Norway succumbs to Creationism...

[Matabiri]

... or at least, may do soon.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=672888

"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."

Same old story, different people.

 

[The Don]

Nah,

they only succumb if they get the lectures and the Norwegians are too smart to do that .

I'm not sure how happy I'd be to find out that my doctor was a creationist though. Yike!

 

[Matabiri]

I'm not sure how happy I'd be to find out that my doctor was a creationist though. Yike!

You have to wonder how they rationalise it, though.

"Man was divinely created.
Therefore anything that breaks is the will of God.
I know, I'll become a doctor and fix broken things, against God's will."

 

[BillHoyt]

Nothing in biology can be fully understood except in light of evolution. It would be like teaching physics without relativity. Norway now? When will this crap end? What is it going to take?

 

[Zep]

I suspect this is just a very few noisy and insignificant people who will have misused their 15 minutes, and it won't fly very far...

 

[The Thrasher]

... or at least, may do soon.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=672888

"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."

Same old story, different people.

I am confused. The writer seems to suggest there are scientific theories that are competing with evolution "one theory among many". I am unaware of any such alternative theory. Does anyone know what this person is refering to?

 

[arcticpenguin]

I would presume their 'competing theory' is Intelligent Design, otherwise known as Creationism. It is not taken seriously as a scientific theory by any but a few whack jobs on the very fringe of science.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Norway succumbs to Creationism...

I am confused. The writer seems to suggest there are scientific theories that are competing with evolution "one theory among many". I am unaware of any such alternative theory. Does anyone know what this person is refering to?

Thrasher,

The writer here is quoting one of the students. As A/P pointed out, ID is one of the alternatives they propose. (See the bottom of Tisdall's article.)

For example:

"1 According to the theory of evolution a mutation must be immediately beneficial to survive through selection."

Absolutely wrong! Theoretical population genetics (the formal, mathematical theory of evolution, if you will) says neutral mutations will be maintained. Maybe these dorks ought to understand the theory before they go proposing alternatives? Nah, that would be too easy.

 

[CurtC]

BillHoyt wrote:
Nothing in biology can be fully understood except in light of evolution. It would be like teaching physics without relativity.

I took quite a bit of physics, and got a lot out of it, before ever learning about relativity. No, the analogy would be much closer to teaching chemistry while denying the existence of atoms.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I would presume their 'competing theory' is Intelligent Design, otherwise known as Creationism. It is not taken seriously as a scientific theory by any but a few whack jobs on the very fringe of science.

Intelligent design and evolution do not necessarily contradict each other. Nor does ID necessarily imply creationism.

 

[fishbob]

Nor does ID necessarily imply creationism.

Logically correct, however in the fundy whack-job reality, ID equals creationism.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Norway succumbs to Creationism...

I am confused. The writer seems to suggest there are scientific theories that are competing with evolution "one theory among many". I am unaware of any such alternative theory. Does anyone know what this person is refering to?

There are no other scientific alternatives for Evolution (note: Lamarckism is not scientific, it doesnt count).

If written intentionally, the author's use of "one theory competing among many" is only trying to undermind the significance of Evolution (and if in that case, the author probably has little or no understanding of evolution due to the clouding of his judgement due to Creationism).

 

[Yahweh]

Intelligent design and evolution do not necessarily contradict each other. Nor does ID necessarily imply creationism.

Some people believe Evolution and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive, I dont believe that is true. However, I dont believe Evolution and IDs hypothetical compatibility has anything to do with what occurs here in Real World.

Edit to add: I cant seem to find the proper words to put my ideas on order tonight for some reason... the "Intelligent Design" that I'm referring to is the kind most associated with fundamentalist Christianity (I dont know if that translates directly into "Creationism" or not...).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

Intelligent design and evolution do not necessarily contradict each other.

That might have a chance of being true if IDers didn't use the trouncing of evolution as support for ID. Their entire argument is based on a false dichtomy that precisely makes the two theories contradictory.

But have a go at this forum and make that suggestion:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/?yguid=59372778

~~ Paul

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Norway succumbs to Creationism...

There are no other scientific alternatives for Evolution (note: Lamarckism is not scientific, it doesnt count).

I know a philosophical one is that any help?

 

[Yahweh]

I would presume their 'competing theory' is Intelligent Design, otherwise known as Creationism. It is not taken seriously as a scientific theory by any but a few whack jobs on the very fringe of science.

Its a long read, but worth it: Creationism Philosophy.

Here's an excerpt:

10. Conclusion

Creationism in the sense used in this discussion is still very much a live phenomenon in American culture today — and in other parts of the world, like the Canadian West, to which it has been exported. <span style="background:#FFDDBB">Popularity does not imply truth. Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair.</span> But do not underestimate its social and political power. As we enter the new millennium, thanks to Johnson and his fellows, there are ongoing pressures to introduce non-evolutionary ideas into science curricula, especially into the science curricula of publically funded schools in the United States of America. And things could get a lot worse before they get better, if indeed they will get better. <span style="background:#FFDDBB">Already, there are members of the United States Supreme Court who have made it clear that they would receive sympathetically calls to push evolution from a preeminent place in science teaching. If future appointments include more justices with like inclinations, we could find that — nearly a century after the Scopes Trial, when the Fundamentalists were perceived as figures of fun — Creationism finally takes its place in the classroom. If this essay persuades even one person to take up the fight against so awful an outcome, then it will have served its purpose.</span>

 

[ond_magiker]

Tadde og dalle!

Shouldn't these christian medical students be more concerned with the growing amount of government sponsored witches?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

It must be immediately beneficial? Where does it say that? What about "dormant" DNA, where you don't have an immediate benefit, but something that could come in handy later on?

There is no fossil evidence to indicate transitional forms between, for example, fish and land animals or apes and humans.

Plenty. The dolphin, e.g.: It was once a land animal, but turned aquatic again.

Evolution assumes too many extremely improbably events occurring over too short a span of time.

Like what? We are talking millions of years here. What are "improbable" events?

 

[Muslim]

I think its a healthy discussion.
Believing in evolucionism because science tells you to is as bad as Believing in creationism cos religion tells you so

 

[arcticpenguin]

I think its a healthy discussion.
Believing in evolucionism because science tells you to is as bad as Believing in creationism cos religion tells you so

Not true, troll.

That science is based on observation and experimentation, while the religion is based on the fact that somebody at some time said so.