Posted on 02/21/2006 6:57:32 PM PST by gobucks
A GROWING number of science students on British university campuses are challenging the theory of evolution, saying that Darwin was wrong.
Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Koran as scientific fact and at one college in London, most biology students are now thought to be creationists.
Earlier this month, Muslim medical students in London distributed leaflets that dismissed Darwin's theories as false. Evangelical Christian students are also increasingly vocal in challenging the notion of evolution.
In the US, there is growing pressure to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Similar trends in Britain have prompted the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head-on with a talk next month entitled "Why Creationism is wrong", when the award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally.
"There is an insidious and growing problem," said Professor Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back from rationality. They [the creationists] don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease, as we see from the US."
Leaflets that question Darwinism were circulated among students at the Guys Hospital site of King's College London this month as part of the Islam Awareness Week, organised by the college's Islamic Society. One member of staff at Guys said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors.
The leaflets are produced by the Al-Nasr Trust, a charity based in Slough, west of London, set up in 1992 with the aim of improving the understanding of Islam.
The passage quoted from the Koran says: "And God has created every animal from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four. God creates what he wills for verily God has power over all things."
A 21-year-old medical student and member of the Islamic Society, who asked not to be named, said the Koran was clear that man had been created and had not evolved as Darwin says. "There is no scientific evidence for it [Darwin's Origin of Species]. It's only a theory. Man is the wonder of God's creation."
He did not feel that a belief in evolution was necessary to study medicine, although he added that, if writing about it was necessary for passing an exam, he would do so. At another London campus, some students have been failed because they have presented creationism as fact. They have been told by their examiners that, while they are entitled to explain both sides of the debate, they cannot present the Bible or Koran as scientifically factual if they want to pass exams. David Rosevear, of the Britain-based Creation Science Movement, which supports the idea of creationism, said that there was an increasing interest in the subject among students.
"I've got no problem with an all-powerful God producing everything in six days," he said, calling it an early example of the six-day week. Most of the next generation of medical and science students could be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London college. "The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism," she said, "and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all."
So let me guess on what you are trying to say. Perhaps you are saying that because reference points in space make no sense it is just as appropriate to say the Earth orbits the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth. I have heard that one and well... I never bought it. Sun gravity significantly greater than Earth's. In addition all the other planets orbit the Sun as well, not Earth.
Did you mean to say that the Earth and Planet make an "eliptical orbit" instead of "circle"? Sure I agree that Copernicus did not have all the details regarding that... but he was a lot closer than what the Church taught.
And it is true... Copernicus did say he thought the Sun was the center of the Universe... not the Earth... that of course... is "probably" not true... but so say any point in space is the center of the universe probably makes no sense. Of course, one could forgive him for that error right... given he worked for the Church and well... if the Earth isn't the center of the Universe then it at least has to be close right?
So was it any of these or do you really think the Sun and everything else orbits the Earth?
Oh and someday pop on over to my house someday and I will let you play with my 90mm Mak, my 10" SCT or my 12" Dob (if I ever put it back together that is).
Is that what you think I said? I know English is a difficult language to master, but you really should work harder on your reading comprehension skills, because right now my 7 year old nephew can run intellectual circles around you.
I'm assumeing the 7 year old has better Christian ideals than you do as well.
So now you claim creationism is a scientific theory. Not very consistant of you.
Are we allowed to debate Creationism, or is it supposed to be given a free pass into the canon of science without any debate? Can't it withstand open debate?
It's fine with me if you wish to explore creationism. I'm not stopping you. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the scientific community to denounce creationism as nonscientific, then to wish to debate it as science. If you could make up your mind it might seem more consistent. So which is it, creationism is science, or not? If not, then you MUST admit that the efforts of the scientific community to disprove creationism is hypocrisy.
That's the crux of the matter. Even by your own statement you have said Copernicus was wrong. "He was a lot closer than what the Church taught." Your exact words. And as you pointed out, the planets move approximately in elliptical orbits. And that was my main point and that is the nature of science. Every theory becomes more refined over time, but every theory is still not proven true. Science is incapable of proving a scientific theory correct. When tested, Copernicus was demonstrated wrong because his model did not fit observation even though it was simpler than the heliocentric model. Planets failed to move in a circular manner. Science simply eliminates theories that don't work and the ones that are left are a 'best fit' for observations. Even Newton did not get the orbits of the planets correct, but he was closer than Copernicus ever was. Application of relativity has further reduced the error in predicting planetary motion, but it is not perfect. So essentially, Copernicus had a good idea that has changed over time, but on an absolute scale, he was wrong. Even today, we are limited in how far into the future we can accurately predict planetary motion. That's the way science works. Science simply eliminates theories that don't work and the ones that are left are a 'best fit' for observations. Theories that are close can be refined, but if repeated observation of new facts emerges that are radically outside the domain of the current theory, an entirely new one is required. Evolution has stood this test and has been refined considerably since it was first proposed. Further advances in other areas of science, (e.g. genetics) have evidence that support evolution. In other words, the development of genetics as a science has not eliminated evolution as a viable theory.
In an earlier reply to this individual, I was merely clarifying what a FACT means in the scientific world. Evolution is NOT a fact by definition used by people who do legitimate work in science. Redefining what a "fact" is, still does not make evolution a "fact".
I remind you too of what a FACT is:
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
I'm in a kind mood today, so at best I see evolution as an unproven hypothesis.
Ok I accept that I was "slightly" wrong on Copernicus's theory originally being proven correct. The eccentricity of Earth's orbit is I believe 3 percent, right(and yes it is theorized it has been greater in the past)?? But the main gist of it... that the planets orbit the sun (ok the sun and planets orbit a point where the Sun is almost at the center... does that make you happy?). But he does appropriately explain other things such as why there are seasons due to the tilt of the Earth's axis, does he not?
The two of you will get along famously!
BTW. Here's a clue for you: U R Nutz.
I do understand, I have followed the arc of History and attempted to traces symptoms to root virus. And I think I have -- like many others, too. Perhaps even a overwhelming majority have, at least of those who have considered the situation. Majority or minority -- truth is truth
Seriously can you make heads or tails of what you said? Sounds like something Charles Bukowski would write...
...cloak of the High Priests of Atheism and Secularism
High Priests of Atheism and Secularism? What are you talking about? And you never answered how those words were twisted.
I think the banana you told me to buy could produce a more coherent post.
I'll translate that paragraph into 5th graderese for you.
I understand these things because I have done a lot of study into the history of Darwinism. The more I studied the more I came to see that Darwinism is a form of group dementia.And one of a type of group delusion that occurs again and again throughout history.It is not just me, I think, who has discovered this sad fact, the fact that Darwinism is madness. Many others seem to have discovered that Darwinism is a sickness. Maybe even most others who have looked deeply into the history of Darwinism.
Well, it doesn't really matter whether it is just some or most of the fellow students of the history of Darwinism who have made that same diagnosis. Why? Because truth is truth and I have the intellect and confidence in that intellect and my studies to assert that my diagnosis is correct. I have looked for the truth and I have discovered it. Darwinism is a serious group delusion.
Yes, I have seen the new unwritten "rules." A lot like other rules to protect those who can't protect themselves with words.
There is no rule agains bookmaking interesting posts made by people who are known to misrepresent. I keep track of the really interesting ones to use on humor threads.
I will merely use it to show when you have posted less than truth before and will trot it out to prove you have misrepresented in the past, been corrected, and done so again.
You seem a little paranoid. I wonder why?
Science can't prove anything, only support it with evidence.
I seriously doubt it.
As the "perfect man" in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", he was the epitome of Rands philosophy of "Objectivism". There being no objective evidence of any God whatever, much less creationism, I have no doubt he would have remained an atheist for life. As Ayn Rand famously was herself, long before it became fashionable.
By the way, it's spelled "Galt", not "Gault".
I admit I have difficulty reading someone who shares the same writing style as Amiri Baraka. Take for example this little gem you wrote back in post #68: "...attempted to traces symptoms to root virus."
Is the 's' key stuck on your keyboard? Charles Bukowski wrote like that after downing a pint of 12 year old scotch but he had an excuse.
Darwinism is a serious group delusion.
Can you be a little more precise? Is it Darwinism in its original form or is it the punctuated equilibria part... You seem to have a knack for generalization and when asked to explain further it upsets you. Hey maybe you are Amiri Baraka.
Well, imagine that. That's certainly not a widely held opinion in scientific circles from what I've heard.
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.