Bible-quoting science students on rise (USA spreads 'infectious diesease to UK)

Sidney Morning Herald ^ | 22 Feb 2006 | Duncan Campbell

[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."

[Elsie]

 

Darwin had a little girl he loved dearly ... who died when she was young.

Did you know the only formal degree Darwin was ever awarded was a ....Theology degree?

 

So sad......

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."

( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )

---

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )

---

NIV Proverbs 4:13
   Hold on to instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life.

 

NIV Hebrews 3:6
   But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

 

NIV Hebrews 3:14
   We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

 

NIV Hebrews 6:11
   We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure.

 

 

NIV Hebrews 12:3
   Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

 

NIV 2 Timothy 2:11-13
 11.  Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;
 12.  if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;
 13.  if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

 

NIV 2 Peter 2:20-21
 20.  If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
 21.  It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

 

 

 

NIV 2 John 1:8
  Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.

 

NIV Jude 1:21
   Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.

 

NIV Revelation 2:25
   Only hold on to what you have until I come.

 

NIV Revelation 3:11
   I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

[Elsie]

http://www.jknirp.com/lewis4.htm

[Elsie]

You cringe;
we ALL cringe for
ICE cringe!

[Elsie]

I meant to say life did probably begin in water.

 

It appears not....

 

 

NIV Genesis 1:9-23
  9.  And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.
 10.  God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
 11.  Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
 12.  The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
 13.  And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.
 14.  And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
 15.  and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
 16.  God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
 17.  God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
 18.  to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
 19.  And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.
 20.  And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 

 21.  So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
 22.  God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
 23.  And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.

[Elsie]

Come on guys...

 

This is a thread about -      Bible Quoting!!!!

[AlexW]

"Evolution is scientific fact. It is a "theory,"

Kingfish, I think we don got got a convolusion here!

Anyone under 50, nevermind :)

[Lunatic Fringe]

Well, that's a nice story. Here's another:

In the beginning there was the void. And the void was called Ginnungagap. Along with the void existed Niflheim the land of fog and ice in the north and Muspelheim the land of fire in the south. In Niflheim was a spring called Hvergelmir from which the Elivagar flowed. The Elivargar froze layer upon layer until it filled in the northerly portion of the gap. Concurrently the southern portion was being filled by sparks and molten material from Muspelheim.

The mix of fire and ice caused part of the Elivagar to melt forming the figures Ymir the primeval giant and the cow Audhumla. The cow's milk was Ymir's food. While Ymir slept his under arm sweat begat two frost giants, one male one female, while his two legs begat another male.

While Ymir was busy procreating Audhumla was busy eating. Her nourishment came from licking the salty ice. Her incessant licking formed the god Buri. He had a son named Bor who was the father of Odin, Vili, and Ve.

For some reason the sons of Bor decided to kill poor Ymir. His blood caused a flood which killed all of the frost giants except for two, Bergelmir and his wife, who escaped the deluge in their boat.

Odin, Vili, and Ve put Ymir's corpse into the middle of ginnungagap and created the earth and sky from it. They also created the stars, sun, and moon from sparks coming out of Muspelheim.

Finally, the brothers happened upon two logs lying on the beach and created the first two humans Ask and Embla from them.

[doc30]

You need to brush up on what a scientific theory is. It is impossible to prove any theory true. Scientific theories can be demonstrated false, but can never, ever be proven true. Even the ones you listed have flaws in them that make them imperfect approximations.

For example, Copernican Theory is wrong. The earth does not circle the sun. That has been proven wrong for a very, very long time and for every planet in our solar system. If you are unaware of that, then you need to educate yourself in basic astronomy. Same thing for the other theories you have listed. None of them have been proven true. It's something science is incapable of doing.

[doc30]

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

THat is not the definition of the word 'theory' when used in a scientific context. If you want to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion, at least learn what the words mean. This is another example of the creationist habit of misleading and/or lying their way through arguments.

[doc30]

The Royal Society is not presenting something called "Why Creationism is Not Scientific", but "Why Creationism is Wrong." This alleged scientific body is taking a dogmatic position on the truth of a religious belief.

Actually, these scientists are right on the money if they are demonstrating why a literal interpretation of Genesis does not fit observed facts. However, in the spirit of dimplomacy, your modified title would be more appropriate.

[Andy Ross]

This thread is riddled with holes. It's disturbing how 90% of people have no undestanding of the scientific method.

E=mc^2 is not a theory: it's a law. Pasteur proved no "theory of germs." His demonstrations supported the predictions of the germ theory of disease.

Theories can *not* be proven to be true. They are, however, falsifiable. I don't care who, on this thread, agrees or disagrees. Those in the disagree category do not understand the definition of a theory.

To quote Hawking: "any physical theory is always provisional... you can never prove it."

[Sloth]

Actually, these scientists are right on the money if they are demonstrating why a literal interpretation of Genesis does not fit observed facts.

'Genesis does not fit observed facts' would be an okay title, too, but even that is not the same thing as saying "Creationism is wrong." Genesis, even if taken literally, makes no prediction about what facts will be observed at a later time.

[nmh]

It's so sad that now you want to redefine what a "fact" is because you know that evolution is NO FACT. At best it is a hypothesis.

Reality reminder:

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.

So where YOU there?

You could not have OBSERVED anything since you were NOT there so you're still in the hypothesis stage as I stated.

You can't repeat or test your hypothesis since you were NOT there. So again, at best you have a scifi version hypothesis that suits what you would LIKE TO BELIEVE and nothing more. Forget that this hypothesis of yours defies the very laws of science you worship!

[nmh]

"I have all your previous posts on file. If I see you repeat the falsehoods that were debunked on previous threads, I will expose you for what you are."

It is most unwise of you to infer I am a "liar" and then to try threaten me or perhaps intimidate me into silence.

I suppose when you don't have facts, you are forced to resort to this tactic. People like Hillary Clinton do it all the time ... yaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn.

[nmh]

Post away!

In the process don't be surprised if you are suspended or banned for calling honest people "liars".

[moatilliatta]

You could not have OBSERVED anything since you were NOT there so you're still in the hypothesis stage as I stated.

Why does he have to have been 'there', as you put it? There is nothing in the scientific method that says your observations of the effects of an event or phenomena have to be contemporaneous with it.

For instance when we observe bodies in distance space we are seeing things that happened millions of years ago. That doesn't mean they're beyond the bounds of science, does it?

[nmh]

To: nmh
I have all your previous posts on file. If I see you repeat the falsehoods that were debunked on previous threads, I will expose you for what you are.



78 posted on 02/22/2006 5:39:43 AM PST by freedumb2003 (American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

I agree and disagree on a regular basis with normal people however this is creepy. What kind of a person would keep files on other - that is after selective editing because they don't agree with their view. Upfront I am a Creationist who has NO DOUBT that God created ALL we see and don't see in seven LITERAL 24 hour days - just as He stated in the Bible. Objective science also supports that.

As for you, you prefer to believe in evolution. That is your choice however you have NO RIGHT to attempt to intimidate people into silence with "files" that you know you selectively edited. What kind of a person does that? Are you so cornered that you must refer to Nazi tactics to stop debate? As best I know, only desperate people have to resort to your tactics.

I'm sure glad I have better things to do with my time than to save replies in files, edit them to suit my purposes, which in your case is to silence or embarrass people. I can't imagine wasting my time like that nor having such a hateful grudge on someone who does not agree with me. There's something VERY DISTURBING about a person that does this. Perhaps you ought to back off this evolution myth. You seem to be obsessed with it - this is not normal.

I don't understand why you believe you are above the rules on THIS forum. Hopefully someone will enforce them for ALL who participate here. You're way out of line.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

So...quoting Plato, Aristotle, Thales, Empedocles, Pythagoras = fine, intellectual, sound education.

Quoting the Bible in addition to these = low brow, stupid, poor education.

Gotcha.

[trashcanbred]

Words and terms like theory, proof, fact, species, and even "science" itself -- all aggressively bent and twisted to fit the cloak of the High Priests of Atheism and Secularism.

How are these words bent and twisted?

Theory: You mean Electromagnetic theory is an atheist plot? Or Dirac's Quantum Theory of the Electron is heretical? If so you better throw your GPS and that computer you are typing on out a window... because both heavily depend on these theories to work properly.

Proof: The word Proof is used to subvert religious beliefs? You mean like a proof of Pythagorean Theorem? Yes knowing HYP of a right sided triangle is devil's work right?
Or did you mean that you actually need some sort of proof to say there is some validity to a theory? In other words, proof is not a requirement of faith. And when proof comes around that contradicts faith, well we must stomp it out. Just like the Church did to poor old Galileo right?

Fact: Wow... just how do you twist this one?

Species: You are right... to say that there are different species of dogs is definitely an atheist plot.

Science: Yep... science... Science says that it took longer to create the Earth and the Universe than 6 days. Science says that tornadoes are not the "finger of God". The Church used to say that if lightning struck your house it was because God was displeased with you. The Church actually tried and stop people from putting up lightning rods because it was thwarting God's wrath. Benjamin Franklin and Science prevailed in that argument.

You know what the computer you are typing on, sending man to the moon, and the medicines that you or a loved ones use everyday to keep yourself alive have in common... they all occurred because of theories that at one time were considered heresy.

You know you and your kind are nothing new. People like you have fought the advancement of Science over hundreds of years because it doesn't fit into what you believe.

[nmh]

Actually you don't have to look to far to see evidence of God and His magnificent Design. Look at mutations. According to evolutionist, mutations generate "new" information so that new features as legs, feathers, brains, eyes etc. could "evolve". However random changes in new information do NOT create new meaningful "paragraphs" or "chapters" of information. They only corrupt it. Mutations destroy. Mutations do NOT create. They are known by diseases they cause in humans such as cancer - a cell mutation.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not due to an increase in meaningful due to mutations. In ALL mutations studied, there has been a LOSS of function causing the resistance. - for example loss of control over the production of the enzyme that breaks DOWN penicillin so that much more of the enzyme is produced. Sometimes information has been acquired from another type of bacterium, which then enables the recipient to resist the antibiotic. Mutations will NEVER produce the NEW and COMPLEX information needed for evolution to proceed.

Further research has revealed that many examples of features in living things that are made up of highly complex parts where every part has to be present for all to function at all. They cannot be simpler and still function. It is not possible for small step wise mutations and natural selection to create such systems because of series of functional intermediaries is impossible. Examples include and not limited to bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, the ATPase "motor," the signaling system in cells, the DNA coded protein synthesis system etc..

I could go on and on with examples but I don't believe it is necessary. This alone should point out the obvious about evolution.