Home icon Back to TheU.ca
FAQ FAQ
Search Search
Memberlist Memberlist
Banned Users List Banned Users List
Usergroups Usergroups
RSS Feeds RSS Feeds
Register Register
Profile Profile
Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
Log in Log in
 
 

Reply to topic

 
 
View previous topic
View next topic


 
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
 
 

 
 
 
Web theu.ca
xtalk.theu.ca
 
 
 
 
phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
phpBBlite template version 1015 by Jupix
 

TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - It's time to take up the fight - Reply to topic

Goto page 1, 2  Next

 
pedal2000




Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2689

Reputation: 105.8
votes: 11
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:30 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation
By the time Creationists are pushing this far into the education realm, I have to agree with the Royal Society that it is time to confront them and make them stand in the lime-light rather than let them continue to slink around in the dark.

Quote:
A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form 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 United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Now similar trends in this country have prompted the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head on with a talk entitled Why Creationism is Wrong. The award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally at the society's event in April.

"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 United States."

Professor David Read, vice-president and biological sciences secretary of the Royal Society, said that they felt it was essential to address the issue now: "We have asked Steve Jones to deliver his lecture on creationism and evolution because there continues to be controversy over how evolution and other aspects of science are taught in some UK schools, colleges and universities. Our education system should provide access to the knowledge and understanding gained through the scientific method of experiment and observation, such as the theory of evolution through natural selection, and should withstand attempts to withhold or misrepresent this knowledge in order to promote particular beliefs, religious or otherwise."

Leaflets questioning 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 Slough-based charity set up in 1992 with the aim of improving the understanding of Islam. The passage quoted from the Qur'an states: "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 did not want to be named, said that the Qur'an was clear that man had been created and had not evolved as Darwin suggests. "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. "We want to become doctors and dentists, we want to pass our exams." He added that God had not created mankind literally in six days. "It's not six earth days," he said, it could refer to several thousands of years but it had been an act of creation and not evolution.

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 Qur'an as scientifically factual if they want to pass exams.

David Rosevear of the Portsmouth-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. He said it was an early example of the six-day week. Students taking exams on the subject should not be dogmatic one way or the other. "I tell them - answer the question, it's no good saying it [creationism] is a fact any more than saying evolution is a fact."

A former lecturer in organic chemistry at Portsmouth polytechnic (now university) and ICI research scientist, Dr Rosevear said he had been invited to expound his theories at many colleges and had addressed the Cafe Scientifique, a student science society, at St Andrews university, Fife. "The students clearly came expecting to have a laugh but they found there was much more to it. Our attitude is - teach evolution but mention creationism and let students decide for themselves."

Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form 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. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole ... it's a bit like the southern states of America." Many of them came from Muslim, Pentecostal or Baptist family backgrounds, she said, and were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.

Backstory

The doctrine of creationism holds that the origins of humanity and the Earth are recent and divine as related in the book of Genesis. Strict creationists believe Adam and Eve are the mother and father of humanity and God created the Earth in six days. Support for creationism in the UK has traditionally lacked real vigour but in the US a recent poll found 45% of Americans believed God created life some time in the past 10,000 years. Recently American creationists suffered a setback when Ohio's board of education threw out a model biology lesson plan which gave credence to creationism. Not all creationists believe in a strict six-day creation. Current scientific research suggests the universe is 13bn years old and humans are descended from ape-like creatures



 
 
Senther

Xtalk Drifter


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 2296
Location: The Deadlights
Reputation: 131.9
votes: 42
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:43 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



This movement is obvious foolish, but I do hate how there is a growing tendency among some people to make Darwin untouchable. I understand that it's a reaction to repeated irrational attacks, but I wish the people were confident enough to let the science stand on its own.

I often wonder if the Flat Earth Society was scaled up to the size of the Creationist group (and all traces of satire removed) would everyone react as strongly? I suspect not, and that bothers me.



_________________
To avoid complications, she never kept the same address
In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness
 
 
pedal2000




Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2689

Reputation: 105.8
votes: 11
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:46 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



I don't care much about making Darwin untouchable, I don't mind solid scientifically based questions on him, but I do find that by the time you have future doctors etc going through thinking this was all created 6000 years ago, well, face palm.



 
 
pedal2000




Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2689

Reputation: 105.8
votes: 11
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:55 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    






 
 
Senther

Xtalk Drifter


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 2296
Location: The Deadlights
Reputation: 131.9
votes: 42
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:16 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



pedal2000 wrote:
I don't care much about making Darwin untouchable, I don't mind solid scientifically based questions on him, but I do find that by the time you have future doctors etc going through thinking this was all created 6000 years ago, well, face palm.


I don't mean anyone here specifically, I've just encountered a lot of people whose response to people challenging Evolution is a little too emotional for my tastes.



_________________
To avoid complications, she never kept the same address
In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness
 
 
Jimmy Big Ears

X-talk mobster


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 3256
Location: St. Francis Xavier University
Reputation: -217.8
votes: 38
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:44 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Take up what fight?
Quote:
A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.
A 'growing number', 'one sixth form college'? This is a classic use of misleading numbers. If the percentage grew from 0.50% to 0.57% it is a 'growing number'. One sixth form college? How big is it and is it a college from a certain religious sect or whose members are drawn principally from a group of immigrants or a locale with a disproportionate number of fundamentalists?

This reminds me of the documentary talking about the number of scientists questioning global warming. Without actual non-anecdotal evidence this is just being alarmist.

"More students believe Darwin got it wrong"
"Royal Society challenges 'insidious problem"

A call to arms, a veritable call to arms! By a journalistic culture warrior against a 'problem' of highly questionable status.



_________________
"Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner.
 
 
Lock

Russia's greatest love machine


Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 752
Location: The wrong place
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6
votes: 6
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 3:50 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Anybody who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old should be kicked out of medical school.



 
 
Lance Uppercut




Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 552

Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8
votes: 9
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:21 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Senther wrote:
This movement is obvious foolish, but I do hate how there is a growing tendency among some people to make Darwin untouchable. I understand that it's a reaction to repeated irrational attacks, but I wish the people were confident enough to let the science stand on its own.


I think it's mostly uninformed and science-illiterate people who vehemently attack or defend Darwin. Most of the Darwin fish-toting, Richard Dawkins-worshipping set are as uninformed about science as many Young Earth Creationists.

This is a big issue in Britain though, and this certainly isn't the first media report to document it. I find it interesting that young Muslims are essentially leading the charge because Islam has typically been much more amenable to evolutionary theory than Christianity.



 
 
Nitz

The Last of the Mohicans


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 446

Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9
votes: 7
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:26 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Darwin was wrong on a lot of things, (see: blending inheritance) but today's evolutionary theory (neo-darwinian) is pretty sound, amalgamating a few different older evolutionary theories..



 
 
aspie jew stereotype




Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Posts: 326

Reputation: -43.1
votes: 12
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:20 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



I don't see why using one legitimate scientific idea to quesiotn another is such a problem. University is about understanding the world and challenigng assumptions, and if people have legitiamate challenges to darwinian assumptions, we should take those challenges on not sweep them under the rug



 
 
Lock

Russia's greatest love machine


Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 752
Location: The wrong place
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6
votes: 6
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:44 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



aspie jew stereotype wrote:
I don't see why using one legitimate scientific idea to quesiotn another is such a problem. University is about understanding the world and challenigng assumptions, and if people have legitiamate challenges to darwinian assumptions, we should take those challenges on not sweep them under the rug
I don't think anyone has any issue with doing what you've described.



 
 
Nitz

The Last of the Mohicans


Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 446

Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9Reputation: 4.9
votes: 7
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:57 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Arguably the smartest thing he/she has said. An unintentional profoundness im sure.



 
 
Jimmy Big Ears

X-talk mobster


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 3256
Location: St. Francis Xavier University
Reputation: -217.8
votes: 38
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:41 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



It is an issue in Britain, but why? If people give the wrong answer to a question they lose points; no big deal. You can't really kick someone out of med school for answers that are lousy unless they bring down their marks enough. Can you imagine trying to set up criteria to judge whose individual answer(s) to questions are bad enough to earn them the boot?

Most medical treatments and prescriptions involve science that owes something (often much, obviously) to other branches of biology, and genetics and more narrowly evolution are important. However, would a doctor really be incapable of practicing good medicine because he thinks the Earth is about 6,000 years old? He's a doctor, not a geologist.

I'm not sure if it would affect prescribing operations, prescription drugs, therapies et al. If someone can pass their evolutionary bio course and get through med school and become a doctor, then they should be able to practice clinical medicine perfectly well, although there is research they obviously would not be able to do.



_________________
"Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner.
 
 
aspie jew stereotype




Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Posts: 326

Reputation: -43.1
votes: 12
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:45 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Agreed. My family doctor for many years was not a creationist, but he also was skeptical about evolution. So that disproves the idea that it's automatically oging to make you a bad doctor to not believe evolution. This is true of my dad as well, but he;s not a doctor



 
 
Lance Uppercut




Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 552

Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8
votes: 9
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



I didn't read this piece as being specifically about medical schools, to be quite honest. If one can reconcile their personal beliefs with professional duties and obligations, then he/she can succeed in any field, regardless of belief. It isn't unimaginable that it might be more difficult for a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim to do that, however.

The problem is that a small group of people want to dictate what is taught in institutions of higher learning based on personal belief. To paraphrase Neil Degrasse-Tyson a bit, personal religious beliefs are fine and dandy by me: believe what you want, worship how you will. Science classrooms, however, are places of empiricism, rationality and well-tested and constructed theory. You won't see an evolutionary biologist (for example) trying to dictate what is taught in a church or a mosque, so why is pressure okay coming from the other end?



 
 
Lock

Russia's greatest love machine


Joined: 09 Jul 2009
Posts: 752
Location: The wrong place
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6
votes: 6
View user's profile

Post Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:53 pm   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Jimmy Big Ears wrote:
However, would a doctor really be incapable of practicing good medicine because he thinks the Earth is about 6,000 years old? He's a doctor, not a geologist.
I don't particularly want to be treated by a doctor who ignores any and all evidence that doesn't fit his preconceptions.



 
 
Jimmy Big Ears

X-talk mobster


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 3256
Location: St. Francis Xavier University
Reputation: -217.8
votes: 38
View user's profile

Post Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:03 am   Reply with quote           Send private message    



You can't really tell much about the medicine one guy practices from one opinion, however off the wall you might think it is. People are frequently rational enough outside of their blind spots; just look at politics. I hope most doctors believe in evolution but I have doubts as to this as a meaningful litmus test for medical rationality.

Regarding your point Lance, the pressure doesn't make sense, it just isn't much of a problem. Why is it a fight? Just teach the stuff the right way and ignore the people on the other end except for taking off points when they get a test answer wrong. My problem with the article is that it seemed like alarmism since it did not cite any decent stats as to the extent of this 'problem'. Sometimes journalists like the Guardian's guy here just like to make an unimportant occurrence into a major struggle so it makes a better news story.



_________________
"Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner.
 
 
Lance Uppercut




Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 552

Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8Reputation: 46.8
votes: 9
View user's profile

Post Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:39 am   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Just noticed this is a 4 year old article, so there likely wasn't a lot of available info to go on at the time. The issue is well-documented by now, though, and a number of British academics have weighed in. I heard Richard Dawkins discussing it (quite objectively, to his credit) on a CBC program last fall. I don't think it needs to be quantitatively described to be an issue, necessarily. Since many within higher education recognize it as an issue, I don't necessarily need a p value <0.05 to consider it one.

I wish it were as simple as ignoring it, but it simply isn't. It's a minefield full of challenges to academic freedoms and charlatans spreading pseudoscience and misinformation. I think universities are better equipped to handle the challenges to the way they teach than public schools, which is where I think the real problem exists particularly in the UK and the US.



 
 
Senther

Xtalk Drifter


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 2296
Location: The Deadlights
Reputation: 131.9
votes: 42
View user's profile

Post Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:52 am   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Lance Uppercut wrote:
I think it's mostly uninformed and science-illiterate people who vehemently attack or defend Darwin. Most of the Darwin fish-toting, Richard Dawkins-worshipping set are as uninformed about science as many Young Earth Creationists.


For the most part no doubt, but not all. As an example of what I mean I find unsettling, "ClimateGate" is pretty much the same thing (though a little more clearcut). I sat at a lecture about "How to talk to the public" by one of the scientists involved in the scandal, and I definitely disagreed with his "We need to make sure they only ever listen to us" attitude. I was more swayed by the follow-up speaker who stressed that it's better to just focus on improving the body of knowledge, and making sure that the information is clear and digestible.

I guess that's putting a lot of faith in the general public, particularly when the opposing side isn't going to "play fair" in the debate, but I think it's the only way to maintain credibility.



_________________
To avoid complications, she never kept the same address
In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness
 
 
pedal2000




Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2689

Reputation: 105.8
votes: 11
View user's profile

Post Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:28 am   Reply with quote           Send private message    



Lance Uppercut wrote:
Just noticed this is a 4 year old article, so there likely wasn't a lot of available info to go on at the time. ]


Snap, I missed that, apologies. It came up on BBC's top 10 and (usually) it is all recent.



 

Goto page 1, 2  Next

TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - It's time to take up the fight - Reply to topic