God did not create the universe. That is teaching Atheism and establishing the religion of Atheism.

When High School graduation speeches may talk about anything but God, that is teaching that God doesn't exist. That is teaching Atheism and establishing the religion of Atheism.

When U. S. history is taught without any reference to the importance of God and the Bible to the Founders, that is teaching that no God was a factor. That is teaching Atheism and establishing the religion of Atheism.

So what can we do to end this government teaching and promotion of Atheism?

First, we should recognize that Atheism is a religion. Then we should stop teaching and promoting it or any other particular religion.

Finally, we should remove all legal restrictions on teaching about and talking about all religions, even the religion of Atheism. This would allow all religious ideas to be considered freely in all public places, just as all other ideas may be considered freely in public places.

We should recognize that this free competition of ideas about religion is not "establishing religion," which is prohibited by our Constitution. Instead, it is the very essence of what our Constitution is about: freedom.

This is the American way, consistent with Freedom Of Speech, Freedom Of The Press, and Freedom Of Religion. Anything less than this is censorship and tyranny.

Then, with all restrictions removed, Atheism can be exposed as the hopeless fraud it truly is.

Blessings to you in Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Rev. Bill McGinnis
bmcgin@patriot.net

http://www.patriot.net/users/bmcgin/ministries.html
"Teaching The Beautiful Christian Life"

http://www.patriot.net/users/bmcgin/chapel.html

INTERNET DAILY CHAPEL

Internet Daily Chapel Bill McGinnis Ministries
Contact: bmcgin@patriot.net

[Abe Froman]

# 3, 4, 5, and 10 are not evidence. Theories are not proved by implications or suggestions or appearances. Moreover, these are exactly the argumentative phenomena that I was describing. One only takes similarities to be indicative of common descent if one assumes evolution. Similaries, in and of themselves, are not proof of anything.

1. Given the age of the earth, as shown by astronomy and geology;

This is far from universally agreed upon and there is actual evidence to suggest instantaneous creation as well (see http://www.halos.com/).

2. and given the millions of fossils which have been uncovered, and chronologically arranged according to the age of the rock strata in which they are found (and when possible by carbon dating of the fossils as well);

When the supposed geologic column actually exists nowhere on earth in its entirety, and in fact the strata that do exist are in the wrong order in some places, and given the outright dismissal of catastrophism as a theory for the these phenomena, this evidence is suspect at best.

6. and given that, in nature, feeble creatures will usually fail to survive and populate the next generation, while strong, capable creatures will most often be the ones who will pass on their genetic material to future generations;

Undisputed.

7. and given that we observe mutations frequently occur;

"Frequently" is a subjective measure and some would say "extremely rarely".

8. and given that any mutation which is injurious will likely be bred out of a population, while a mutation that gives individuals an advantage will likely be passed on to future generations;

This is possible although not entirely probable; many if not most injurious mutations result in mortality precluding genetic continuation anyway, if in fact the mutation does not render reproduction impossible itself. There is also much dissention on the probability and occurrences of mutations that are actually beneficial. In light of this dissention this is not admissible as evidence proving evolution yet.

9. and given that isolated populations can, over time, become sufficiently differentiated from their parent stock that they can no longer interbreed;

On one hand, we have this, while on the other hand, VadeRetro is listing examples of genetically different species that can maintain their interbreedability and both are listed as examples of "evidence of evolution"? Seems as though everything is listed as evidence no matter what it implies.

[stuartcr]

You were discussing logical arguements for the existence of God. I'm curious why you attempt to prove/disprove God's existence, using logic?

[PatrickHenry]

Thank you for your response. I kinda figured you would wave it all away. I am not surprised.

[Dimensio]

I guess there must be a LOT of Ministerial people who are not as informed as you are then about Atheism being a religion. Please see the following URL for "religion of atheism" on Google:

Whoop-de-do. A collection of sites misrepresenting atheism does not make atheism a religion. But I'll go ahead and offer some comments on your excerpts from one of the sites.

A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural.

Already the author falls into question-begging. Not every religion encompasses belief in a single god named "God". Some religions (such as some sects of Buddhism) encompass no gods at all, being atheistic in nature.

Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. The above definition is incorrect -- for one, it begs the question of "what God", when there are thousands throughout human history from which to choose. "God" is a concept that only has meaning in context of a theist's beleifs.

Atheists don't worship God; they worship themselves or nothing at all.

Atheists tend not to worship anything. It is true that they don't worship the God that you worship -- but then, neither do Hindus.

They deny the overwhelming evidence of design, and they prefer to think of Creation as a big accident.

Assertion without evidence (overwhelming evidence of design?). Strawman (big accident?).

Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion.

Once again he gets it wrong, as atheism (not Atheism -- it's not a proper noun) is a lack of theism, not a lack of religion. Most religions are theistic in nature, but there are atheistic religions.

In common practice throughout the world, black is understood to be a color, just as red is a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, Atheism is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.

What an interesting wordy way of restating his position without actually making a point.

I've never heard of the "atheism is a religion like black is a color". I have heard "atheism is a religion like barefoot is a type of shoe, baldness is a hair color and healthy is a disease", though. Then again, he does have a point. The world may regard "black" as a color, but it really isn't a color but the abscence of all colors -- millions of people getting it wrong doesn't change the fact that atheism is not a religion.

teaching and promotion of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching and promotion of other religions is prohibited.

How does one "teach" atheism?

When creation of the universe is taught without reference to God, that is teaching that God did not create the universe.

This is an outright lie, brought about in an act of desperation. He knows that his creation myth is without evidence, so he just jumps up and down and shouts, "Not teaching my God is teaching religion!" and hopes that we're all too stupid to realise that he's full of it. There is a difference between saying "God didn't do this" and simply not addressing whether or not a god was ultimately responsible for an event.

When High School graduation speeches may talk about anything but God, that is teaching that God doesn't exist.

Once again, wrong, and only an idiot would be fooled by such an argument. I should first point out that there are a number of subjects that would likely be taboo in a graduation speech -- it's just that an invocation is the only taboo subject that really gets attention (and I have reservations about restricting religious content in graduation speeches -- though I don't care for a valedictorian who claims to speak for the entire class bringing his or her persional religious beliefs into the mix). I found a FAQ for the computer game "Baldur's Gate II" on the internet, and it's 896 kilobytes large. Nowhere in this FAQ is the Christian God referenced, yet it only a jelly-brain would draw from that the conclusion that the FAQ is asserting the nonexistence of the Christian God.

I should point out again that the author is using his God as the only god of relevance, ignoring the fact that to an atheist, the Christian God is just one of thousands of gods worshipped throughout human history, not given any special consideration above any other god. Not surprisingly, he can't think beyond his own worldview, and he insists that his particular god be given special consideration by those who lack belief in all gods.

Then, with all restrictions removed, Atheism can be exposed as the hopeless fraud it truly is.

He makes this statement, and the statement that atheism (which he incorrectly uses as a proper noun) without any real justification. All that he uses are lies and bogus reasoning to support his claims. The author is either an idiot, or he's hoping that his audience is as stupid as his essay.

[Dimensio]

You mean that you weren't convinced by Robert Gentry's "Fingerprints of Creation" website?

[Abe Froman]

If that's what you want to believe. Good day.

[Abe Froman]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary (apparently there is some dispute here with those on dictionary meaning and usage boards that hold doctorates in English and grammar, but I digress)

4th definition of "religion": :a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Lack of belief in God or gods implies belief that God or gods may not exist. In turn that belief has natural implications that beget further beliefs. These beliefs put together can be considered a 'system' of beliefs held to with any degree of ardor or faith, faith being belief based on anything other than all the facts (whether one believes there are more facts or not.) Hence atheism can be considered a 'religion'. Frankly I view atheists as revealing their disingenuousness here by their own proselytizing.

I think perhaps the working premise here could be more effectively stated "for all intents and purposes, atheism is a religion." Regardless of the needless semantic argument, the moral, societal, and political implications remain the same.

[Dimensio]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary (apparently there is some dispute here with those on dictionary meaning and usage boards that hold doctorates in English and grammar, but I digress)

Your first problem is that you already admit that you're using the 4th definition for atheism, which would still mean that it's not a religion in the sense that Christianity is a religion, as Christianity is a religion by the 1st definition.

Lack of belief in God or gods implies belief that God or gods may not exist.

No, it implies a lack of belief in gods.

In turn that belief has natural implications that beget further beliefs.

State them.

Hence atheism can be considered a 'religion'.

Lack of belief in gods is not, in and of itself, a "cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Some atheists might make their atheism a "religion" in that sense (in which case it still isn't a religion like Christianity, as explained above), but that does not make atheism in and of itself a religion, just like not using a turn signal when changing lanes is not in and of itself a religion despite the numerous morons I witness doing just that and doing it "religiously" every day.

[VadeRetro]

My issue with evolutionary argument and their evidence is that the evidence can only be described as 'evidence' for evolution if one assumes the conclusion anyway (something evolutionists invariably fail to discern). Your links show a bunch of creatures, fossils, etc. that are somewhat, but not entirely, similar, in one form or another.

My issue with creationist propaganda--well, one of my issues--is that you guys boldly proclaim that "There is no evidence for transitional forms! None! Not a scrap!"

You thus invite anyone not familiar with used car salesmen, creationists, or Democrats to assume that something reasonably to be expected from the fossil record has not been found. There is nothing unreasonable about the fossil record we have. Your claims are false.

In this way, evolutionists basically presume to know the mind of God, or a god, etc......by their assumption that if God HAD created the universe and everything contained within, He wouldn't have done it this way.

The question is why He left an evidence trail that looks a lot like evolution over billions of years. Hey! Maybe that's how he did it! Ever think of that one?

I'm not going to bother with the Economics Ph.D at Lew Rockwell trying to convince himself the jury's still out. This is not science. You and he offer no knowledge, only ignorance and confusion (your own).