Is evolution a debated topic in the veterinary field?

Veterinary Science Graduate Certificate from UofI
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
StartingoverVet said:
Sorry but Big Ben is miles away from Michael Vick as being most hated QB/player in my book.

Not to mention Vick ending up with a franchise that has almost as bad a rap as he does. Must admit he fits right in with the Santa-hating, battery throwing, turn on you on a dime Eagles fans (also beer dumping, ex-owner gambling away his fortune, etc etc).

I think I will concede there is no such thing as Evolution if Michael Vick is an example of it.
Click to expand...

You know, as a Redskins fan myself, I guess Big Ben does fall to #2 behind Michael Vick. (We all know Tony Romo isn't worth debating anyway. He was probably the one dressed as Santa in the first place!)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Answers in Genesis?? Really? That's your ultimate authority? Hell, even other creationists think that AiG is incredible at best and downright fraudulent at worst.
 
Great, you have a list of scientists that don't believe in evolution. Now, let me post a list of scientists that do believe in the law of evolution:

EVERYONE ELSE
 
Yeah, and you know it's not just a numbers thing either (as far as numbers of scientists who believe in evolution vs. those who do not). Because as far as numbers go, there are certainly more people who believe in the spirit in the sky thing than don't. It's more about looking at evidence and using reason to come to conclusions versus being told what to believe by your church or the bible. Obviously the scientists who don't believe in evolution are those who compartmentalize their religious beliefs from their role as scientists. In other words, just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that he/she has taken a scientific approach to every aspect of their lives and that we should somehow be swayed by their title ("scientist") rather than their methods.
 
StartingoverVet said:
I don't remember the details (you can probably google it) but Eagles fans booed.threw snowballs at a guy dressed at Santa at a halftime show of one of the games many years ago.
Click to expand...

They also notoriously beat up this old guy, Chief Zee, who dresses as a "chief" for every Redskins game. Granted the 'Skins have the most offensive team name in the country, but still...
 
Bisbee said:
Yeah, and you know it's not just a numbers thing either (as far as numbers of scientists who believe in evolution vs. those who do not). Because as far as numbers go, there are certainly more people who believe in the spirit in the sky thing than don't. It's more about looking at evidence and using reason to come to conclusions versus being told what to believe by your church or the bible. Obviously the scientists who don't believe in evolution are those who compartmentalize their religious beliefs from their role as scientists. In other words, just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that he/she has taken a scientific approach to every aspect of their lives and that we should somehow be swayed by their title ("scientist") rather than their methods.
Click to expand...
Scientists also have families. Hardline denial of religion is not easily incorporated into the family unit.. Many willingly "play along" with a religious lifestyle simply for the sake of unity of their family. It's a hell of a lot easier to raise a kid with a cookie-cutter religious philosophy that you can fall back on whenever hard questions crop up.. It's one of the most convenient fictions imaginable for the parent, husband, wife.
Darwin himself was largely reluctant to publicly express his true views because he felt it would alienate him from his religious wife whom he loved.
Take mormonism as an example: Say you have a fundamentalist mormon son or daughter, and they are getting married in the tabernacle.. If you as the parent are not a member of the mormon church, you absolutely may not attend your son or daughter's wedding..
So as a parent, wouldn't you become a member of their church even if you did not truly believe in it? I'd call that a convenient fiction.
There's millions of other examples of different circumstances that favour disingenuous enrolment in a religious belief system.

And even if these are anonymous private polls, once you start buying into a religious philosophy for whatever initial reason, most people come to convince themselves that they actually believe in it to some degree. It's a simple and easy rationalization for the mind to perform, via the elegant cognitive dissonance theory.

The bottom line is that there are massive incentives to "be religious" even if your belief (especially the origin of it) is contrived.
 
Last edited:
I've been following this thread for a while and feel that it's about time for me to chime in. As a professional (not to mention a decent and mature human being), it is very important to respect the beliefs of your fellow men and women- whatever they may be, whether or not they agree with the beliefs you yourself possess. Although you do not necessarily have to agree with their belief in/non-belief in a particular religious system, it is of utmost importance that you respect them as a human being of equal worth to yourself. No matter which side of the fence on which you sit, you'll definitely learn something from one another if you simply open your mind to a different point of view. You'll definitely learn some tolerance and understanding.

As for the peaceful co-existence of religion and science, I HIGHLY suggest that those of you seriously interested in making this work pick up a copy of 'Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion.' This highly authoritative text was written by Francisco J. Ayala- a preeminent, authoritative, evolutionary biologist (he was the direct student of Theodosius Dobzhansky, considered the father of modern evolutionary biology). Ayala was one of my mentors in graduate school. I served as his teaching assistant in a hybrid Philosophy of Biology class for a number of years. The man is an absolute genius. In addition to being awarded the National Medal of Science (the highest honor awarded for scientific achievement by the US government), Ayala was also a former Catholic priest.

It is possible for religion and science to peacefully AND productively coexist. I myself am an active practitioner within a religious belief system, and am a better human being as a result of doing so. I also support the tenets of macro and microevoultion (having completed my graduate training in a dept. of ecology and evolutionary biology).

Whatever your pro/anti religious predilections, I implore you to respect your fellow men and women. Please open your hearts and minds to step into another person's shoes and walk his or her road for a while. You'll be surprised how much you'll learn.
 
For those of you that are curious, Francisco Ayala is currently the Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences within the Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California, Irvine. If that isn't authoritative as far as credentials are concerned, than I don't know what is. He ranks right up there with Richard Dawkins (author of 'the God Delusion'), and supports the opposite side of the science/religion argument.
 
Here's the conclusion of an article I read on that site.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/zonkeys-ligers-wholphins

"All of these animals’ ancestors—horses, donkey, zebras, tigers, lions, whales, and dolphins—were created with genetic diversity. Through time the processes of natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms have altered that original information (decreased or degenerated) to give us even more variation within a kind. Great variety can be observed in the offspring of animals of the same kind, just as the same cake recipe can be used to make many different cakes with various flavors and colors. Hybrids have a portion of the same genetic information as their parents but combined in a unique way to give a very unique looking animal. What an amazing diversity of life God has created for us to enjoy!

The study of created kinds is an exciting area of research, and our hope is to help encourage others to get involved. Whether studying the duck-goose kind, elephant-mammoth kind, camel-llama kind, apple-pear kind, or others, the field of baraminology is a great place for biologists, botanists, geneticists, and paleontologists (for extinct kinds) to get immersed in creation research."
 
Newfoundland-I agree with your observations of people going along to get along. I just wish it didn't have to be that way. I wish people who didn't "believe" could feel free within their social circles to admit it. In this way others would also come forward. That is what I try to do, so that others see that it's okay to not believe and still live a happy and full life. I understand how hard it is for funadamentalists and others who would be shunned if they "came out" as atheists. I think it's becoming more and more socially acceptable, at least in certain areas, to be an atheist.

LabRat-I respect all people as human beings. I don't make fun of religious people; I understand where they are coming from.
 
Ooops...I mean Lab Vet (I always get people's names confused on there...sorry).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I actually went and read all the posts on this thread. Yay procrastination!

And now I will throw in my vote for Drew Brees. He's a nice guy, too!:thumbup:
 
Brees is actually a great example of a guy who manages to do a lot of good for people without proselytizing or bringing religion into it at all.
 
Bisbee said:
Newfoundland-I agree with your observations of people going along to get along. I just wish it didn't have to be that way. I wish people who didn't "believe" could feel free within their social circles to admit it.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I lost some good 'friends' in undergrad because I told them I was atheist (was tenuously religious going into college, de-converted in sophomore year). Guess I should've expected that at one of the most conservative schools in the US. Needless to say I keep my atheism well under wraps now a days except online. There's actually only been one other person IRL after the initial gaffe that I've told that I was atheist, and I was drunk at the time so wasn't thinking of repercussions. However, turned out she was too so it wasn't a big deal. But it's kind of unnerving not knowing how my classmates would react to it, because you're stuck with the same 100ish people for 4 years. Not like you can lose yourself to anonymity like in undergrad. And then you have family, whom you're stuck with for life (assuming you actually want to keep ties with them).

There's millions of other examples of different circumstances that favour disingenuous enrolment in a religious belief system.
Click to expand...
Like free wine and crackers!
 
Last edited:
HopefulAg said:
Ditto. I lost some good 'friends' in undergrad because I told them I was atheist (was tenuously religious going into college, de-converted in sophomore year). Guess I should've expected that at one of the most conservative schools in the US. Needless to say I keep my atheism well under wraps now a days except online. There's actually only been one other person IRL after the initial gaffe that I've told that I was atheist, and I was drunk at the time so wasn't thinking of repercussions. However, turned out she was too so it wasn't a big deal. But it's kind of unnerving not knowing how my classmates would react to it, because you're stuck with the same 100ish people for 4 years. Not like you can lose yourself to anonymity like in undergrad. And then you have family, whom you're stuck with for life (assuming you actually want to keep ties with them).

Like free wine and crackers!
Click to expand...

As someone raised Catholic, the wine and crackers are over-rated. :laugh:

I share the same dilemma with student organizations and specifically with the international trip I recruit/organize - probably at least half the students signed up last year were VERY religious, with bible quotes as facebook updates, thanking God for the opportunity, etc. It is really frustrating to me how absolutely aghast many of the people I interact with regularly would be if they learned of my atheism. My lgbt associations are also kept to the very minimum while I'm recruiting... gotta love the South.
 
Lab Vet said:
It is possible for religion and science to peacefully AND productively coexist. I myself am an active practitioner within a religious belief system, and am a better human being as a result of doing so. I also support the tenets of macro and microevoultion (having completed my graduate training in a dept. of ecology and evolutionary biology).
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with religious people in science, and I doubt most of the others who have posted here do either. The problem is the minority of people in religion who make certain parts of science into religious issues.

The bible doesn't say to denounce darwinism, it is men who do that. The bible didn't say to denounce galileo either. There's a pretty lousy history there.

The catholic church has no problem with evolution, so this is not a debate about the problems of religion and science, but about certain religions' intolerance of science when they find it inconvenient.
 
that redhead said:
You think they're complaining about winning with a fullback under center? :D
Click to expand...

The problem is that it won't last, much like the Dolphins having success with the wildcat for approximately 3/4 of one season a few years back. Once one NFL defensive coordinator figures out the best way to defend against it with those particular players, the rest will follow suit and it will backfire. It isn't like college where Tebow is way more athletic and bigger than most of the other players.

But it is fun to watch the option being run in the NFL for the time being, haha...just glad it isn't my favorite team doing it. ;)
 
Oooh, is it too late to jump in and offend someone? Or are we on to NFL now?

Also wondering, is it still being debated whether swallows hibernate in the mud? Too much education will cause women to become barren? Maybe that there are canals on mars, built by aliens? Is that all being debated in vet school, too? Or do we have actual science there?
 
nyanko said:
The problem is that it won't last, much like the Dolphins having success with the wildcat for approximately 3/4 of one season a few years back. Once one NFL defensive coordinator figures out the best way to defend against it with those particular players, the rest will follow suit and it will backfire. It isn't like college where Tebow is way more athletic and bigger than most of the other players.

But it is fun to watch the option being run in the NFL for the time being, haha...just glad it isn't my favorite team doing it. ;)
Click to expand...

Good point. Although I'd like to think that he wouldn't be stopped completely but continue to bulldoze through them :laugh: I'd like to see him get to throw it more, even if his strengths are obviously elsewhere, but I think he's worth cultivating. Like an exotic herb or something.

I think Denver is going to have to be my new favorite team, seeing as my own (Redskins) are beyond atrocious. Talk about f'ed up quarterback situation... :barf:

And nuevaberra, YES, too late. NFL from here on out. I think we need an NFL thread, but this may as well be it since clearly evolution is less debated!
 
Uh...maybe this should be two different threads? It seems like we have two different discussions going on here: one about football players and one about evolution and religion.
 
Bisbee said:
Uh...maybe this should be two different threads? It seems like we have two different discussions going on here: one about football players and one about evolution and religion.
Click to expand...

I agree. Let's keep the serious posts here and move all the evolution/religion ones to another thread.
 
Bisbee said:
I understand how hard it is for funadamentalists and others who would be shunned if they "came out" as atheists.
Click to expand...

Bisbee said:
LabRat-I respect all people as human beings. I don't make fun of religious people; I understand where they are coming from.
Click to expand...

I relate to the above. I'm an an ex-Christian who is now an Agnostic. I changed because it got to the point where I had so many doubts that I could not keep believing and still think of myself as the rational, open minded person I've always considered myself to be. I finally had to acknowledge all the good, fact-based arguments I'd heard against Christianity. In retrospect I am glad I quit the faith. I used to feel like I was doomed to whatever career, husband, etc. God arbitrarily picked for me, and if I didn't like it, too bad. Now I feel like I am the architect of my own life. I trust in my judgment a lot more than that of a God who is hard to communicate with. Yeah, you can pray, but how do you know when something is an answer or just a random occurrence? Relying on prayer for guidance in life made me feel like I was shooting in the dark. I also really believe it led me to a lot of bad decisions that I would not have made if I could go back in time.

Anyway, if you want to sum me up you could say I'm somebody that's open to there possibly being some supernatural reality/force/god/whatever out there but no religion has convinced me of it yet. I feel like all I have achieved is determining Christianity does not have the answer.

I am generally nice to religious people though because I have been in their shoes. I once didn't know any better and I don't think they know any better either. I only get annoyed when they get obnoxious about their faith (same goes for when Athiests get obnoxious about their lack of faith...everybody needs to be nice!) You see, church gave me the understanding that I am responsible for getting everybody around me into heaven. I felt like if I wasn't preaching my brains out to convince them to believe in Jesus Christ, then I was a very bad person. It stressed the heck out of me though because I knew how irritating it is to have somebody to try and change you. I don't like annoying people so yeah.

Anyway, my reason for posting this is: There are a bunch of Christians, including my mom, whom I have not told that I've become Agnostic. I don't want to because I don't want to deal with them judging me or trying to convert me back. I just let them assume I'm still a Christian and then they leave me alone.
 
Alhazred said:
I agree. Let's keep the serious posts here and move all the evolution/religion ones to another thread.
Click to expand...

If I've learned anything from Nyanko (besides the whole "horses are dumb"bit), it's that football is a religion.

Our father, who art in Pittsburgh...
 
RackingHorse said:
Once again I believe in variation within species. But a dog is a dog is a dog. You will never mate a dog to another dog and get some kind of transitional form, it will be 100% DOG.
Click to expand...
I just like reading this thread to see what you're going to say next! Lol
 
Last edited:
New Foundland said:
Scientists also have families. Hardline denial of religion is not easily incorporated into the family unit.. Many willingly "play along" with a religious lifestyle simply for the sake of unity of their family. It's a hell of a lot easier to raise a kid with a cookie-cutter religious philosophy that you can fall back on whenever hard questions crop up.. It's one of the most convenient fictions imaginable for the parent, husband, wife.
Darwin himself was largely reluctant to publicly express his true views because he felt it would alienate him from his religious wife whom he loved.
Take mormonism as an example: Say you have a fundamentalist mormon son or daughter, and they are getting married in the tabernacle.. If you as the parent are not a member of the mormon church, you absolutely may not attend your son or daughter's wedding..
So as a parent, wouldn't you become a member of their church even if you did not truly believe in it? I'd call that a convenient fiction.
There's millions of other examples of different circumstances that favour disingenuous enrolment in a religious belief system.

And even if these are anonymous private polls, once you start buying into a religious philosophy for whatever initial reason, most people come to convince themselves that they actually believe in it to some degree. It's a simple and easy rationalization for the mind to perform, via the elegant cognitive dissonance theory.

The bottom line is that there are massive incentives to "be religious" even if your belief (especially the origin of it) is contrived.
Click to expand...

Great post. Reminds me of one of my old professors in the philosophy department at UMD, Dr. Georges Rey, who proposed the idea of "meta-atheism" for people who, in a different context, would reject many of the beliefs they currently hold, but for the influence of their peers and culture are believers by convenience.

http://stairs.umd.edu/236/meta-atheism.html
 
New Foundland said:
Not a good time to start a joke prayer about pennsylvania football :(
Click to expand...

You must be referring to the NIttany Lions beating Ohio State at home yesterday. First win without Joe Paterno since the 60s. Go State. :rolleyes:

As for this discussion, some contributors here think that their god would be so vain and merciless as to sentence the Dalai Lama to a fiery inferno upon death just for expressing the mechanisms of his brain. Hard to take such people seriously. Believe it if you need it, and leave it if you dare.

(insert witty Bill Maher quote)
 
Re the Pennsylvania football thing, Pittsburgh is 3 hours from Penn State and they have nothing to do with each other besides being rivals. Plus the discussion about god in Pittsburgh refers to the Steelers, an NFL team, whereas Penn State has a college team and not an NFL team.
 
bunnity said:
Re the Pennsylvania football thing, Pittsburgh is 3 hours from Penn State and they have nothing to do with each other besides being rivals. Plus the discussion about god in Pittsburgh refers to the Steelers, an NFL team, whereas Penn State has a college team and not an NFL team.
Click to expand...

:thumbup:

Besides, we all know that all of Pennsylvania isn't bad. It's just Pittsburgh, which has more than just Big Ben wrong with it. I mean really, the Pens?!



;)
 
bunnity said:
Re the Pennsylvania football thing, Pittsburgh is 3 hours from Penn State and they have nothing to do with each other besides being rivals. Plus the discussion about god in Pittsburgh refers to the Steelers, an NFL team, whereas Penn State has a college team and not an NFL team.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a large contingency of Pittsburgians in the State College community. And Jerry Sandusky originated from Pittsburgh. Which explains more than many people would like to admit. ;)
 
August West said:
Actually, there is a large contingency of Pittsburgians in the State College community. And Jerry Sandusky originated from Pittsburgh. Which explains more than many people would like to admit. ;)
Click to expand...

What exactly does it explain, August West who doesn't know that Pittsburghian is not a word?
 
New Foundland said:
Not a good time to start a joke prayer about pennsylvania football :(
Click to expand...

I would never make a joke prayer about the Steelers, an NFL team in a town 136 miles (2h55min by car, 15h50min by bike) from the nearest NCAA team. Nyanko knows where I live.
 
quantized said:
I would never make a joke prayer about the Steelers, an NFL team in a town 136 miles (2h55min by car, 15h50min by bike) from the nearest NCAA team. Nyanko knows where I live.
Click to expand...

Pitt Panthers?
But thanks for the Steeler respect :)
 
quantized said:
I would never make a joke prayer about the Steelers, an NFL team in a town 136 miles (2h55min by car, 15h50min by bike) from the nearest NCAA team. Nyanko knows where I live.
Click to expand...

...and even has a key to your place. Be afraid...

(And Pitt plays on the same field as the Steelers!)
 
bunnity said:
What exactly does it explain, August West who doesn't know that Pittsburghian is not a word?
Click to expand...

One of my assigned roommates at Penn State was from Pittsburgh. Creepy fella. All of his clothes were black and a uriney yellow. He had a huge bag of porno magazines that he kept under his bed next to his sweaty ice hockey equipment. And all he ever ate were ham and cheese hot pockets. He had pictures of Mario Lemieux taped up all over his wall. Kid smelled really bad and I got the hell out of that situation as quickly as I could. His Pittsburghian friends were all pretty odd as well. Just gave me a poor impression of the area.

I thought I was over the whole traumatic experience of it all. That was until the Flyers went and signed Jagr. Everything came flooding back to me. Many sleepless nights filled with visions of Hustler mags stained with Hot Pocket grease since then. Thanks for allowing me to vent. It is quite therapeutic. :scared:
 
nyanko said:
He won't plant his feet to throw when he's scrambling and he scrambles a lot. I think he's a great athlete but he just doesn't have a quarterback's set of skills. If the Broncos could keep up with running the option in the NFL for longer than 3 games before defensive coordinators figure out the cues, maybe he'd have QB potential. But I really do see him as better suited to a fullback position.

edit: evolution is a foregone conclusion - this is obviously a far more debated topic.
Click to expand...
Sorry Nyanko..... after further evidence I disagree with your football evaluation of Tebow. He has something special. And it has nothing to do with his running skills. He is a clutch player... reminds me of Joe Montana (who I couldn't stand while he played).. and I think in this case his faith actually helps the team around him.

I do find him annoying personally, but as a football player you gotta give him props. He may not be the most talented thrower in the league but he is a leader and a winner and a competitor. I think he is going to be annoying for a lot more years.
 
I still disagree with you guys. I watched his best part of that game, the 4th quarter & OT, and saw a defense that is creating opportunities, a kicker with a hell of a leg and some lucky breaks. Nothing to do with the QB.

edit: also I don't believe in the whole idea of "clutch" so that may be where we diverge.
 
Come on you guys! I saw that this thread had popped up again and thought I'd get in on some juicy evolution/religion debate. But no...you're still talking about some football player.
 
Bisbee said:
Come on you guys! I saw that this thread had popped up again and thought I'd get in on some juicy evolution/religion debate. But no...you're still talking about some football player.
Click to expand...
I'd rather them be talking about football than resurrecting the evolution/religion debate.
 
Okay...I guess I'm over-ruled...carry on.
 
nyanko said:
I still disagree with you guys. I watched his best part of that game, the 4th quarter & OT, and saw a defense that is creating opportunities, a kicker with a hell of a leg and some lucky breaks. Nothing to do with the QB.

edit: also I don't believe in the whole idea of "clutch" so that may be where we diverge.
Click to expand...
Oh you mean like Eli Manning being "clutch"....NFL record 4th quarter touchdowns!
Yeah, we diverge!
 
As an older career-changer, this thread is the most inspiring thing I've read on this forum. I am so excited that at least one person competing with me for a vet school slot can't write at a third grade level.

:banana: :banana: :banana:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

M
Tips for Incoming Veterinary Students
Replies
9
Views
2K
Vetdkc0707
Vetdkc0707
luvpup
Veterinary/Animal experience in Texas?
Replies
6
Views
665
melissa Curlee
melissa Curlee
haileylee7
University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest (Hungary)
Replies
2
Views
318
battie
battie
M
Veterinary Mental Wellness/DEI Research: Participants needed!
Replies
2
Views
254
Mircookies
M
L
Master of Veterinary Science
Replies
0
Views
421
LivestockSysHealth
L
Top