Christian Medical Schools and Evolution

[Concubine]

No, we all hold some irrational beliefs. As long as it doesn't interfere with the work, it doesn't really matter.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[THE armada]

Religions have a history of vehemently refusing to believe science because they thought that it was incompatible with their Text. I'm particularly thinking of the church persecuting Galileo and other astronomers for stating that the planets revolve around the sun because it seemed to contradict a story in the old testament.

That version of the story is a little overdone. Back in that day the entire church was under the umbrella of the catholic church which is headed by one man, the pope. Most of the scientists of the day where very serious Christians, including Galileo himself. I believe the previous pope (before the one that imprisoned Galileo) was very receptive of the theory and was an avid astronomer himself.

*If this has already been discussed, I apologize. I just started reading the thread*

 

[THE armada]

I don't understand how you can be a Christian and believe in evolution. The Bible says what it says. Where does it say you can pick and choose which parts you believe in?



Ron Paul was a physician and he doesn't believe in evolution. But you're right, the majority do.

He's right. There is really no way to reconcile the Biblical account of the entrance of death as a result of sin and the idea of evolution requiring millions of years of death before the appearance of humans.

Once you throw sin out of the picture there's really nothing left to the Bible.

 

[Sora]

No, we all hold some irrational beliefs. As long as it doesn't interfere with the work, it doesn't really matter.

Yes! Well stated.

 

[Sora]

Actually, I have a very simple one.

P1: Induction is a form of reasoning (called inductive reasoning).
C: Hence, induction is rational.

Your complaint is a very old one not really advocated anymore. Induction is STILL a method of reasoning, it's just not deductive reasoning. Now, the conclusion doesn't guarantee an a priori truth but that doesn't make it irrational.

If you criticize my argument for question begging, riddle me this:

Give me an argument for deductive reasoning that does not invoke the concept of deduction. Now that's more strange

The complaint is from the 18th century, yes, and there are many different explanations for why induction is rational. However, none satisfactorily answer the question, including your question-begging response. The point is we use induction without any rational grounds to do so (and deduction for that matter). How then should we place this intuitive impetus to use induction above any other?

 

[TheLesPaul]

He's right. There is really no way to reconcile the Biblical account of the entrance of death as a result of sin and the idea of evolution requiring millions of years of death before the appearance of humans.

Once you throw sin out of the picture there's really nothing left to the Bible.

Could animals have not died for millions of years, while humans were meant to be immortal before the entrance of sin?

 

[taponthecloud]

He's right. There is really no way to reconcile the Biblical account of the entrance of death as a result of sin and the idea of evolution requiring millions of years of death before the appearance of humans.

Once you throw sin out of the picture there's really nothing left to the Bible.

Could you please elaborate on this point for everyone? I think it's very interesting.

 

[taponthecloud]

No, we all hold some irrational beliefs. As long as it doesn't interfere with the work, it doesn't really matter.

I suppose at first blush no one would disagree with this comment. It makes sense and is very parsimonious. But if one thinks about how, in some cases, firm irrational belief can have the potential to bring about great violence and suffering in the name of religion, one would reconsider.

 

[Maxprime]

The point is we use induction without any rational grounds to do so (and deduction for that matter). How then should we place this intuitive impetus to use induction above any other?

We use deduction over induction, there is no point in arguing whether or not we do. Induction is used when deduction is not available.

If you would like to argue whether or not deduction is rational, just set up a little test for yourself:

All humans must breathe to survive.
I am human.
I must breathe to survive.

Go ahead an prove the system of logic wrong.

As for the rationale of inductive reasoning, take a course on logic. While weaker than deduction, induction is rational. In an open system, it will have inherent possibility of being wrong (Bayesian thought in reality is a good example). But that doesn't mean it's irrational.

 

[smeagol]

The complaint is from the 18th century, yes, and there are many different explanations for why induction is rational. However, none satisfactorily answer the question, including your question-begging response. The point is we use induction without any rational grounds to do so (and deduction for that matter). How then should we place this intuitive impetus to use induction above any other?

I'm actually pretty satisfied with those explanations. If you are referring to the problem of induction, the complaint is not that induction is irrational, it was that it did not guarantee truths like deductive reasoning did.

Your point has slightly changed to now suggest that we have no rational grounds for using reason (inductive or deductive). This is a very curious statement. By implication, it suggests that we need a rational basis for using reason. But this in itself implies reason is good! So it seems to follow then that we ought to use reason because it is good.

 

[Concubine]

I suppose at first blush no one would disagree with this comment. It makes sense and is very parsimonious. But if one thinks about how, in some cases, firm irrational belief can have the potential to bring about great violence and suffering in the name of religion, one would reconsider.

I still wouldn't reconsider. It's not so black and white and "religion" is a vague term. Great violence and suffering from firm irrational belief may also be in the "name of science".

 

[taponthecloud]

I still wouldn't reconsider. It's not so black and white. Great violence and suffering from firm irrational belief may also be in the name of science.

I'm not saying it's black and white at all. I'm actually saying the opposite. If you're alluding to the Manhattan Project as an example of "violence and suffering from firm irrational belief in science" then I would firmly disagree. There was nothing faith-based or irrational about the creation of the atomic bomb. This belongs in the realm of ethics.

 

[Sora]

Your point has slightly changed to now suggest that we have no rational grounds for using reason (inductive or deductive). This is a very curious statement. By implication, it suggests that we need a rational basis for using reason. But this in itself implies reason is good! So it seems to follow then that we ought to use reason because it is good.

Haha, good point! That actually seems like a very satisfying response to the problem. I'll have to think that one over.

 

[Sora]

We use deduction over induction, there is no point in arguing whether or not we do. Induction is used when deduction is not available.

If you would like to argue whether or not deduction is rational, just set up a little test for yourself:

All humans must breathe to survive.
I am human.
I must breathe to survive.

Go ahead an prove the system of logic wrong.

As for the rationale of inductive reasoning, take a course on logic. While weaker than deduction, induction is rational. In an open system, it will have inherent possibility of being wrong (Bayesian thought in reality is a good example). But that doesn't mean it's irrational.

So you would like me to use deduction to disprove deduction? Should I use induction to justify induction? Or should I accept them both because your logic professor says I should?

I was saying that a posteriori based principles are subject to doubt for some people (though small in numbers), yet others accept based on intuition. Why else should they be accepted?

Smeagol seems to have addressed that well, though I'm still trying to consider the options.

 

[Concubine]

I'm not saying it's black and white at all. I'm actually saying the opposite. If you're alluding to the Manhattan Project as an example of "violence and suffering from firm irrational belief in science" then I would firmly disagree. There was nothing faith-based or irrational about the creation of the atomic bomb. This belongs in the realm of ethics.

I am in 100% agreement that much violence and suffering has resulted from people with radical religious ideals. However, terrible things have also been done in the name of science as a religion. For example, Gestapo scientist experimenting on jews, Hitler's profiling of different races, etc.

I just think we need to be careful both ways. If we use science as justification for persecution, profiling, or putting down others with different beliefs, aren't we doing the same thing as the religious fanatics?

 

[Sora]

Your point has slightly changed to now suggest that we have no rational grounds for using reason (inductive or deductive). This is a very curious statement. By implication, it suggests that we need a rational basis for using reason. But this in itself implies reason is good! So it seems to follow then that we ought to use reason because it is good.

Ah, but somehow we forgot to look at the situation objectively, discounting our intuition. It implies reason is good because that's how we seemed to be programmed to think. Some people might also be inclined to hold a belief in the supernatural as good. Maybe that's why this should be accepted too.

 

[taponthecloud]

I am in 100% agreement that much violence and suffering has resulted from people with radical religious ideals. However, terrible things have also been done in the name of science as a religion. For example, Gestapo scientist experimenting on jews, Hitler's profiling of different races, etc.

I just think we need to be careful both ways. If we use science as justification for persecution, profiling, or putting down others with different beliefs, aren't we doing the same thing as the religious fanatics?

Yes. But you can't say that the Nazis did what they did "in the name of science." Science was merely a tool. Science did not drive them to do the things they did. Their crackpot racist ideology was the impetus.

 

[Sora]

Yes. But you can't say that the Nazis did what they did "in the name of science." Science was merely a tool. Science did not drive them to do the things they did. Their crackpot racist ideology was the impetus.

I agree, science can never be used to justify things such as this because science is by definition a tool. Anyone who might try to justify with something like the phrase "in the name of science" only operates under a flawed system of ethics in which the pursuit of knowledge is put above more important factors.

 

[Concubine]

Yes. But you can't say that the Nazis did what they did "in the name of science." Science was merely a tool. Science did not drive them to do the things they did. Their crackpot racist ideology was the impetus.

I guess we are not disagreeing. The reverse is true in that religion is merely a tool as well.

 

[taponthecloud]

I guess we are not disagreeing. The reverse is true in that religion is merely a tool as well.

No, you can't argue this. Religious ideology is the impetus which drives some people to do the crazy things they do. Whatever tool they may use to carry it is irrelevant in this case.

 

[Spidey10]

I am in 100% agreement that much violence and suffering has resulted from people with radical religious ideals. However, terrible things have also been done in the name of science as a religion. For example, Gestapo scientist experimenting on jews, Hitler's profiling of different races, etc.

I just think we need to be careful both ways. If we use science as justification for persecution, profiling, or putting down others with different beliefs, aren't we doing the same thing as the religious fanatics?

They did not do all of that in the name of science. Science did not compel them to experiment on Jews. Science is a way of learning about the world, a tool that you can use to objectively look at reality. Science doesn't hate Jews, science isn't racist. This is in contrast to the inherent teachings of some religions, which actually say that women or homosexuals are not equal to everyone else. Which one is more capable of forcing someone to do horrible things?

Hitlers' own ideology drove him to do that. They didn't experiment on Jews or racially profile for the sake of learning about the human body, there was a malicious intent from the start. If they just cared about advancing science, they could have simply autopsied their own dead soldiers or citizens.

I mean, by your logic, electricity is a horrible curse on humanity because it is used to execute people. Electricity doesn't want to kill the inmates on death row, but it can be used for that purpose. It can also be used to allow me to type this message, light our cities, turn on my television, allow me to play my Wii, allow us to walk on the moon, allow us to talk to London, etc.

 

[Concubine]

No, you can't argue this. Religious ideology is the impetus which drives some people to do the crazy things they do. Whatever tool they may use to carry it is irrelevant in this case.

Science as a religion may do the same thing, I never claimed science in itself.

 

[taponthecloud]

Science as a religion may do the same thing, I never claimed science in itself.

Science as a religion? When? Where?

 

[Spidey10]

Science as a religion may do the same thing, I never claimed science in itself.

lol. Now you're just grasping at anything aren't you?

Science is as far from religion as Hilary is from getting my vote. Very far.

 

[Concubine]

Science as a religion? When? Where?

I am not saying science is a religion, but that some people use science as a tool to further their cause just as people may use religion to further their cause. It happens all the time. Scientist "believe" in something so strongly, they will even falsify data. Religious fanatics will interpret religion the way they want to justify death and suffering. Everyone has motives, and religion is not always the driving force.

 

[taponthecloud]

Science as a religion may do the same thing, I never claimed science in itself.

Oh and by the way, please don't reference Scientology. Just because a name has the word "science" in it, doesn't mean it has anything to do with science.

lol. Now you're just grasping at anything aren't you?

Science is as far from religion as Hilary is from getting my vote. Very far.

 

[Concubine]

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you guys, just having difficulty articulating my point.

 

[taponthecloud]

I am not saying science is a religion, but that some people use science as a tool to further their cause just as people may use religion to further their cause. It happens all the time. Scientist "believe" in something so strongly, they will even falsify data. Religious fanatics will interpret religion the way they want to justify death and suffering. Everyone has motives, and religion is not always the driving force.

No. Again, you're implying that religion is a tool. It is not. Some crazy people are driven by religious ideology and they reference religious doctrine to justify the crazy things they do.

Religion is a major driving force.

 

[Concubine]

No. Again, you're implying that religion is a tool. It is not. Some crazy people are driven by religious ideology and they reference religious doctrine to justify the crazy things they do.

Religion is a major driving force.

Would you say that religion is always a negative driving force?

 

[taponthecloud]

Would you say that religion is always a negative driving force?

No, of course not. But science is never a driving force.

 

[Concubine]

No, of course not. But science is never a driving force.

Would you say religion is more of a negative driving force than positive?

 

[taponthecloud]

Would you say religion is more of a negative driving force than positive?

Let me ask you this: Is religion the main source from which human beings get morality?

 

[taponthecloud]

I posted this in the previous page, but since we're on the topic of morality and religion... here it is again:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8-VxIp9G2E[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Spidey10]

Would you say religion is more of a negative driving force than positive?

I don't think you're going to get any of us to say that religion is more negative than positive. We respect the contributions religion and religious people have given to our civilization. We just think that things that can be explained reasonably well by scientific principles, can not also be explained by supernatural (God) causation. Something that can be studied and tested using the scientific method (like the relationships between animals on this earth) should not automatically have an explanation invoking the supernatural if science has not figured it out yet. If it was impossible to study evolution using the scientific method, it would be outside the realm of science and supernatural causation would be fair game. To be clear, I'm saying if it was impossible, not whether or not it is technically possible now with our current instruments. For example, it is not possible now for science to explain how the brain generates consciousness. Does that automatically mean it is impossible for science to explain it? Should we say that God is responsible for our consciousness and our human qualities? Of course not. You would be making an assumption that science will never be able to do it. Eventually, we will be able to model the human brain on a computer, study neurons more closely, and in several years/decades, deduce exactly how consciousness is possible with the biological brain.

Does the sun rise and fall because of the movement of ancient gods?

It used to.

 

[dd128]

I posted this in the previous page, but since we're on the topic of morality and religion... here it is again:

[youtube]_8-VxIp9G2E[/youtube]

That's a pretty interesting video, I'd actually never seen dawkins before, I had no idea he was british

Anyway he brings up some good points when speaking about religion in children. Personally, it was difficult at first for me to accept things that seem to go against god like evolution when I was younger, as it had been ingrained onto me from such a young age for such a long time. With that sort of experience it's very difficult to break away from that thinking. The truth is took years of studies in various classes before I even accepted evolution, now it seems ridicules to me that I didn't, but I'm still not entirely sure what I believe regarding a higher power, and I'm sure it's partly attributed to my upbringing.

 

[taponthecloud]

The truth is took years of studies in various classes before I even accepted evolution, now it seems ridicules to me that I didn't, but I'm still not entirely sure what I believe regarding a higher power, and I'm sure it's partly attributed to my upbringing.

I think it's almost entirely attributed to our upbringing.

 

[xrevision]

I don't see how religious people lose anything by believing in a God. I also don't see why evolution and religion have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[taponthecloud]

I don't see how religious people lose anything by believing in a God. I also don't see why evolution and religion have to be mutually exclusive.

I don't understand your first statement. Religious people usually believe in a god. As for faith and science being mutually exclusive, we already went over that.

 

[Chemist0157]

Yall have kinda covered all the bases, but I'd like to chime in!

Getting back to the original issue, Christian medical schools should not have any trouble teaching evolution because the topics they cover will only be those that everyone agrees with in medicine or only topics that actually apply in medicine...like how bacteria mutate and once again are immune to an antiobiotic. Whether birds evolved from reptiles is irrelevant.

I'm a Christian. I've never understood how these arguments transform into God vs. Science debates. If I believe God created the world, shouldn't I believe He created science as well? That He gave man the capacity to make life better through scientific advances? It's not that kind of argument; the friction arises when the more outlying beliefs from both parties are involved. The bulk of evolution does not contradict the Bible. I believe God could have created the world with or without evolution. The Bible isn't supposed to serve as a science book where we nitpick at the details while avoiding its more important messages. Rather than get wrapped up in the details, I'd rather do what I know is right and make life better for myself and those around me.

 

[taponthecloud]

I'm a Christian. I've never understood how these arguments transform into God vs. Science debates. If I believe God created the world, shouldn't I believe He created science as well? That He gave man the capacity to make life better through scientific advances? It's not that kind of argument; the friction arises when the more outlying beliefs from both parties are involved. The bulk of evolution does not contradict the Bible. I believe God could have created the world with or without evolution. The Bible isn't supposed to serve as a science book where we nitpick at the details while avoiding its more important messages. Rather than get wrapped up in the details, I'd rather do what I know is right and make life better for myself and those around me.

Well, you just made two big jumps in one sentence without any evidence to support either. Of course a person is free to believe in anything; that's not at the center of the debate.

 

[rockydoc]

I think that there is an interesting point which needs to be made.....

There are plenty of creation-believing scientists in the world...you obviously wont hear about them in any evolution text-books.
Creationists are scientists, and evolutionists are scientists....both ideas enter the realm of the unknown/unable to 100% prove either way...both sides are looking at the SAME evidence...however each side is drawing its own very different conclusions...NEITHER one can fully be proved through science....therefore, both are at the most basic of definitions, a BELIEF. Some believe that evolution is responsible for the universe, other believe in creation. Just b/c the majority in the scientific community believe one way is never a sufficient reason to adopt a belief. Look at both sides first.

It is important to truly study the scientific literature which supports BOTH theories before prematurely claiming that only evolution is true science...b/c even some of the leading evolutionist theorists/scientists will admit, when pressed, that they truly cannot PROVE the Theory of Evolution. But they still Believe in it....just like people believe in creation

I know this will piss people off...but please, please take the time to learn as much as you can about both sides of an issue before denouncing one as irrational. That is the least that is required of being truly intellectual about your own position

 

[Quix]

I think that there is an interesting point which needs to be made.....

There are plenty of creation-believing scientists in the world...you obviously wont hear about them in any evolution text-books.
Creationists are scientists, and evolutionists are scientists....both ideas enter the realm of the unknown/unable to 100% prove either way...both sides are looking at the SAME evidence...however each side is drawing its own very different conclusions...NEITHER one can fully be proved through science....therefore, both are at the most basic of definitions, a BELIEF. Some believe that evolution is responsible for the universe, other believe in creation. Just b/c the majority in the scientific community believe one way is never a sufficient reason to adopt a belief. Look at both sides first.

It is important to truly study the scientific literature which supports BOTH theories before prematurely claiming that only evolution is true science...b/c even some of the leading evolutionist theorists/scientists will admit, when pressed, that they truly cannot PROVE the Theory of Evolution. But they still Believe in it....just like people believe in creation

I know this will piss people off...but please, please take the time to learn as much as you can about both sides of an issue before denouncing one as irrational. That is the least that is required of being truly intellectual about your own position

Ugh. So many unwarranted assumptions and misrepresentations. Here are a few biggies:

(1) It's not a question of perspective. Materialistic explanations are empirically verifiable, can generate predictive and explanatory hypotheses, are falsifiable, and are repeatable. There is *no* God variable that allows for materialistic testing, and as such, it is impossible to generate these *basic* elements of science.

(2) "Evolution" is not an explanatory hypothesis for either the Universe, nor for biogenesis. These are very separate concepts, and it's intellectually dishonest to conflate them.

(3) "Evolution" is an explanatory paradigm that informs a number of specific disciplines that have generated ridiculous amounts of supporting evidence in molecular biology, phylogenetics, cladistics, cellular biology, biochemistry, etc., etc. It has stood the test of time (*repeated* efforts at falsification for the past 150 years), and is still going strong. The best creation "scientists" have had to offer is putting new makeup on the same pig, whether it's called "creationism", "intelligent design", or the new "strengths and weaknesses" approach.

(4) Nothing is *ever* proven in science - science is inductive and probabilistic, moving from best explanation to best explanation. The best one can hope for is consistent patterns of supporting evidence - all of the evidence to date support the evolutionary paradigm, not the creation paradigm. As such, it is *incredibly* dishonest to insist that "belief" in evolution is in any way comparable to belief in creation. It is tantamount to insisting that 0.000...1 is essentially the same as 0.999...9, because neither can ever *truly* be 1. You commit a category mistake by insisting that "belief" is applicable in both contexts.

These are just a few of the standard issues that I've seen *repeatedly* misinterpreted by those pushing for creationism (or a current variant).

 

[HanginInThere]

I think that there is an interesting point which needs to be made.....

Congratulations! Unlike the other "Christian Values Med Schools" thread you resurrected, this one has only been dead 5 months...

 

[rockydoc]

Congratulations! Unlike the other "Christian Values Med Schools" thread you resurrected, this one has only been dead 5 months...

Haha, thanks, I am pretty proud of myself ....sorry, im quite new to this

And to Quix,

Ok, so I neglected to be super specific about certain terms....but I think that you can still see what I mean.

1) the same tests, observations, etc which are done to support evolution are and can be done to support creationism. And there is always perspective involved in science...this is a simply human attribute. And I dont think anyone has yet 'repeated, falsified, verified, etc" much of the conclusions of the evolutionary theory. The conclusions are what Im saying are a belief, not the actually tests.
2-4)
Ok, so what I am mostly talking about would be considered abiogenisis, origins, or whatever. but these are topics which are completely married to the ideas behind evolution. And yes, I understand that science is not "proven", Im not trying to be painfully specific here...we all know what's being discussed. Would you rather say that you're "failing to reject the hypothesis", if so, the same can be said about creationism.

 

[Quix]

Haha, thanks, I am pretty proud of myself ....sorry, im quite new to this

And to Quix,

Ok, so I neglected to be super specific about certain terms....but I think that you can still see what I mean.

1) the same tests, observations, etc which are done to support evolution are and can be done to support creationism. And there is always perspective involved in science...this is a simply human attribute. And I dont think anyone has yet 'repeated, falsified, verified, etc" much of the conclusions of the evolutionary theory. The conclusions are what Im saying are a belief, not the actually tests.

Nonsense, the same tests aren't done. Tell me, specifically, what variable is measured in deciding whether God was responsible for any particular outcome?

While "perspective" is involved in science, the only "assumption" in evolution is that there are naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. Period. Additionally, you being unaware of the conclusions being repeated, falsified, and verified does not mean they haven't been. Population genetics is verified in every experiment with model organisms, for instance - our good friends drosophila melanogaster. If environment weren't affecting phenotype, there would be no variation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium - a Bio 102 experiment. You can do the same for experiments conducted in molecular biology, phylogenetics, etc., etc. Hell, you yourself are an example, unless you are a clone of your parents - meiosis II shows how change occurs between generations, and basic bottlenecking and founder effects show how isolation in a particular environment produces and increases the rate of phenotypic (and hence, genotypic) change. Falling back to "it's all perspective" is intellectually dishonest. You might as well say that the only differences between astrology and astronomy, phrenology and psychology, and germ theory versus demon theory of disease are "perspective".

Do you take gravitation as an instance of faith? Plate tectonics? No one has conducted independent experimentation and "verification" of these, and yet these haven't generated anywhere near the controversy that evolution has. Additionally, you seem to be playing a zero-sum game: you seem to think that if you attack evolution, or attempt to show why it is suspect, that creationism becomes more likely as an alternative. This simply isn't so, as it necessarily assumes a false dilemma.

I "see what you mean", and I reject your superficial, dishonest, and equivocating analysis.

2-4)
Ok, so what I am mostly talking about would be considered abiogenisis, origins, or whatever. but these are topics which are completely married to the ideas behind evolution. And yes, I understand that science is not "proven", Im not trying to be painfully specific here...we all know what's being discussed. Would you rather say that you're "failing to reject the hypothesis", if so, the same can be said about creationism.

No, they are only "married" to evolution in the sense that both abiogenesis and evolution can be explored in terms of biochemistry and biophysics. This is like saying that a hammer, paintbrush, and screwdriver are comparable because they are all tools, and then rejecting the screwdriver as bad or mistaken because it does a poor job of painting your house.

And while the same "can be said about creationism", it doesn't mean that the sentence makes sense. The same "can be said" about an invisible, omnipotent elf living on my shoulder, and you can't prove me wrong about that one either. The ability to form a sentence does not give that sentence validity or meaning. It's like asking "What time is it on the surface of the sun?" Grammatically correct, but absurd.

The bottom line is that you are using a poor definition of science and scientific methodology. The problem isn't the specificity of your terms, it's that your basis is fundamentally flawed. Every explanation of naturalistic phenomena you propose via creation is essentially "naturalism +1", where this additional factor is an unverifiable and untestable entity. The principal of parsimony rejects this, and philosophically you encounter the same material/immaterial interaction problem that flummoxed Descartes (i.e., how it is possible for something that is immaterial can interact with something that is material without generating an infinite number of interactional steps between the two).

 

[Lokhtar]

This is such an inane debate. It's about believing in fairies vs. agreeing with a proven set of data. It's fair enough if you choose to believe in fairies, but please don't go making it more than it is.

To me, it is utterly ridiculous that some physicians would deny a scientific fact like evolution. It's like engineers denying gravity. Sure, it'd be worse if the physicist denied gravity, but it's still pretty bad. Biologists have an absolute mountain of evidence for this, and if you're going to challenge it, you better have some yourself, instead of 'invisiblemandidit'.

 

[bcat85]

Rockydoc, WHY!?

Were you bored? Here are a list of things you could have done other then resurrect a thread about evolution and christian medical schools.

1. Gone for a run.
2. Eaten a ham and cheese sandwich.
3. Drink a beer
4. Drink 12 beers.
5. Go to sleep.

And, by the way, yes Christian medical schools teach evolution. They aren't stupid.

 

[rockydoc]

Rockydoc, WHY!?

Were you bored? Here are a list of things you could have done other then resurrect a thread about evolution and christian medical schools.

1. Gone for a run.
2. Eaten a ham and cheese sandwich.
3. Drink a beer
4. Drink 12 beers.
5. Go to sleep.

And, by the way, yes Christian medical schools teach evolution. They aren't stupid.

Haha....ok ok Im sorry for stirring this all up again...yes, i was bored last night....

obviously this debate is going absolutely no-where....and both sides will still leave believing what they did when it started

and yes, obviously drosophila melanogaster, genetics, meiosis, founders, bottleneck, etc, etc, are all true and verifiable....but then there is a leap/conclusion made from these true phenomena to something which isnt verifiable...namely, species change to another distinct/separate species, what you're talking about is a shift in the already existing genes of a population, not evolution.....maybe microevolution, but not macro.
And I find it amusing that you all feel better when you have referred to religion as believing in elves, and fairies,

the end, im done because this is pointless

 

[Lokhtar]

There is no such thing as macro vs. micro evolution. Macro = a bunch of micro.

Read this

 

[Quix]

For the record, I think there is something that transcends human experience, so I'm an agnostic theist. I also happen to teach Comparative Religion. I just don't conflate science with religion, and I don't denigrate religion. I denigrate attempts to use specious reasoning.

Additionally, the micro/macro thing is disingenuous. Speciation is predicated on reproductive isolation, and morphological change over time produces reproductive isolation, and hence, species changing into other species. Why are you so willing to concede that 1+1 = 2, but not 1+1+...+1 = 1,000,000, where 2 != 1,000,000?