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."
Turns out, my friend, that my side of this argument has the rescue boats out, and your side are like Japanese Zeros strafing the survivors and rescuers of USS Science.
Really? Could you cite the laboratory experiment where "evolution" was replicated, and a scientist was able to demonstrate the transmutation of species through natural selection? Or maybe the scientist who observed a man being born from a monkey or a bird from a dinosaur?
Because I had thought scientific facts must be observable and replicable.
All kinds of people like me? Wow that is a pretty heady group to include me in... I wish it were true.
Anyway it is true all of these people you mention believed in God and creation. And... your point was... what?
I see you are completely ignorant of science. Theories are never "proven true". They can be "proven false" by simple contradiction, or they can be found to be "in accord with currently known facts" if not yet contradicted.
Wikipedia notes: "Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
This is elementary 7th grade science. I guess you slept through that.
I see you are also completely ignorant of science. Theories are never "proven true". They can be "proven false" by simple contradiction, or they can be found to be "in accord with currently known facts" if not yet contradicted.
Wikipedia notes: "Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
This is elementary 7th grade science. I guess you slept through that also.
Could you be more specific as to exactly what parts of Evolution you believe takes leaps of faith? Do you believe a species never changes to form other species? Or is it the theory of punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism?
Evolution and evolutionists need to clearly state that it is the faith that God does not exist, that drives theirs.
HUH??? If this were true why would the Vatican numerous times state that current evolutionary theory is in line with the teachings of the Church? Why would the Vatican observatory be holding symposiums on Evolution if the theory is driven by Atheists? No offense but I think the Pope and the Vatican are much more in tune to what "atheist theory" is than you are.
An attempt to explain a certain class of phenomena by deducing then as necessary concequences of other phenomena regarded as more primitive and less in need of explanation. (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of scientific and technical terms)
Facts do not equal theories. Facts are the obervations. Theories are the explanations for why the observed facts are the way they are. Laws are simply empirical, ususally mathematical, descriptions of observed phenomena, but a law does not explain why those phenomena occur.
In science, there are competing theories. Frequently, each theory has a different scope and offers a good explanation for a given set of observations. A competing theory may explain most of those, but covers some others better. Or different theories are constrained to particular conditions and circumstances, but cover a similar subject. With advances in research and with the accumulation of new facts, several things may happen. One theory may become dominant, theories may be merged through some underlying unification principle, or all the current theories are dropped and something new come into focus.
That's the way science works. Science does not produce undeniable truth, not does it have all the answers to all the questions. Nor are the theories in science eternal. But it is a method to deduce how and why things are the way they are. Scientific theories evolve over time.
In this sense, a scientific theory cannot be proven true. But tests can be devised to prove a theory to be inadequate or wrong. Thus far, there is no evidence that disproves the theory of evolution. As we learn more and more about biological workings, the more and more evolution is tested and evolution has withstood each test.
Evolution, in this context, describes both an observed fact and an theory. It is observed that species change over time - that is the unrefutable observation of evolution. It can be denied, but there is no evidence to refute it. The Theory of Evolution, explains why these changes occur. And this theory, like all others in science changes over time as more information is gathered.
You can get as weary as you want about definitions, but words have meaning. Without them, discussion is pointless. That's why it is very important to make sure that when people engage in a scientific discussion, scientific context is used. If people chose to use lay terms, or to ignore the technical meanings in scientific jargon, misunderstandings and arguements will occur. You may set your own terminology, but if there is no concensus on it's use, then it is just a step above gibberish.
I am also surprised that these people are not going after other theories too. Why not attack the Quantum electrodynamics? Hey it is just a theory not a FACT right?
First, we establish a beachhead. From there, we push inland until the whole continent is ours! Mrrrruuuuhahahahahah!
</creationism mode>
I'll be attending UCL this summer. Let me know what I can do to help spread the Word.
From the book: Essentials of Computational Chemistry, 2nd Edition
Occasionally, a theory has proven so robust over time, even if only within a limited range of applicability, that it is called a ‘law’. For instance, Coulomb’s law specifies that the energy of interaction (in arbitrary units) between two point charges is given by E = q1q2 år12 (1.2) where q is a charge, å is the dielectric constant of a homogeneous medium (possibly vacuum) in which the charges are embedded, and r12 is the distance between them.
" In fact, I find God in all that science discovers or proves or validates or explains. If evolution is indeed fact and therefore undeniable truth, it is God's work. If not, it is still God's work. All is God's work. Even you my breathless friend, are God's work."
"We do not disagree on this point."
Well, now there's hope. After sifting through your posts for something to argue, and there's is a lot, to find common ground may be more fun. If you're willing, please tell me how you agree that all, including you, is God's work. Do you find God in all your studies of science? Do you believe in God? If you're willing, I think we may find common ground. Wanna give it a shot?
This appears to be a repost of
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582850/posts
Not likely, more probably it's just panic on the part of the orthodox evo-slimes, and it bodes very well for the UK; they are rising out of their humanist ignorance that has blackened their prospects for a century and a half.
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.