# UK: Muslim students boycott lectures on evolution



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 29, 2011)

> MUSLIM biology students are boycotting lectures about evolution because they conflict with their creationist beliefs, one of Britain's leading scientists has revealed.
> 
> Steve Jones, emeritus professor of human genetics at University College London, said increasing numbers of his undergraduates were refusing to attend his lectures on evolution and complaining that the subject should not be taught on their course.
> 
> ...





Few things to say

1) Hope there are plenty of questions about evolution in the course evalution so they can get the shitty grades and third rate positions they deserve

2) They should bring up evolution in all the interviews to join the course, fast and easy way to weed them out

3) Any doctor or nurse who refuses to carry out their medical obligations (Perform an abortion say, or provide compassionate treatment to a homosexual) because of their religion should be instantly fired. If you don't want to do it go to a university in Egypt.

4) FYI to all Muslims who want strong, rich, prosperous Muslims states: You will never ever ever catch up to the West, Latin America or secular asia if this is your attitude to knowledge and education and learning. We live in the information age and that doesn't just mean that we have the internet. The most money is made from goods and services only a few people know how to do and the strongest armies have the best technology, not the most men or the backing of God. 

This is the reason the USA dominates the Muslim world rather than vice versa. Their economic, social, cultural and military position equates strongly with them having the lion's share of top universities.

5) Are their faiths really so weak they can't take a few lectures on Darwin? I mean if the lecturer spent the whole lecture dissing Islam I could understand it but explaining the scientific facts they came to univesity to supposedly learn.

6) And seriously, these are the best and brightest from the British Muslim community?

7) FYI, genetic modification is going to be a really big deal in the next twenty or thirty years

Okay, think that's everything, rant over.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Nov 29, 2011)

Shits going down 10 years from now.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Nov 29, 2011)

if only Christians and muslims could build on common ground like this, then again maybe not


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 29, 2011)

Whoa whoa whoa....they're BIOLOGY students and they're boycotting evolution?  Evolution is the basis for much of modern biology.


----------



## hammer (Nov 29, 2011)

I think its fair if they dont want to learn it as long as they want to fail


----------



## Gunners (Nov 29, 2011)

> 3) Any doctor or nurse who refuses to carry out their medical obligations (Perform an abortion say, or provide compassionate treatment to a homosexual) because of their religion should be instantly fired. If you don't want to do it go to a university in Egypt.


Rather than fire them, express what is expected of them in their contract before you employ them. You come across as an individual that is obsessed with enforcing his view points on others.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 29, 2011)

1. Creationism is, by definition, a Biblical ideology 
2. The only part of evolution that is or can be incompatible with Islam is the human branch of it
3. These students need to shut up and dispute claims logically like an academic rather than outright reject it and act like they have any grounds to remove it from the curriculum 
4. OP should rant equally towards Christians.  More Islamic students are rumbling in that institution because more Islamic students are there.


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 29, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Whoa whoa whoa....they're BIOLOGY students and they're boycotting evolution?  Evolution is the basis for much of modern biology.



Pretty much this.

Evolution is the unifying theory of Biology.

It's kind of like saying you're a Chemist but you don't believe in the unifying theory of the atom.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 29, 2011)

Good for them.  They can have a cookie.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 29, 2011)

afgpride said:


> 4. OP should rant equally towards Christians.  More Islamic students are rumbling in that institution because more Islamic students are there.



I do when the thread is about them.

Comparatively however Christians are a minor issue.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 29, 2011)

As long as americans are worse at this, I can't jump on the "olol muslim" train


----------



## hammer (Nov 29, 2011)

actually the artical said Christians already did this


----------



## Disquiet (Nov 29, 2011)

Toroxus said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> Evolution is the unifying theory of Biology.
> 
> It's kind of like saying you're a Chemist but you don't believe in the unifying theory of the atom.


Or a writer who doesn't believe in verbs.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaru said:


> As long as americans are worse at this, I can't jump on the "olol muslim" train



But they're not. The USA's scientific ouput is bigger than all of Europe.


----------



## Kahvehane (Nov 29, 2011)




----------



## Rescuebear (Nov 29, 2011)

If you take biology but reject evolution, you will fail. End of story.


----------



## Mael (Nov 29, 2011)

UK's all fringe, I tell ya, TPN.  FRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNGEEEEEEEEE! 

/parody 

But seriously, this is like Bizarro world in the UK where the Muslims are the Christian dime-a-dozen Protestant Evangelicals whining over evolution.



Tsukiyomi said:


> Whoa whoa whoa....they're BIOLOGY students and they're boycotting evolution?  Evolution is the basis for much of modern biology.



Ever see that scene in _Scanners_ with the head explosion?

Yeah.



Zaru said:


> As long as americans are worse at this, I can't jump on the "olol muslim" train



Lol no.


----------



## Zaru (Nov 29, 2011)

The Pink Ninja said:


> But they're not. The USA's scientific ouput is bigger than all of Europe.



What does scientific output have to do with it? Christian evolution haters in science are, percentually, hardly noticeable in europe. Can't say that about the USA.


----------



## Mael (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaru said:


> What does scientific output have to do with it? Christian evolution haters in science are, percentually, hardly noticeable in europe. Can't say that about the USA.



Just because the voice is there doesn't mean we don't have the big companies here too.  Corporations and scientific institutions (MIT ring a bell?) don't give two shits about the voice that doesn't even go anywhere in the grand scheme of things.

Oh, and also the dime-a-dozens don't threaten usually with bombings, which is what I've seen aplenty from Muslim detractors.


----------



## Gextiv (Nov 29, 2011)

afgpride said:


> 4. OP should rant equally towards Christians.  More Islamic students are rumbling in that institution because more Islamic students are there.



Why you hating on Christians? At least we don't go around blowing shut up. Huehue.

They even have Catholic Universities that teach Biology. So I see no reason why the OP has to rant on Christians, since the topic is about Muslims refusing to take a simple Biology coarse.


----------



## hammer (Nov 29, 2011)

Gextiv said:


> Why you hating on Christians? A*t least we don't go around blowing shut up. Huehue.
> *
> They even have Catholic Universities that teach Biology. So I see no reason why the OP has to rant on Christians, since the topic is about Muslims refusing to take a simple Biology coarse.



im sorry but I laughed at this, but the article already said Christians pulled this with the same teacher who read this


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 29, 2011)

My Physics teacher used to teach us that God was the explanation of why the Universe came in to existence. And my Biology teacher claimed there was no evidence of evolution. So not surprised tbh.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 29, 2011)

Zaru said:


> What does scientific output have to do with it? Christian evolution haters in science are, percentually, hardly noticeable in europe. Can't say that about the USA.



Because you said America, not Christians or American Christians.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 29, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> And my Biology teacher claimed there was no evidence of evolution.



What?


----------



## hammer (Nov 29, 2011)

I had a biology teacher try to pull that BS last year almost converted all the students and im like you guys know even if its true you will fail uni if you write down his bs since it wont ever be on the test.


----------



## Draffut (Nov 29, 2011)

Ennoea said:


> My Physics teacher used to teach us that God was the explanation of why the Universe came in to existence. And my *Biology teacher claimed there was no evidence of evolution.* So not surprised tbh.



Move somewhere that has competent teachers please.  I fear for any student growing up wherever that is.


----------



## blazikengirl (Nov 29, 2011)

Only issue with your rant



The Pink Ninja said:


> 3) Any doctor or nurse who refuses to carry out their medical obligations (Perform an abortion say, or provide compassionate treatment to a homosexual) because of their religion should be instantly fired. If you don't want to do it go to a university in Egypt.



Doctors have legal rights (where I live anyway) to opt out of medical procedures that go against their beliefs, such as abortion and euthanasia, this obviously means actual procedures not conducting yourself around someone. Doesn't make them a bad person, another Doctor can perform the procedure. 

Apart from that, Jesus. If you don't want to learn about evolution then why study biology? :|


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 29, 2011)

blazikengirl said:


> Only issue with your rant
> 
> Doctors have legal rights (where I live anyway) to opt out of medical procedures that go against their beliefs, such as abortion and euthanasia, this obviously means actual procedures not conducting yourself around someone. Doesn't make them a bad person, another Doctor can perform the procedure.
> 
> Apart from that, Jesus. If you don't want to learn about evolution then why study biology? :|



Another doctor can perform the procedure sure, but if they are unable or unwilling to perform the duties of their job then should they be doctors in the first place?

I'm expected to carry out all the duties tied to my job, why should they be any different?


----------



## Gunners (Nov 29, 2011)

I still don't understand why people get bend out of shape about evolution.


----------



## αce (Nov 29, 2011)

inb4 superstars
Also, if anything the religious should be happy that the theory of evolution came into play. If not, they'd have a hard time explaining why God fucked up hard on his anatomical design of basically every organism on the planet.


----------



## Salem (Nov 29, 2011)

If these students are content with ignorance, they should suffer the consequences that follow (academic failure, ridicule, and unemployment). There should be no sympathy for them.


----------



## Gunners (Nov 29, 2011)

Depending on how the exam is structured they probably won't fail. It could be different for other subjects but in Law people only focus on certain areas when it comes to revising. Something alone the lines of if you revise 4 areas you're safe as there are 8 topics and 7 questions where you only have to answer 3. 

If they ignore evolution but brush up on the other areas it won't matter. Unless they decide to include evolution in every single question.


----------



## blazikengirl (Nov 29, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Another doctor can perform the procedure sure, but if they are unable or unwilling to perform the duties of their job then should they be doctors in the first place?
> 
> I'm expected to carry out all the duties tied to my job, why should they be any different?



Abortion and euthanasia are very small parts of what entails in the job of a doctor, that doesn't mean that a fully trained professional should just quit because of their religious beliefs. Say a Catholic wanted to become a doctor, but couldn't because of two procedures (which aren't even that common and are illegal in some places) he/she disagreed with?

Actually, you can be allowed leverage in other places if it goes against your religious or moral code. I go to a Catholic school, and there are plenty of girls who wear a Hijab - technically a violation of school uniform. 

Being unable to perform a minor procedure because of your personal moral code is no grounds for firing a highly trained doctor.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 29, 2011)

We're getting off topic but to address your points.



blazikengirl said:


> Abortion and euthanasia are very small parts of what entails in the job of a doctor, that doesn't mean that a fully trained professional should just quit because of their religious beliefs. Say a Catholic wanted to become a doctor, but couldn't because of two procedures (which aren't even that common and are illegal in some places) he/she disagreed with?



They should either quit or find a location to practice medicine that doesn't perform those procedures.  If they take a job at a hospital that performs abortions and euthanasia then that was their choice and they should either perform the duties that hospital requires of them or practice elsewhere.



blazikengirl said:


> Actually, you can be allowed leverage in other places if it goes against your religious or moral code. I go to a Catholic school, and there are plenty of girls who wear a Hijab - technically a violation of school uniform.
> 
> Being unable to perform a minor procedure because of your personal moral code is no grounds for firing a highly trained doctor.



I don't really equate wearing a particular outfit with ridding a woman of the burden of a rape pregnancy or ending the suffering the terminally ill and suffering.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 29, 2011)

Even if you don't want to believe in them, it doesn't mean you can't sit and learn what's the story.

I'm sure all of them went to see Twilight or Hulk or X-Men.

Bunch of idiots. I'd take class on evolution any day over moon split.


----------



## Salem (Nov 29, 2011)

Gunners said:


> If they ignore evolution but brush up on the other areas it won't matter. Unless they decide to include evolution in every single question.



If this is an introductory biology course, which I assume it is, a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution could critically impact their performance. A generic curriculum consists of mitotic and meiotic cell division, genetic inheritance, evolutionary biology, phylogenetics, systematics, paleobiology, population biology, ecology, and animal behavior. If they are consistent in their discrimination, they will surely fail.


----------



## Draffut (Nov 29, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Another doctor can perform the procedure sure, but if they are unable or unwilling to perform the duties of their job then should they be doctors in the first place?
> 
> I'm expected to carry out all the duties tied to my job, why should they be any different?



Does your job require you to do anything you believe is morally wrong?

Are you self-employed like many doctors are?  Those that aren't self employed should have to do the procedures required of them by their employer or seek a new job.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 29, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Does your job require you to do anything you believe is morally wrong?
> 
> Are you self-employed like many doctors are?  Those that aren't self employed should have to do the procedures required of them by their employer or seek a new job.



If they're self employed they they aren't taking a job from someone that has requirements that they disagree with so I fail to see your point.

And if I found parts of my job morally objectionable then I would find another job.


----------



## neko-sennin (Nov 29, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Whoa whoa whoa....they're BIOLOGY students and they're boycotting evolution?  Evolution is the basis for much of modern biology.



And this is the reason the Muslim world fails so hard at science. 

Kinda sad to think that, before the Renaissance, Baghdad used to be THE place to study the sciences, but then it all fell into religious fundamentalism, and the Arab world has never recovered.

The Middle East itself should serve as a living cautionary example to both Europe and America of what happens when you let your entire culture backslide into the Dark Ages over religious dogma.


----------



## Palpatine (Nov 29, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]bjZPWq_WZIE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2011)

Gunners said:


> I still don't understand why people get bend out of shape about evolution.



I don't get why people get bent out of shape about the whole spherical earth thing. If a geologist wants to believe that digging deep enough causes you to fall through the earth and into space, he can skip a few courses that disagree with this idea.

Oh well, let's hope they'll fail horribly.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Nov 30, 2011)

I'm sure this sentiment has already been expressed but if they don't understand that  evolution happened and is happening then a degree in biology or anything biology related is really not for them.

Also, I've just discovered that if I close my eyes I type much faster.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Nov 30, 2011)

> “Many Christian thinkers have ... learnt to interpret the Bible in a way which does not in any way negate the teaching of science ... it is important Muslim thinkers perform the same service.”



I agree with this final statement. The bible for like minded Christians(including myself as a catholic), is more of a guide on how to live one's life in an ethical and responsible manner. the teachings of Jesus, although controversial, are fairly simple and universal. Don't kill, treat others with kindness, respect those different than yourself ect. 

Anyone who tries to adhere to religion itself as a basis of fact is doomed to fall into its many contradictions and repeat human history, because they are too weak to stand by themselves.

religion in its most extreme form is a blight on human society. It blinds people to the truth, and that truth is we are pieces of meat. 

Each and every one of us. I'm sorry if that doesn't make certain people feel good about themselves but its the truth


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Nov 30, 2011)

Gunners said:


> I still don't understand why people get bend out of shape about evolution.



Because the truth is important?


----------



## Toby (Nov 30, 2011)

So, what I'm getting is this: This should be on their tests, and they will get the question wrong.

Yeah, whatever, big deal.

I remember several issues that I could never agree with my prof on, but I knew better than to let a personal grudge stop me from getting an A. If these kids want to challenge the scientific position that evolution has in biology, they need to suck it up in their education and prove it wrong.

Now I happen to believe that evolution is science and ID is religion, and you can have both views at the same time. If these kids can't, then they are saying that ID - a human-made theory, places limitations on God. Classic screwup.


----------



## Sunrider (Nov 30, 2011)

Zaru said:


> As long as americans are worse at this, I can't jump on the "olol muslim" train


How about "lolol religious nuts?" 

Covers both sides of the Atlantic quite nicely.


----------



## Adagio (Nov 30, 2011)

Ghost Rider said:


> How about "lolol religious nuts?"
> 
> Covers both sides of the Atlantic quite nicely.



Pretty much this, the fact that they are Muslim doesn't make this news story any more important than the countless stories of Evolution being banned in the syllabus of many state high schools in the US. 

I don't get the point of the rant either, what did you expect from religious nuts?


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

Man some people in this thread are self conceited. Just because something has evidence towards it being true does not make it true. The very nature of science is that something we believed to be correct today may very well be wrong tomorow. So getting all pretineous and believing people to be morons because they do not believe what you believe even if it has evidence is just moronic.  

A scientist that is not open minded is not a scientist. If someone chooses not to believe in evolution let them, there's nothing wrong with them not believing it as it's not like you can assume evolution is absolutely correct. As long they don't start causing harm to others it's fine.
There was once a time when all the logic in the world made us believe the world to be flat.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Man some people in this thread are self conceited. Just because something has evidence towards it being true does not make it true. The very nature of science is that something we believed to be correct today may very well be wrong tomorow. So getting all pretineous and believing people to be morons because they do not believe what you believe even if it has evidence is just moronic.
> 
> A scientist that is not open minded is not a scientist. If someone chooses not to believe in evolution let them, there's nothing wrong with them not believing it as it's not like you can assume evolution is absolutely correct. As long they don't start causing harm to others it's fine.
> There was once a time when all the logic in the world made us believe the world to be flat.



Evolution is a fact, it cannot be proven wrong tomorrow, that's the nature of facts. They're entitled to their opinion, no matter how retarded, but they won't get a fucking degree if they refuse to learn about the most fundamental thing in modern biology.

Once they're biologists, they can spend all day long trying to refute the theory of evolution, a theory that has just as much evidence to back it up as the germ theory or the atomic theory, but to do that, they first have to understand evolution and right now they refuse to learn anything about it.

A mathmatician can refuse to accept the scalar product, but he won't get a fricking math degree while doing so.


----------



## Sunrider (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Man some people in this thread are self conceited. Just because something has evidence towards it being true does not make it true.


Ah, really? 

Then something with no evidence whatsoever (an omnipotent being creating modern humans fully formed and leaving all other cellular life to evolve, several millenia ago) is _definitely_ out of the question.


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

Ghost Rider said:


> Ah, really?
> 
> Then something with no evidence whatsoever (an omnipotent being creating modern humans fully formed and leaving all other cellular life to evolve, several millenia ago) is _definitely_ out of the question.



There was no evidence about the speed of light being invariant until someone discovered it. There's countless similar examples. It's so funny when you see scientists become just as closed minded as the religious people they hate so much.

Open mindedness guys is it so hard? You may not believe it what others believe but there's no need to mock and demean it every chance you get.



Saufsoldat said:


> Evolution is a fact, it cannot be proven wrong tomorrow, that's the nature of facts. They're entitled to their opinion, no matter how retarded, but they won't get a fucking degree if they refuse to learn about the most fundamental thing in modern biology.
> 
> Once they're biologists, they can spend all day long trying to refute the theory of evolution, a theory that has just as much evidence to back it up as the germ theory or the atomic theory, but to do that, they first have to understand evolution and right now they refuse to learn anything about it.
> 
> A mathmatician can refuse to accept the scalar product, but he won't get a fricking math degree while doing so.



No fact is trully absolute if your a scientist you should know this.


----------



## River Song (Nov 30, 2011)

First, all university courses I know of give you a course outline before you apply. If Evolution was in there and you don't like it why did you apply for the course!

Secondly, just because your are taught it doesn't force you to believe it, I am agnostic and I don't believe in the Abrahamic religions. Not once have I complained abbot the the teaching of them in R.E.


----------



## Adagio (Nov 30, 2011)

ITT: People blaming others for being close minded about other people who are too close minded.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Man some people in this thread are self conceited. Just because something has evidence towards it being true does not make it true. The very nature of science is that something we believed to be correct today may very well be wrong tomorow. So getting all pretineous and believing people to be morons because they do not believe what you believe even if it has evidence is just moronic.


You've got to be kidding me. People who don't believe in evolution are either absolutely retarded or absolutely crazy fanatics. That's all there is to it.



Spirit King said:


> A scientist that is not open minded is not a scientist. If someone chooses not to believe in evolution let them, there's nothing wrong with them not believing it as it's not like you can assume evolution is absolutely correct. As long they don't start causing harm to others it's fine.


OK, let's see who is open-minded and who is not. _On one hand_, scientists who have spent decades studying a theory, testing its predictions, its possible flaws, who determined the theory to be true, and who are still improving it at the remaining points of controversy. And these people now want to transmit the parts of that theory that are undoubtly true to the next generations.

_On the other hand_, some people refuse to discuss or learn about the basics of evolutionary theory (the parts that are undoubtly true). They "disagree" with it (despite not even knowing what it is about -- remember, they boycott classes) based on religious doctrines that were fed to them by their parents or by the local cult leader, neither of whom know anything about biology. And in addition to that, they argue that they should not have to learn about it at all, thus affecting other students with their attempts to harm the transmission of knowledge.

Again, tell me who is not open-minded?


Spirit King said:


> There was once a time when all the logic in the world made us believe the world to be flat.


Yeah, in ancient Egypt or so. We've known for approximately 2,300 years that it's not flat. If someone was to question the shape of the earth now based on religious belief, you would not ask for open-mindedness. You would say _"this guy is either completely retarded or has been brainwashed into sheer insanity"_. Creationism is *exactly* the same.

I mean, I like to compare climate change deniers to creationists, but you have to acknowledge at least one thing: while climate change is a very complex problem that can only be completely understood by specialists, evolution is a fairly simple theory, at least in its basic tenets. So accepting climate change implies some basic degree of trust in the social organization of the scientific community. But for evolution, anyone who is not dumb and/or brainwashed can understand it and see that it is true.


----------



## Juno (Nov 30, 2011)

People get bent out of shape over evolution because it's one of the most fundamental overarching theories that unites biology. Biology students who don't believe in evolution are the same as physics students who don't believe in gravity or atoms. It's ridiculous. You can't be a biology student and just conveniently ignore anything that relates to evolution as it intersects pretty much every area within biology.


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

Adagio said:


> ITT: People blaming others for being close minded about other people who are too close minded.



It's human nature to be closed minded but it's a bit hypocritical to throw stones at people being closed minded when you won't even accept the possibility of what you believe to be wrong.



Juno said:


> People get bent out of shape over evolution because it's one of the most fundamental overarching theories that unites biology. Biology students who don't believe in evolution are the same as physics students who don't believe in gravity or atoms. It's ridiculous. You can't be a biology student and just conveniently ignore anything that relates to evolution as it intersects pretty much every area within biology.



True but believing and practicising aren't the same thing. Science is built on the concept of what works. There are theories we use today that we know are wrong but we still use them because they best explain whats going on and until he find a new or more comprehensive theory to replace it we'll still use them. You don't _need_ to believe in atoms or gravity to be a physics student but you must know their use and applications and be prepared to shut up on certain grounds until you have some evidence proving contrary. Our current theory of atoms may very well be wrong considering that amount of revelations etc that go on about it.

We don't even truly know how gravity works.

I don't think a lot of people understand just how little humanity knows. He know a heck of a lot but there's vast amount of seemingly basic things that we don't factually know.



impersonal said:


> You've got to be kidding me. People who don't believe in evolution are either absolutely retarded or absolutely crazy fanatics. That's all there is to it.
> 
> 
> OK, let's see who is open-minded and who is not. _On one hand_, scientists who have spent decades studying a theory, testing its predictions, its possible flaws, who determined the theory to be true, and who are still improving it at the remaining points of controversy. And these people now want to transmit the parts of that theory that are undoubtly true to the next generations.
> ...



Science by it's very nature is constantly changing being reviewed etc. Einsteins theory of relativity and light changed how we viewed the world in several different ways stuff that like you said had been tried and tested over a long period of time. All it required was one inconsistancy to change all of that. That is the nature of science. Humanity cannot progress unless it is open to new ideas that is true for both scientists and religious people. There are several topics that today scientists argue over. Even non religious scientists have views that contradict common logic and this is a _good_ thing as it prevents stagnatation. As everything we know isn't always right and will never always be right.


----------



## Toby (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> There was no evidence about the speed of light being invariant until someone discovered it. There's countless similar examples. It's so funny when you see scientists become just as closed minded as the religious people they hate so much.
> 
> Open mindedness guys is it so hard? You may not believe it what others believe but there's no need to mock and demean it every chance you get.



One name: Kenneth Miller.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg[/YOUTUBE]

So it's quite clear that some people are completely capable of being scientists and religious - but not all of them. Science IS open-minded but these students are not.


----------



## Sunrider (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> There was no evidence about the speed of light being invariant until someone discovered it.


 I'm sorry, but I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Do you mean that until someone discovered the speed of light and provided evidence, it was up for debate? That seems kind of obvious. What are you really trying to say here? 

And what do you mean by the "invariance" of the speed of light? 



Spirit King said:


> There's countless similar examples.


Like what? List a few for me. 



Spirit King said:


> There are theories we use today that we know  are wrong but we still use them because they best explain whats going  on and until he find a new or more comprehensive theory to replace it  we'll still use them.


Such as?


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

Ghost Rider said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Do you mean that until someone discovered the speed of light and provided evidence, it was up for debate? That seems kind of obvious. What are you really trying to say here?



Do you know how the theory of relativity came about? Or even what is the theory relativity? It was originally believed that the speed of light is effected the motion of it's source as that is what happens with everything else as proven with newton's laws. The speed of light does not infact do this it remains the same regardless of the source. This puzzled scientists for years until Einstein said the reason why the speed of light did not increase when the speed of the source increased was because time slowed down. And that the faster you move the slower time is. This changed everything that was currently believed at the time. (they originally believed in a theory of absolute motion).

Einstein was in fact just an average joe part time scientist who essentially did theoretical physics for fun and his theory was not believed until someone proved it later on. He was mocked like all crazy theories are.

Then you have some of the stuff with wave-particle duality. It's actually quite hilarious you asked that question. Precisely how much do you know of scientific history?



Toby said:


> One name: Kenneth Miller.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> So it's quite clear that some people are completely capable of being scientists and religious - but not all of them. Science IS open-minded but these students are not.



I completely agree with this. I was not in condoning these students actions in any way I was just about people here who were mocking them as morons and being completely wrong with even entertaining the concept of the theory of evolution being incorrect in at least some capacity.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Do you know how the theory of relativity came about? Or even what is the theory relativity? It was originally believed that the speed of light is effected the motion of it's source as that is what happens with everything else as proven with newton's laws. The speed of light does not infact do this it remains the same regardless of the source. This puzzled scientists for years until Einstein said the reason why the speed of light did not increase when the speed of the source increased was because time slowed down. And that the faster you move the slower time is. This changed everything that was currently believed at the time. (they originally believed in a theory of absolute motion).
> 
> Einstein was in fact just an average joe part time scientist who essentially did theoretical physics for fun and his theory was not believed until someone proved it later on. He was mocked like all crazy theories are.
> 
> Then you have some of the stuff with wave-particle duality. It's actually quite hilarious you asked that question. Precisely how much do you know of scientific history?



Did Einstein refuse to learn about Newtonian mechanics? I don't think so, so the comparison fails right from the beginning.


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Did Einstein refuse to learn about Newtonian mechanics? I don't think so, so the comparison fails right from the beginning.




Missing the point entirely. But I already expected as such. Point is everything we know may not in fact be correct so don't assume it is and mock any notion of it being wrong. Everyone has their crazy illogical fanatics. But doe disreagard every opinion the is against what is commonly regarded as correct.

Hence open mindedness.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Science by it's very nature is constantly changing being reviewed etc. (...) Humanity cannot progress unless it is open to new ideas that is true for both scientists and religious people.


New ideas? Creationism?
You're attempting to invert roles. This is not a case of people being close-minded towards the new and revolutionary ideas of creationism. It's a case of creationists desperately sticking to a theory that makes as much sense as a positive review of Twilight.

Humanity cannot progress with these people. These people are rejecting scientific research in favor of a guru who tells them the same bullshit that was told 4000 years ago, with little to no changes. They do not have arguments. When presented with alternative theories, they cover their ears and scream "leave me alone".

And you call that "progress".


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

impersonal said:


> New ideas? Creationism?



Doesn't have to be new old ideas that were proven wrong can be later proven to be correct in at least some respect. e.g the particle theory of light of course a lot of it was proven to be wrong but light does in fact have some particle like properties that were discovered later on hence wave-particle duality.

And I love how you generalise people. Grow up not all religious people are closed minded and illogical. The scientific world has it's fair share of morons that refuse to change as do all areas of humanity.


----------



## Sunrider (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Do you know how the theory of relativity came about? Or even what is the theory relativity? It was originally believed that the speed of light is effected the motion of it's source as that is what happens with everything else as proven with newton's laws. The speed of light does not infact do this it remains the same regardless of the source. This puzzled scientists for years until Einstein said the reason why the speed of light did not increase when the speed of the source increased was because time slowed down. And that the faster you move the slower time is. This changed everything that was currently believed at the time. (they originally believed in a theory of absolute motion).
> 
> Einstein was in fact just an average joe part time scientist who essentially did theoretical physics for fun and his theory was not believed until someone proved it later on.


Okay, I wanted to make sure I understood you: we didn't understand light so well before, we understand it much better now. 

However, you still haven't explained how a belief with no evidence whatsoever deserves even remotely the same credibility as a theory with working evidence. 


Science is openmindedness, but it is also _scrutiny_. You develop a theory, but before you adopt it, you employ whatever means necessary to invalidate it. 

The openmindedness you keep preaching demands the omission of scrutiny--that science should just embrace a "hypothesis of design" just because _hey_ _it could happen_, despite lack of evidence supporting it or means of even testing it. 

When you accept something without observation, investigation, or scrutiny, that's not science, it's faith. What can't be investigated, or what is investigated and yields no supporting evidence, simply doesn't have a place in science.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Doesn't have to be new old ideas that were proven wrong can be later proven to be correct in at least some respect. e.g the particle theory of light of course a lot of it was proven to be wrong but light does in fact have some particle like properties that were discovered later on hence wave-particle duality.


That's completely insane! You can only move on if you accept that the first theory was wrong in the first place. These fanatics will never do that. They do not want to _"save some of the explanatory power of creationism"_. To even suggest such a thing with a straight face is... something I can't understand. 

What they want is to preserve their religious doctrine as is. They reject a whole area of science with no scientific argument whatsoever. They're never going to participate in any kind of meaningful scientific progress in that area. That much should not be up for debate.



Spirit King said:


> And I love how you generalise people.* Grow up not all religious people are closed minded and illogical.* The scientific world has it's fair share of morons that refuse to change as do all areas of humanity.



All *militant creationists* are close minded and illogical.


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

Ghost Rider said:


> Okay, I wanted to make sure I understood you: we didn't understand light so well before, we understand it much better now.
> 
> However, you still haven't explained how a belief with no evidence whatsoever deserves even remotely the same credibility as a theory with working evidence.
> 
> ...



Your not quite getting what i'm saying. I'm not saying we should believe every idea that comes along but we cannot simply assume it's wrong and leave it at that. What we currently believe to be correct could in fact be long later on and what we currently believe to be wrong may in fact be correct later on. Hence why you shouldn't mock other peoples beliefs and say that they are absolutely wrong and yours is absolutely correct as you just don't know. Science as a whole is fine but their are close minded people in this thread and some some minded scientists that are are in fact not much better than the close minded people they are mocking.



impersonal said:


> All *militant creationists* are close minded and illogical.



And I never argued against that.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> And I never argued against that.


What are you arguing about then?


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> I completely agree with this. I was not in condoning these students actions in any way I was just about people here who were mocking them as morons and being completely wrong with even entertaining the concept of the theory of evolution being incorrect in at least some capacity.



If a geneticist were to make the remarkable discovery that our present view of DNA is flawed, and that we are not, in fact, the descendants of lesser species, it is highly improbable that biologists (myself included) would reject his hypothesis on principle alone. 

The thing that is so galling about these Muslim students is that they don't hesitate to express their prejudice. They have not tried to refute the theory of evolution; they have disregarded it entirely.


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

impersonal said:


> What are you arguing about then?



I'm arguing against the people that what these people believe is wrong and never ever has even the smallest chance of being mildly correct what they believe is absolutely correct without the smallest chance of ever being wrong.



Numinous said:


> If a geneticist were to make the remarkable discovery that our present view of DNA is inaccurate and that we, in fact, are not the descendants of animals from antiquity, it is highly improbable that biologists (myself included) would reject his hypothesis on principle alone.
> 
> The thing that is so galling about these Muslim students is that they don't even hesitate to express their prejudice. They have not tried to refute the theory of evolution; they have disregarded it entirely.



I'm not saying these people are right and never was there are just a lot of people in this thread that believe that they can never be even slightly correct and so should be mocked due to sheer stupidity because what they believe is absolutely correct.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Man some people in this thread are self conceited. Just because something has evidence towards it being true does not make it true. The very nature of science is that something we believed to be correct today may very well be wrong tomorow. So getting all pretineous and believing people to be morons because they do not believe what you believe even if it has evidence is just moronic.
> 
> A scientist that is not open minded is not a scientist. If someone chooses not to believe in evolution let them, there's nothing wrong with them not believing it as it's not like you can assume evolution is absolutely correct. As long they don't start causing harm to others it's fine.
> There was once a time when all the logic in the world made us believe the world to be flat.


Yea, like the earth being flat instead of a sphere. Or the sun rotating around the earth, instead of the sun being at the center of the solar system. 

You have to be open minded here when people tell you that gravity doesn't exist, but instead you are being pushed together by god. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Yea, like the earth being flat instead of a sphere. Or the sun rotating around the earth, instead of the sun being at the center of the solar system.
> 
> You have to be open minded here when people tell you that gravity doesn't exist, but instead you are being pushed together by god. [/sarcasm]



There was a time when the common logic was that the Earth was indeed flat and those that said otherwise were mocked. And this is the same throught history. Almost every revolutionary theory was mocked by the scientific community until later proven correct.

You don't have to believe them just don't mock them and believe in absolutes.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> I'm not saying these people are right and never was there are just a lot of people in this thread that believe that they can never be even slightly correct and so should be mocked due to sheer stupidity because what they believe is absolutely correct.



No, they are mocking those who believe that intelligent design is proper science, which it clearly isn't. The ridicule is well deserved. As I said before, as a scientist, I am amenable to change, but there needs to be compelling evidence to convince me that my convictions are false.


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> There was a time when the common logic was that the Earth was indeed flat and those that said otherwise were mocked.


Yes, and you would have us continue to respect those beliefs, I am sure.


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

sadated_peon said:


> Yes, and you would have us continue to respect those beliefs I am sure.



Some of the beliefs you could be mocking may very well turn out correct, then you would more deserving of mockings than they were. It's not even like there's a specific need for the mocking as long as no harm is done. What is the point aside from the human need to make themselves feel better by insulting others.



Numinous said:


> No, they are mocking those who believe that intelligent design is proper science, which it clearly isn't. The ridicule is well deserved. As I said before, as a scientist, I am amenable to change, but there needs to be compelling evidence to convince me that my convictions are false.



And until you get that evidence your going to mock them? How very professional.


----------



## Sunrider (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Your not quite getting what i'm saying. I'm not saying we should believe every idea that comes along but we cannot simply assume it's wrong and leave it at that. What we currently believe to be correct could in fact be long later on and what we currently believe to be wrong may in fact be correct later on. Hence why you shouldn't mock other peoples beliefs and say that they are absolutely wrong and yours is absolutely correct as you just don't know. Science as a whole is fine but their are close minded people in this thread and some some minded scientists that are are in fact not much better than the close minded people they are mocking.
> 
> 
> 
> And I never argued against that.


How disingenuous. 

You're laying fault at the feet of science for obtuseness, when the issue at hand is _outright_ _rejection_, on the part of the religious, of data supporting evolution. 

Scientists object to creationism not out of hand, but because creationism, as it is currently explained in religious circles, is in _direct_ contradiction of the current data available: cellular organisms evolve--evolution can be shepherded in single-cell life, it can be engineered in more complex plant life, it can even be engineered in animal life (re: dogs and cats). This, in addition to available DNA evidence charting mutations and variations over generations, including archaeological data from primitive humans, topped by our status as _cellular life-forms_, leads us to conclude that we are amid an ongoing process of evolution, just like all other life on this planet. You simply _cannot_ accept this conclusion and simultaneously believe that humans alone were created several millenia ago out of soil. 

It's the religious rejecting present evidence out of hand, any scientists in the crowd are simply rejecting the piece that doesn't fit in the puzzle. If anyone is guilty of closedmindedness, it's the former.


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Nov 30, 2011)

One of the reasons why my Theology professors told us to "never take the Genesis account" too literally.


----------



## Spirit King (Nov 30, 2011)

Ghost Rider said:


> How disingenuous.
> 
> You're laying fault at the feet of science for obtuseness, when the issue at hand is _outright_ _rejection_, on the part of the religious, of data supporting evolution.
> 
> ...



Again your dealing in far too many absolutes. Yes religion is in many ways closed minded (that's pretty much the very nature of it, though not all relgious people are) but unless your accepting what they believe as even having the smallest chance of being correct your really not much better than they are. Precisely what is the honest point of mocking them at every single point. Will it change their mind? no, will it make the divison worse hell yes. If there was less mocking and you entertained the possiblbity of them being mildly correct and they accepted your beliefs and understood the need for them perhaps there would less of this incessant debate over every single thing.


----------



## Sunrider (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Again your dealing in far too many absolutes. Yes religion is in many ways closed minded (that's pretty much the very nature of it, though not all relgious people are) but unless your accepting what they believe as even having the smallest chance of being correct your really not much better than they are. Precisely what is the honest point of mocking them at every single point. Will it change their mind? no, will it make the divison worse hell yes. If there was less mocking and you entertained the possiblbity of them being mildly correct and they accepted your beliefs and understood the need for them perhaps there would less of this incessant debate over every single thing.


Are you joking? The current issue boils down to an absolute!

There's evolution and all the data supporting, and there's standard model of creationism which assumes man was created fully formed with no mutation or adaptation beforehand. If you accept one, you _have_ to reject the other. It's as simple as that. 

And I'm not entertaining this "turn the other cheek" policy regarding scientific response to religious ideology. Your strategy is to "be nice and patronize them and maybe they'll wise up?" How naive. 

Faith to primitive doctrines _deserves_ scrutiny, stubborn adherence to doctrines in the face of contradictory evidence _deserves_ ridicule, and stubborn adherence to doctrines in the face of contradictory evidence while opportunistically attempting to enjoy the benefits of disciplines built around the rejected evidence... well, that deserves outright scorn. 

You can't ignorantly reject and boycott the prevailing supported evidence supporting a discipline and then expect to advance to a degree or a respectable job in that discipline. If you enter a discipline rejecting the solidly-supported theory in favor of a mere belief, you deserve no less than to be considered a clown and taken no more seriously than one. 




And it's utterly irrelevant, as science isn't founded on grudges, but historically, religious has _never_ shown the goodwill toward science that you seem to be asking in reverse. I remember some guy named Galileo being sentenced to die for theorizing heliocentrism, or so-n-so Pythagoras's school being obliterated for practicing mathematics.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> I'm arguing against the people that what these people believe is wrong and never ever has even the smallest chance of being mildly correct what they believe is absolutely correct without the smallest chance of ever being wrong.


That's really a very "metaphysical" thing to argue about. Just the same, if I jump out from the top floor of the empire state building, there is a non-zero chance that I will learn to fly on the way to the ground due to some as-of-now-undiscovered physical principle. The fact that all observation proves the contrary could be dismissed by claiming that all past observations were wrong: extremely implausible, but not strictly speaking _impossible_.

However this chance is so small that most people would not bother considering it for any practical purposes. If students refused being taught that jumping from the top floor of the empire state building would land them on the floor, based on religious reasons, people would call them crazy and stupid. And while they may very well be right (if their religious beliefs happened to coincide with this mysterious, undiscovered and as of yet unobserved physical principle) the chance that they are right is so ridiculously tiny that they would still be nothing less than crazy and stupid.

The same goes for creationism. Recognizing this is not being "close-minded".


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 30, 2011)

Just fail them all.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> And until you get that evidence your going to mock them? How very professional.



If they intend to violate the scientific method, and the integrity of the entire academic enterprise, I have every reason to be upset. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."


----------



## sadated_peon (Nov 30, 2011)

Spirit King said:


> Some of the beliefs you could be mocking may very well turn out correct, then you would more deserving of mockings than they were. It's not even like there's a specific need for the mocking as long as no harm is done. What is the point aside from the human need to make themselves feel better by insulting others.


Wait, you actually believe that some time in the future we are going to find out that the earth is flat. 

How deep are you willing to dig yourself into this hole?


----------



## Sunrider (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> If creationists intend to violate the scientific method, and the integrity of the entire academic enterprise, I have every reason to be upset. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."


This. 

It's not simply that they believe differently (if it were, I'd simply roll my eyes and mock them in my head), nor even that they cling to those beliefs in the face of all evidence to the contrary (though that would garner noticeable eloquent disdain from me), it is that they are _actively attempting to re-engineer the world we live in to fit their vision_. 

It's the same whether it's creationists trying to push creationism into science courses, or religious public servants trying to push theistic allegiance and biblical mores into state legislation, or students boycotting a supported theory and still expecting to advance an education and career in the surrounding discipline. Religious fundamentalists are trying to admire their cake and eat it too, and sabotage the world in the process. Such efforts should not only be ridiculed, they should be met with the staunchest opposition.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 30, 2011)

erictheking said:


> Just fail them all.



Would cause a shitstorm


----------



## Mael (Nov 30, 2011)

This just helps me validate being more an agnostic than Catholic, honestly, even if the Pope finally recognized evolution as viable.


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 30, 2011)

The solution is simple. Fail them all. And if they have problems then they can change careers because the last thing anyone needs is retarded rubbish like them clogging up the fields.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 30, 2011)

Gextiv said:


> Why you hating on Christians? At least we don't go around blowing shut up. Huehue.


When was I hating on Christians?  I just said that Muslims aren't the only ones that act this way toward evolution in Academia, so it doesn't seem right that all of the rant was directed specifically toward them.  Especially since creationism is a Biblical ideology and evolution is not incompatible with Islam.




> They even have Catholic Universities that teach Biology. So I see no reason why the OP has to rant on Christians, since the topic is about Muslims refusing to take a simple Biology coarse.


They have Islamic schools that teach Evolution as well, albeit Theistic evolution.  The difference is that there is strong evidence to argue that the Bible contradicts evolution while there is significantly less evidence in the Quran to show that it contradicts evolution.  


The death threats are the only thing I can see to warrant such a directed rant, not simply religious students making a fuss about evolution.


----------



## Bioness (Nov 30, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Would cause a shitstorm



Boo fucking Hoo, the dumbasses want to be dumbasses then make it show.


----------



## WT (Nov 30, 2011)

If I had the chance, I'd love to learn about evolution, so I could spend my PHD thesis on finding evidence as to why its a load of rubbish.


----------



## Mael (Nov 30, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> If I had the chance, I'd love to learn about evolution, so I could spend my PHD thesis on finding evidence as to why its a load of rubbish.


----------



## WT (Nov 30, 2011)

Not defending the students or anything, evolution of human beings from apes is probably a dead end (and boring) study when it comes to medicine or genetics. Its useless and won't actually get us anywhere, essentially a waste of time. 

As a student at University, I always used to walk out of lectures, happens all the time and its a great strategy. For all of you who think otherwise, I managed to get a First Class Degree. Its very simple: You can't learn everything. The syllabus is designed to be extremely long. Be selective with what you learn and learn it well. Choose topics which interest you. You will learn them better. If the topics are dry and boring (like evolution of human beings from apes), its better off that you don't attend them at all.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 30, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Not defending the students or anything, evolution of human beings from apes is probably a dead end (and boring) study when it comes to medicine or genetics. Its useless and won't actually get us anywhere, essentially a waste of time.
> 
> As a student at University, I always used to walk out of lectures, happens all the time and its a great strategy. For all of you who think otherwise, I managed to get a First Class Degree. Its very simple: You can't learn everything. The syllabus is designed to be extremely long. Be selective with what you learn and learn it well. Choose topics which interest you. You will learn them better. If the topics are dry and boring (like evolution of human beings from apes), its better off that you don't attend them at all.



What an incredibly ignorant statement. Modern primates, which include humans, evolved from a common ancestor that no longer exists and it is through our understanding of our relations to other apes and other species in general that we have been able to make strides in biology and medicine as well.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Nov 30, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> If I had the chance, I'd love to learn about evolution, so I could spend my PHD thesis on finding evidence as to why its a load of rubbish.



So you admittedly don't know anything about evolution, and then proceed to call it false based on your complete lack of knowledge about it.

Creationism in a nutshell.


----------



## Sunrider (Nov 30, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Would cause a shitstorm


It's already a shitstorm. An appropriate (and amusing) end to said storm would be to conclude the matter with a giant capital *
F-*
Sharpie'd onto each of their foreheads. 


White Tiger said:


> If I had the chance, I'd love to learn about evolution, so I could spend my PHD thesis on finding evidence as to why its a load of rubbish.


Honestly, I would _love_ to see you attempt that, and sincerely wish you the best of luck should you find the balls to embark upon such an endeavour.


----------



## WT (Nov 30, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What an incredibly ignorant statement. Modern primates, which include humans, evolved from a common ancestor that no longer exists and it is through our understanding of our relations to other species that we have been able to make strides in biology and medicine as well.





stab-o-tron5000 said:


> So you admittedly don't know anything about evolution, and then proceed to call it false based on your complete lack of knowledge of it.
> 
> Creationism in a nutshell.



Yeah I'm being biased and ignorant. I'll admit that. 

However, I actually want to know how learning about evolution of apes to humans has helped us in creating medicine and saving peoples lives?


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Nov 30, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> If I had the chance, I'd love to learn about evolution, so I could spend my PHD thesis on finding evidence as to why its a load of rubbish.



I'm gonna call it. 

Troll.


----------



## WT (Nov 30, 2011)

Ghost Rider said:


> Honestly, I would _love_ to see you attempt that, and sincerely wish you the best of luck should you find the balls to embark upon such an endeavour.



Its something that I would have liked to do, but I'm an asshole and driven by money 

That's why I chose to get a degree in Maths and a Masters in Financial Mathematics. Since then, I've been placed in a huge investment bank (not going to name it ) and hopefully in time will take millions as bonuses while the average person suffers 

Edit - I did get the job but quit after a couple of weeks because I was disgusted by the culture


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 30, 2011)

Ghost Rider said:


> It's already a shitstorm. An appropriate (and amusing) end to said storm would be to conclude the matter with a giant capital *
> F-*
> Sharpie'd onto each of their foreheads.



Think bigger, like ''race riots'' big.


----------



## Bioness (Nov 30, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Yeah I'm being biased and ignorant. I'll admit that.
> 
> However, I actually want to know how learning about evolution of apes to humans has helped us in creating medicine and saving peoples lives?



This is a heavy misconception. Humans didn't evolve from primates, we simply have a common ancestor.


----------



## Toroxus (Nov 30, 2011)

Bioness said:


> This is a heavy misconception. Humans didn't evolve from primates, we simply have a common ancestor.





That's not what the Quran says!


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2011)

White Tiger said:


> Yeah I'm being biased and ignorant. I'll admit that.
> 
> However, I actually want to know how learning about evolution of apes to humans has helped us in creating medicine and saving peoples lives?



Actually we're still apes. Saying humans evolved from apes is like saying swallows evolved from birds. No duh, they did.

Our relationship with other apes has for example helped AIDS research, as many apes can get HIV without ever developing AIDS. It also greatly helped sociologists and anthropologists, as much of our instinctive behavior can be observed in other apes, such as male bonded coalitionary violence or sex for social purposes.

But even if knowing our evolutionary history had no practical purposes whatsoever, it would still be worth researching just for the sake of gaining knowledge about the history of our species. Of course someone whose superstitions prevent him from accepting new ideas wouldn't understand.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Nov 30, 2011)

Bioness said:


> This is a heavy misconception. Humans didn't evolve from primates, we simply have a common ancestor.



Humans _are_ primates.  I assume you meant apes, not primates.


----------



## Orxon (Nov 30, 2011)




----------



## Sunrider (Nov 30, 2011)

I've never really understood religious resistance against research investigating creation. I mean, is it really so hard to say 

_"God created the universe with the big bang and molded the formation of earth through gravitational forces on dust and rock orbiting a growing sun and then guided the evolution of man to the dominant life-form on the planet, then sharing the story of this creation in metaphorical terms his primitive Hebrew and Arab children could relate to, resulting in the seeming simplicity in the holy books we follow today." 

_and there you have it, science and religious coexisting with little harm. Why is that so difficult?


----------



## butcher50 (Nov 30, 2011)

Ghost Rider said:


> I've never really understood religious resistance against research investigating creation. I mean, is it really so hard to say
> 
> _"God created the universe with the big bang and molded the formation of earth through gravitational forces on dust and rock orbiting a growing sun and then guided the evolution of man to the dominant life-form on the planet, then sharing the story of this creation in metaphorical terms his primitive Hebrew and Arab children could relate to, resulting in the seeming simplicity in the holy books we follow today."
> 
> _and there you have it, science and religious coexisting with little harm. Why is that so difficult?



moderate creationism ?


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Just cause someone is studying a specific subject, aka biology here, doesnt mean they have to faithfully accept and blindly believe EVERYTHING they read on the books. Many theories thought absolute and correct in the past, were proved to be wrong later on and the books were rewritten. My point is, you shouldnt study something mainly to absorb the information given, but you should study it so that you can learn to think in a certain way that would help you go deeper in that subject on your own(this is what would first help you invent/discover something, knowledge comes second).

 My point is, if you bring me a chemist and tell me look hes got As in all of his chemistry subjects and hes top student blah blah blah, I wont be impressed if he doesnt prove to be able to think like a chemist, on top of that. Knowledge alone is useless if you're lacking the corresponding way of thought. Just saying. Going by that, rejecting the theory of evolution isnt a crime against biology, just like Galileo announcing that the earth moves around the sun wasnt , despite popular belief at the time. I mean wtf, are we still in medievil ages?

What I agree with the OP for is that they shouldnt have reacted the way they did, but they should have expressed their thoughts and feelings about it through discussion and debate.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Nov 30, 2011)

Ghost Rider said:


> I've never really understood religious resistance against research investigating creation. I mean, is it really so hard to say
> 
> _"God created the universe with the big bang and molded the formation of earth through gravitational forces on dust and rock orbiting a growing sun and then guided the evolution of man to the dominant life-form on the planet, then sharing the story of this creation in metaphorical terms his primitive Hebrew and Arab children could relate to, resulting in the seeming simplicity in the holy books we follow today."
> 
> _and there you have it, science and religious coexisting with little harm. Why is that so difficult?



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA&feature=relmfu[/YOUTUBE]



> ...When believers argue over any of the many things which contradict their religion, they often challenge us to decide whom we are going to believe?  The alleged “word” of God?  Or that of Men?  As if human inquiry had no chance against the authority they imagine their doctrine to be...
> 
> ...Because if creationists didn’t have their beloved books, they wouldn’t have a god either.  One is the other in their world.  Ironically, the faithful reject the "works" of God as "worshipping creation over the creator." But then they prop up the words of men before God, as God, and even insist that disproving their supposedly "holy" books would somehow disprove God too; not just their version of God, but everyone else's version of God as well.  Creationist Christians think that if the Bible is wrong, then God lied.  They cannot accept that God could exist but the Bible be wrong because they can’t distinguish doctrine from deity.  So it is a form of idolatry wherein the believers worship man-made compilations as though those books were God himself -because they think it is HIS word.





StrawHeart said:


> Just cause someone is studying a specific subject, aka biology here, doesnt mean they have to *faithfully accept and blindly believe *EVERYTHING they read on the books. Many theories thought absolute and correct in the past, were proved to be wrong later on and the books were rewritten. My point is, you shouldnt study something mainly to absorb the information given, but you should study it so that you can learn to think in a certain way that would help you go deeper in that subject on your own(this is what would first help you invent/discover something, knowledge comes second).



Evolution has nothing to do with faith or belief.  It's based on evidence.  More evidence than you could possibly imagine.  There's not a fact it doesn't agree with and not a single related field (cellular biology, genetics, anatomy, geology, particularly paleontology, environmental systems, tectonics, atomic chemistry, especially taxonomy) calls anything about it into question.  

Evolution is one of the single most well supported theories in all of science. 



StrawHeart said:


> What I agree with the OP for is that they shouldnt have reacted the way they did, but they should have expressed their thoughts and feelings about it through* discussion and debate.*



These people will never do that because this has nothing to do with debate or discussion.  Their holy book doesn't mention evolution, therefore evolution is wrong.  Period!  No discussion, no debate, end of story.  

In other (ruder) words. Fuck these people.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

@stab evolution was just an example. And even if it is very well proven as you say, this still doesnt mean that students shouldnt doubt the things they study from time to time. The point is, even if they were wrong to doubt something, it doesnt mean they are stupid. It means, they are actually thinking, and thinking is good, last time I checked.

Also, I know that usually such people wouldnt even think of discussing first, but I was just saying how they SHOULD have reacted, not just them, but anyone. I believe that is clear enough.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> @stab evolution was just an example. And even if it is very well proven as you say, this still doesnt mean that students shouldnt doubt the things they study from time to time. The point is, even if they were wrong to doubt something, it doesnt mean they are stupid. It means, they are actually thinking, and thinking is good, last time I checked.



Thinking is one thing, but for people aspiring to be scientists refusing to even hear theories they don't like is quite another.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> @stab evolution was just an example. And even if it is very well proven as you say, this still doesnt mean that students shouldnt doubt the things they study from time to time. The point is, even if they were wrong to doubt something, it doesnt mean they are stupid. It means, they are actually thinking, and thinking is good, last time I checked.



No, that's not what it means in the least. They're not doubting "things they study", they're doubting something that they know absolutely nothing about and refuse to learn anything about it. That's not skepticism, that's being closed-minded.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Just cause someone is studying a specific subject, aka biology here, doesnt mean they have to faithfully accept and blindly believe EVERYTHING they read on the books. Many theories thought absolute and correct in the past, were proved to be wrong later on and the books were rewritten. My point is, you shouldnt study something mainly to absorb the information given, but you should study it so that you can learn to think in a certain way that would help you go deeper in that subject on your own(this is what would first help you invent/discover something, knowledge comes second).
> 
> My point is, if you bring me a chemist and tell me look hes got As in all of his chemistry subjects and hes top student blah blah blah, I wont be impressed if he doesnt prove to be able to think like a chemist, on top of that. Knowledge alone is useless if you're lacking the corresponding way of thought. Just saying. Going by that, rejecting the theory of evolution isnt a crime against biology, just like Galileo announcing that the earth moves around the sun wasnt , despite popular belief at the time. I mean wtf, are we still in medievil ages?
> 
> What I agree with the OP for is that they shouldnt have reacted the way they did, but they should have expressed their thoughts and feelings about it through discussion and debate.


I used to think like this too, and I still do for the most part, but the thing is there really isn't enough time for everyone to experiment and confirm every single thing they learn off science.  It's kind of a trust code that is bonded through logic, albeit a logic that stems back from kindergarten that is also a controlled learning environment, but it works nonetheless.

It's just a method that has worked in the past and will continue to work in progressing science.  You learn what we already "know" and then your leash is loosened by University to venture out into the field with your own knowledge if you want to go deeper into the subject.  But for someone that just wants to be a chemist or engineer, all they need is the proper understanding to do that job, which the current science is always going to provide (even if it were somehow false, it still works).  Since people don't decide their careers at kindergarten, there is no way that there could be a different enriched system specifically for research-bound students, so the system as we have it is the best way to go.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, that's not what it means in the least. They're not doubting "things they study", they're doubting something that they know absolutely nothing about and refuse to learn anything about it. That's not skepticism, that's being closed-minded.



And people here seem to not understand that I am not talking specifically about these muslims here(and yes what they did was narrow mindness and not skepticism cause they reject something before even accepting to read through it) but I am talking in general, in cases when the person has already studied something but just doesnt agree with it. I just didnt like the OP's tone at a certain point when it came to that.

@afgpride
It does benefit the system, and it will benefit you/me/etc too if we want to just do our job that we know how to do but the world has benefited more by people who thought out of the box, if you look back in history.


The point is if you want to advance/discover something new, you cant always play by the rules, cause as you said, sometimes they could be wrong.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> The point is if you want to advance/discover something new, you cant always play by the rules, cause as you said, sometimes they could be wrong.



While that very well may be a possibility, how could one go about correcting/discovering something new if they refuse to learn about the current theory first?


----------



## Glued (Nov 30, 2011)

I took physical anthropology and intro to prehistory, both classes dealt with evolution a little didn't bother my belief in Allah.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> While that very well may be a possibility, how could one go about correcting/discovering something new if they refuse to learn about the current theory first?



Did you miss the other points of mine? I never said you should doubt/turn down a theory/w.e before actually looking through it aka studying it. If you noticed, I used the word "study" several times and that was no coincidence.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

And I could say the same for some others here.


----------



## Oturan (Nov 30, 2011)

okay these people are standing by something they have no proof of but are opposing something with proof 

how hard is it to believe in creation _and _evolution?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Nov 30, 2011)

Shounen Ai said:


> okay these people are standing by someting they have no proof of but are opposing something with proof
> 
> how hard is it to believe in creation _and _evolution?



You mean like Freemasonry?

Obviously there's nothing wrong with it. I think that many people would accept something similar to that. But both sides have such a huge following that the middleground is hard to walk carefully 

I go by science first and foremost as fact, as that is what its based upon. But there is no reason that people can't have a middle ground.

A combination between faith and fact


----------



## Bioness (Nov 30, 2011)

Shounen Ai said:


> okay these people are standing by someting they have no proof of but are opposing something with proof
> 
> how hard is it to believe in creation _and _evolution?



I believe it's called Intelligent Design aka more bullshit.

This little blue dot of ours is hardly unique either, a single planet with a single star out of 300 billion stars in the Milk Way Galaxy with an estimate 50 billion planets with 500 million in the "habitable zone" or zone which could sustain life, then there are 100s of billions of galaxies just in the observable universe, and the universe could easily be much larger or have changed from what we have observe.

It is just utter stupidity to believe in creationism.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 30, 2011)

Well, don't Deists believe in scientifically supported statements and claims about life, the planets, and the universe in general, yet believe in a higher power too?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> And I could say the same for some others here.



We're actually making a point, you're just saying "I don't agree with what they did but..." and not really making any points.


----------



## Al-Yasa (Nov 30, 2011)

whatever floats there boat i guess

if it was me i would still attend the lecture even if i disagree with some aspects

if you have strong faith a module shouldnt scare you away.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> We're actually making a point, you're just saying "I don't agree with what they did but..." and not really making any points.



I actually did make a point and said why. I didnt like the OP's tone at this point "FYI, genetic modification is going to be a really big deal in the next twenty or thirty years" cause it made it sound as anyone who opposes the evolution theory is an idiot and it will only result in their bad.
And to make it clear once more, my problem isnt evolution itself, but this whole way of thinking of some people, that just cause something so far is generally accepted means that it is absolutely 100% correct and that none should doubt it.

How am I not making any point therefore? My point was that it's fine to be doubtful and pensive and of course that means after having studied a theory. Just cause we think differently, doesnt mean I didnt make a point. Unless, flat out disagreeing with the other posters is the only way I could make one, according to you.

To get this over with, I didnt come in this thread to debate whether what the muslims did was right or wrong, I came to express my disdain about the way the OP expressed himself at certain parts. Yes, what the muslims did, according to me, was wrong but that doesnt mean that anyone opposing a theory(and after knowing what it is about first)  doesnt have a future in their sector.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> And to make it clear once more, my problem isnt evolution itself, but this whole way of thinking of some people, that just cause something so far is generally accepted means that it is absolutely 100% correct and that none should doubt it.



Fortunately, no one here is doing that. I doubt that anyone believes the theory of evolution is unassailable, however, we have no reason to think of it as anything other than a fact.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> Fortunately, no one here is doing that. I highly doubt that anyone truly believes that the theory of evolution is unassailable, however, we have no reason to think of it as anything other than a fact.



And I think the OP was, as I pointed out above or else I wouldnt have posted.
Wait, so you think it's a fact but dont believe it's unassailable at the same time? Explain that.

PS:Having no reason to doubt it doesnt equal the actual inexistance of said reason.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> And I think the OP was, as I pointed out above or else I wouldnt have posted.



When did The Pink Ninja say that the theory was infallible?



StrawHeart said:


> Wait, so you think it's a fact but dont believe it's unassailable at the same time? Explain that.



In so far as we understand biology, genetics, and paleontology, we have determined that evolution is a valid hypothesis. If we discovered evidence to the contrary, however, it would be discarded and a new hypothesis would be born. In that sense the theory of evolution is not unassailable. The odds of that occurring, however, are infinitesimal.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> When did The Pink Ninja say that the theory was infallible?
> 
> *The way he said a lot of things sure made it seem that way. >.>*
> 
> ...



It's still a hypothesis, though. Aka not a fact.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> It's still a hypothesis, though. Aka not a fact.



It is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory. The colloquial use of the word "theory" is not the same as the scientific use of the word "theory". Informally, the word "theory" is akin to the word "hypothesis", but scientifically it is not. As it was previously stated, the "theory" of evolution is comparable, in validity, to the "theory" of heliocentricity, or the "theory" of plate tectonics.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> So, you merely assumed that he believed such a thing?
> 
> 
> *I didnt merely assume. He made it seem that way, as I said. By the way, how do you know what he believes or not? You arent the same person, are you?*
> ...



I still fail to see how this makes it a fact.

Stop editing your posts to your convenience. You yourself named it a hypothesis some posts before, did you not?

Let me quote before you edit again



> In so far as we understand biology, genetics, and paleontology, we have determined that evolution is a valid hypothesis.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> I still fail to see how this makes it a fact. Stop editing your posts to your convenience. You yourself named it a hypothesis some posts before, did you not? Let me quote before you edit again



Yes, we determined that it was a valid hypothesis, at which point it evolved into a theory. Am I not being clear?



StrawHeart said:


> I didnt merely assume. He made it seem that way, as I said.



So it was an assumption.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> I still fail to see how this makes it a fact.
> 
> Stop editing your posts to your convenience. You yourself named it a hypothesis some posts before, did you not?
> 
> Let me quote before you edit again



Evolution is both fact and theory for scientific purposes and only a fact for colloquial purposes. Anything that's directly observable is a fact in science. We can and have observed evolution both in the lab and in controlled environments in the field.

It's like gravity, there's a fact and a theory. Nobody can deny the fact of theory, i.e. that we're being pulled towards earth just like nobody can deny the fact of evolution, i.e. offspring being born with mutations that neither of the parents' genotypes has and natural selection weeding out weak animals.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> Yes, we determined that it was a valid hypothesis, at which point it evolved into a theory. Am I not being clear?



No. That was your initial explanation on it


> In so far as we understand biology, genetics, and paleontology, we have determined that evolution is a factual hypothesis. If we discovered evidence to the contrary, however, it would be discarded and a new hypothesis would be born. In that sense it is not unassailable.



No word about it being a theory there. So, next time you want to explain to me what it is, please be clear from the start, and not two posts later. It gives more validity to your posts.
Secondly, I know how the scientific term about theory works but I guess Ill be a criminal and a fool for saying what I will :



> Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.





> Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.



Reading the above, I cannot consider the theory of evolution an actual fact, despite scientists naming it "theory" because I dont believe there has been enough proof so far to prove that it is 100% valid. For a concept like evolution, you'd practically have to be there and witness and observe all the millions of years of its progress in order to be sure about the course of things and that is impossible. As of now, we have a logical hypothesis and some things that point towards that direction but we will never be sure and therefore it is not a fact, for me.
And yes there have been some experiments that confirmed some assumptions, but still who are we to tell that this is what happened and not something else? 
By the way, why dont you answer to me? Do you know the OP in person, as what he believes or not? If not,then yours is an assumption, as well, to claim that he doesnt believe that.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Reading the above, I cannot consider the theory of evolution an actual fact, despite scientists naming it "theory" because I dont believe there has been enough proof so far to prove that it is 100% valid. For a concept like evolution, you'd practically have to be there and witness and observe all the millions of years of its progress in order to be sure about the course of things and that is impossible. As of now, we have a logical hypothesis and some things that point towards that direction but we will never be sure and therefore it is not a fact, for me.



You don't have to be there to witness millions of years of evolution.  We see microevolution all the time, all macroevolution is is the accumulation of those changes over extreme periods of time.

Does it really take that much to say "well millions upon millions of small changes accruing over time will make things very different"?

That's not even to mention the myriad of fossils we have showing the transitions of species.  Are you saying that every now and then species were magically wiped out and replaced by others that look kind of like them?


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You don't have to be there to witness millions of years of evolution.  We see microevolution all the time, all macroevolution is is the accumulation of those changes over extreme periods of time.
> 
> Does it really take that much to say "well millions upon millions of small changes accruing over time will make things very different"?
> 
> That's not even to mention the myriad of fossils we have showing the transitions of species.  Are you saying that every now and then species were magically wiped out and replaced by others that look kind of like them?



Again, you're making a logical hypothesis here. And yes, you have to be there to witness it, if you want to say that you're 100% sure about it.
I aint saying it aint logical, in fact it makes a lot of sense. But I think it's arrogant to present it as a fact, when you havent witnessed its progress. You cay say its the most plausible theory but saying it's a fact is uncalled for. Not just for this one, but for every theory, we might find something later on that proves the previous to be wrong, so why enhance a close minded way of thought to the people studying it by presenting it as a fact?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Reading the above, I cannot consider the theory of evolution an actual fact, despite scientists naming it "theory" because I dont believe there has been enough proof so far to prove that it is 100% valid. For a concept like evolution, you'd practically have to be there and witness and observe all the millions of years of its progress in order to be sure about the course of things and that is impossible. As of now, we have a logical hypothesis and some things that point towards that direction but we will never be sure and therefore it is not a fact, for me.



You don't have to observe the history of evolution to prove it any more than you have to observe a crime in order to convict someone.

And no, we do not have "some things" pointing towards it, we have *everything ever discovered in any related field* pointing towards the theory of evolution being true. Genetics, embyronic developement, geology, paleontology, behavioral sciences, all of it behaves exactly the way you'd expect it to if the theory of evolution were true.



> And yes there have been some experiments that confirmed some assumptions, but still who are we to tell that this is what happened and not something else?



Rational human beings? I mean, who are we to say that a guy actually shot someone else just because we found him covered in the victim's blood with the murder weapon in his hands and a strong motive? Surely it could all be different, nobody knows if nobody's seen it, right?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 30, 2011)

We've observed evolution in species anyways, so any dispute of its existence is ignorance.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> No. That was your initial explanation on it. No word about it being a theory there. So, next time you want to explain to me what it is, please be clear from the start, and not two posts later. It gives more validity to your posts.



Why did you edit my post?



			
				Numinous said:
			
		

> In so far as we understand biology, genetics, and paleontology, we have determined that evolution is a valid hypothesis. If we discovered evidence to the contrary, however, it would be discarded and a new hypothesis would be born. In that sense the *theory of evolution* is not unassailable.





StrawHeart said:


> Reading the above, I cannot consider the theory of evolution an actual fact, despite scientists naming it "theory" because I dont believe there has been enough proof so far to prove that it is 100% valid.



Perhaps we can dispel some misconceptions here. Where do you believe the theory is lacking? Anyone with a cursory understanding of the colossal of evidence we possess knows that we don't need to physically observe macro-evolution to say that it's empirically true. 

The only discrepancy is with the actual process by which we evolved.



StrawHeart said:


> By the way, why dont you answer to me? Do you know the OP in person, as what he believes or not? Therefore, yours is an assumption, as well, to claim that he doesnt believe that.



We have a spiritual connection.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You don't have to observe the history of evolution to prove it any more than you have to observe a crime in order to convict someone.
> 
> And no, we do not have "some things" pointing towards it, we have *everything ever discovered in any related field* pointing towards the theory of evolution being true. Genetics, embyronic developement, geology, paleontology, behavioral sciences, all of it behaves exactly the way you'd expect it to if the theory of evolution were true.
> *
> ...


 Right. If nobody has seen it, how can you be so sure that this wasnt all a plot to trap the murderer? I mean is it that unheard of to think out of the box? Gladly for the world, some people actually took the burden of doing that, even if others thought them crazy and "irrational beings".


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> Why did you edit my post?
> 
> *Where did I edit your post?
> *
> ...



Same here.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Again, you're making a logical hypothesis here. And yes, you have to be there to witness it, if you want to say that you're 100% sure about it.



Science is never 100% sure about ANYTHING.  There is always a chance however small that your results are a fluke, and just because you witness something doesn't mean a thing because you could be going insane, be hallucinating or be deceived.


----------



## fantzipants (Nov 30, 2011)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Move somewhere that has competent teachers please.  I fear for any student growing up wherever that is.



Hate to tell you this but there are scientists and teachers of non religous backgroung who don't support evolution. They may be open to it but not believe it. I've gotten into arguments on this board and done research into the matter. Evolution isn't 100% fact just a theory. I've had 5 college professors in different field of science that stated the same.

Truthfully like someone else said this. They shouldn't get bent out of shape like that. If they really are shaken up by the opinions of others then they must have issues with their faith. A person with true faith doesn't need to become an opinionated irate with an oppositional defiant disorder yelling at the four winds while he argues with himself


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Science is never 100% sure about ANYTHING.  There is always a chance however small that your results are a fluke, and just because you witness something doesn't mean a thing because you could be going insane, be hallucinating or be deceived.



Yes, it is a possibility but witnessing something logically should make you more certain about it than just assuming it. Then again the same things could be said for the later.(going insane, deceived, hallucinating while you're making an assumption, experiment, thinking you're right)
And thanks for just admitting that the theory of evolution cant be a fact.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Yes, it is a possibility but witnessing something logically should make you more certain about it than just assuming it. Then again the same things could be said for the later.



Yeah, but now we're talking about degrees of certainty and not 100% certainty.  Are you saying you never believe anything you haven't personally witnessed with your own eyes?


----------



## Ceria (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Whoa whoa whoa....they're BIOLOGY students and they're boycotting evolution?  Evolution is the basis for much of modern biology.



It's pretty close-minded on a level that's staggering for a university level student. Even if you don't believe in the shit it's still whats required for the course and furthermore your respective degree. It's alright to not believe in something, cowboy up and learn the shit so you can pass the class. 

To me it sounds like they're forced to reject evolution due to the possibility it might influence them to think for themselves.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Where did I edit your post?





Numinous said:


> In so far as we understand biology, genetics, and paleontology, we have determined that evolution is a valid hypothesis. If we discovered evidence to the contrary, however, it would be discarded and a new hypothesis would be born. In that sense *the theory of evolution *is not unassailable. The odds of that occurring, however, are infinitesimal.



Your response: "No word about it being a theory there."

You clearly edited my post.



StrawHeart said:


> Isnt this process also part of the theory?



Evolution by natural selection is certainly the most robust and compelling theory, but it is not the only explanation that has been proposed.



StrawHeart said:


> Same here



Apparently not.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Yeah, but now we're talking about degrees of certainty and not 100% certainty.  Are you saying you never believe anything you haven't personally witnessed with your own eyes?



No, I was always talking about 100% certainty if you noticed. 
You're the one talking about degrees lesser than 100 and I aint interested in them when Im debating whether something's a fact or not.

No, Im saying that I dont see why someone else's beliefs(even if proved with experiments and very rational) should be forced down my throat, when even they themselves arent 100% certain about it. And yes I do believe things I havent witnessed with my own eyes, but I dont see why I always have to do it.


----------



## hammer (Nov 30, 2011)

it should be forced down your throat if you signed up for he class plain and fucking simple.  in biology class I learn evolution and theology class I learn creationism.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> Your response: "No word about it being a theory there."
> 
> You clearly edited my post.
> 
> ...



Apparently, more than you do.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

hammer said:


> it should be forced down your throat if you signed up for he class plain and fucking simple.  in biology class I learn evolution and theology class I learn creationism.



No, it shouldnt. The teachers are there to serve YOU, it's their job. Education offers you information, but it is YOUR choice whether you will accept it or not and how. Also, the theory of evolution isnt all that biology is about, and its taught in all biology universities, so I dont see why someone who wants to study biology should refrain from it simply for not warming up to a part of it.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> No, it shouldnt. The teachers are there to serve YOU, it's their job. Education offers you information, but it is YOUR choice whether you will accept it or not and how. Also, the theory of evolution isnt all that biology is about, and its taught in all biology universities, so I dont see why someone who wants to study biology should refrain from it simply for not warming up to a part of it.



No, teachers are not there to SERVE you they are there to EDUCATE you.  If they were there to serve you they would only teach things you told them to teach you and nothing else.


----------



## hammer (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> No, it shouldnt. The teachers are there to serve YOU, it's their job. Education offers you information, but it is YOUR choice whether you will accept it or not and how. Also, the theory of evolution isnt all that biology is about, and its taught in all biology universities, so I dont see why someone who wants to study biology should refrain from it simply for not warming up to a part of it.



BS if they dont want to learn evolution they should drop bio for another science or take theology.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> No, teachers are not there to SERVE you they are there to EDUCATE you.  If they were there to serve you they would only teach things you told them to teach you and nothing else.



You misunderstood the meaning of that word in that context. 
Yes, the teachers are there to SERVE you. It is their job and they are getting paid for it in exchange of educating you/offering information. Thats in what way they serve you.


----------



## hammer (Nov 30, 2011)

actually no, if since students dont get refunds teachers dont serve


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

hammer said:


> BS if they dont want to learn evolution they should drop bio for another science or take theology.



How close minded. So if you dont agree with a part of a subject that consists of numerous parts, you should drop it. What if you are very good at another part of it and you make something good for the world out of it? Really?


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

hammer said:


> actually no, if since students dont get refunds teachers dont serve



Yes, teachers serve, no matter if the state or the student himself pays them. All the teachers I ever had refered to their job as a social service, so I think this should say something.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> You misunderstood the meaning of that word in that context.
> Yes, the teachers are there to SERVE you. It is their job and they are getting paid for it in exchange of educating you/offering information. Thats in what way they serve you.



I suppose that depends on how you look at it.  They way I see it you're ASKING to be in their class and if they are kind enough to admit you into the school and into the class you're paying them for the privilege of attending the class.

If it was all about serving you then no one would ever have to take classes they don't want to take or learn anything they don't want to learn.



StrawHeart said:


> No, I was always talking about 100% certainty if you noticed.
> You're the one talking about degrees lesser than 100 and I aint interested in them when Im debating whether something's a fact or not.
> 
> No, Im saying that I dont see why someone else's beliefs(even if proved with experiments and very rational) should be forced down my throat, when even they themselves arent 100% certain about it. And yes I do believe things I havent witnessed with my own eyes, but I dont see why I always have to do it.



You can NEVER be 100% sure of ANYTHING.  So by your logic no one should ever teach ANYTHING that the students don't feel like learning because then they would be "forcing their beliefs down your throat when even they themselves aren't 100% certain".


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Editing your post and misunderstanding it are two different things. Don't accuse me of things I didn't do.



Here, I'll make it simple for you. You claimed that I said this:

"...In that sense it is not unassailable."

This is what I actually said:

"...In that sense the theory of evolution is not unassailable."

You then accused me of not referring to evolution as a theory, which is incorrect.



StrawHeart said:


> This doesnt answer my question. If the process is part of that theory, you said it may be a discrepanacy, therefore you admitted it's not 100% accurate.



The theory of evolution is demonstrably true; the theory of evolution _by natural selection_, while cogent and alluring, is often said to be insufficient for explaining certain forms of evolution. Forgive me, but I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever even taken a course in Biology.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I suppose that depends on how you look at it.  They way I see it you're ASKING to be in their class and if they are kind enough to admit you into the school and into the class you're paying them for the privilege of attending the class.
> 
> If it was all about serving you then no one would ever have to take classes they don't want to take or learn anything they don't want to learn.
> 
> ...



No, but by my logic, they could reach the point of TEACHING you about it. But when they claim it is 100% without it actually being, then yes, I think thats like trying to force it down our throats. Teaching is fine, cause its our choice whether we will value that information or not.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> Here, I'll make it simple for you. You claimed that I said this:
> 
> "...In that sense it is not unassailable."
> 
> ...




Therefore not 100% out of the theory of evolution is thought to be certain.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> No, but by my logic, they could reach the point of TEACHING you about it. But when they claim it is 100% without it actually being, then yes, I think thats like trying to force it down our throats. Teaching is fine, cause its our choice whether we will value that information or not.



I see, so if they TELL you its 100% certain you somehow lose the ability to choose whether you value the information or not?  Your mind instantly absorbs it and accepts it as true?


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I see, so if they TELL you its 100% certain you somehow lose the ability to choose whether you value the information or not?  Your mind instantly absorbs it and accepts it as true?



When did I even claim such a thing? And then you say that Im the one who argues for the sake of arguing? Please....
Why do you keep missing the point? Its not about you instantly believing it if they tell you that it is 100% true but when they are not 100% sure themselves its a lie to tell otherwise. Simple as that. If they arent 100% sure why even say otherwise, unless it is to impose their opinion?


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Therefore not 100% of the theory of evolution is thought to be certain.



No. The idea that we evolved from primeval organisms is irrefutable, however, the process that facilitated this evolution is marginally contentious. What you mean to say is that "we are not certain about natural selection in the same way that we are certain about evolution".


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> No. The idea that we evolved from primeval organisms is irrefutable, however, the process that facilitated this evolution is marginally contentious. What you mean to say is that "we are not certain about natural selection in the same way that we are certain about evolution".



Yes. The process is part of the theory of evolution, evolution cannot occure without that process, simple as that. Therefore, we aren't 100% sure about all aspects of evolution, therefore the theory of evolution isnt 100% accurate so far.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Yes. The process is part of the theory of evolution, evolution cannot occure without that process, simple as that. Therefore, we aren't 100% sure about all aspects of evolution, therefore the theory of evolution isnt 100% accurate so far.



It isn't necessary for us to be in agreement on process of evolution in order for us to conclude that evolution itself is a fact.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> It isn't necessary for us to be in agreement on process of evolution in order for us to conclude that evolution itself is a fact.



And yet all of the theory needs to be accurate for ALL of it to be a fact, otherwise dont tell me that the theory of evolution is a fact, instead say which parts of it are.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> And yet all of the theory needs to be accurate for ALL of it to be a fact, otherwise dont tell me that the theory of evolution is a fact, instead say which parts of it are.



The theory of evolution _is_ a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is certainly compelling, but it's more commonly contested than the theory of evolution itself (which is to say, not very often). How much more direct do I need to be?


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> The theory of evolution _is_ a fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection is certainly compelling, but it's more commonly contested than the theory of evolution itself (which is to say, not very often). How much more direct do I need to be?



Apparently, more. First off, you're mentioning two theories of evolution in this post, but arent those two included in the same theory?


> Evolution is generally defined as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. This has been dubbed the standard genetic definition of evolution. Other definitions of evolution cover a much broader scale overarching multiple levels of biological organisation, from macroevolutionary phenomena that occur during species formation and divergence, to microevolutionary processes within individual organisms, cells, and biomolecules such as DNA and proteins.[12][13] Evolution also refers to Darwin's theory of natural selection, which is the only known mechanism that can lead to adaptations and is only one of multiple mechanisms of evolutionary change. Natural selection is a process that acts on the heritable characteristics of individuals that interact and reproduce to form lineages of biological populations. Genetic drift, gene flow, vicariance biogeography, and niche construction are examples of other evolutionary mechanisms.


 By the pass of time, all those parts were integrated together forming a whole of the theory of evolution.



> In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.[6] Scientists continue to study evolution by constructing theories, by using observational data, and by performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[7] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[8][9]



Therefore, if you say that one part is innacurate, then the theory isnt 100% accurate? How much more clear do I need to get?


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Therefore, if you say that one part is innacurate...



Excuse me, when did I say it was inaccurate? The sections from Wikipedia that you posted agree completely with what I've said.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> Excuse me, when did I say it was inaccurate? The sections from Wikipedia that you posted agree completely with what I've said.





> The theory of evolution by natural selection is certainly compelling, but it's more commonly contested than the theory of evolution itself



Please, stop biting around the bush. Sure you didnt say it was innacurate but does this make it sound as if it is 100% accurate, either?
No, more like YOU agree with them.  Anyways, I posted the sections to show that the theory of evolution consists of one whole theory nowdays and you keep mentioning two. They were integrated.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> When did I even claim such a thing? And then you say that Im the one who argues for the sake of arguing? Please....
> Why do you keep missing the point? Its not about you instantly believing it if they tell you that it is 100% true but when they are not 100% sure themselves its a lie to tell otherwise. Simple as that. If they arent 100% sure why even say otherwise, unless it is to impose their opinion?



Its a class.  Its the teachers job to impose the curriculum.  Simple as that.

Don't like the curriculum then don't take the class. If you're set on following a career that _requires_ that class then suck it up.


----------



## Seph (Nov 30, 2011)

More evidence that Muslims are nothing more than irrational medieval-age people.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Its a class.  Its the teachers job to impose the curriculum.  Simple as that.
> 
> Don't like the curriculum then don't take the class. If you're set on following a career that _requires_ that class then suck it up.



Everyone can "suck" it up without having to agree with it. Simple as that.
And no, their job isnt to impose, it is to educate and provide information. Learn the difference cause you seem to have a twisted idea about education and the teacher's role in it.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Please, stop biting around the bush. Sure you didnt say it was innacurate but does this make it sound as if it is 100% accurate, either?



I don't eat shrubbery, thank you.

When natural selection is debated, other evolutionary mechanisms are proposed as better explanations for certain forms of evolution, as I originally said. However, this doesn't refute the theory of natural selection, just as certain hypotheses in physics don't refute our understanding of gravity.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Everyone can "suck" it up without having to agree with it. Simple as that.
> And no, their job isnt to impose, it is to educate and provide information. Learn the difference cause you seem to have a twisted idea about education and the teacher's role in it.



And how exactly do they educate you?  They provide you with the facts as they know them, as FACTS.

Teachers don't say "well children the prevailing theory is the Earth is round" the say "the Earth is round" regardless of whether or not any children in the class don't want to hear it or believe it.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Nov 30, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> More evidence that Muslims are nothing more than irrational medieval-age people.



I think that trolls should leave before they come in


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> I don't eat shrubbery, thank you.
> *And yet, you seem to be eating it again with this. You're welcome.*
> In the instances that natural selection is debated, other evolutionary mechanisms are proposed as better explanations for certain forms of evolution, as I originally said. However, this doesn't refute the theory of natural selection, just as certain hypotheses in physics don't refute our understanding of gravity.




Just cause it doesnt refute it, it doesnt mean it's 100% accurate. It's a simple point, whats so hard accepting about it?


----------



## Seph (Nov 30, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> I think that trolls should leave before they come in



Trolling?

Evolution is a* proven scientific fact*. The Quran is nothing more than fiction without a shred of evidence going for it.

They're stuck in the medieval age. They belong there.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Just cause it doesnt refute it, it doesnt mean it's 100% accurate. It's a simple point, whats so hard accepting about it?



I never asserted that the theory was 100% accurate. I said it was essentially a fact.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> And how exactly do they educate you?  They provide you with the facts as they know them, as FACTS.
> 
> Teachers don't say "well children the prevailing theory is the Earth is round" the say "the Earth is round" regardless of whether or not any children in the class don't want to hear it or believe it.



And yet if you ask them whether they are 100% sure, they'd say no. I have asked that to several teachers and know what they said? That they couldnt be 100% sure for anything. I dont know how your teachers functioned though.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> I never asserted that the theory is 100% accurate. I said it was essentially a fact.



In order for it to be a fact, doesnt it need to be 100% accurate?


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> In order for it to be a fact, doesnt it need to be 100% accurate?



Scientific theories are not as empirical as mathematical theorems, but they are treated as facts for the sake of convenience. It wouldn't be sensible to deny that the Earth is round. Similarly, it wouldn't be sensible to deny that the theory of evolution is true. They are on equal planes of validity.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> Scientific theories are not as empirical as mathematical theorems, but they are treated as facts for the sake of convenience. It wouldn't be sensible to deny that the Earth is round. Similarly, it wouldn't be sensible to deny that the theory of evolution is true. They are on equal planes of validity.



Again, when I use the word fact, I aint using it in its scientifical concept. Therefore, it may be a fact for you but it isn't for me, because we see it under different lights.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Again, when I use the word fact, I aint using it in its scientifical concept. Therefore, it may be a fact for you but it isn't for me, because we see it under different lights.



I see. Well, I have a different perception of the entire English language, rendering your entire response incoherent. Good day, sir.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> I see. Well, I have a different perception of the entire English language, rendering your entire response incoherent. Good day, sir.



It's not just about the language in general, it's about how we used the term "fact" differently. And I'm a girl. Good day, to you, as well.


----------



## Drums (Nov 30, 2011)

Numinous said:


> I was being facetious. And I'm a girl as well.



Nah I wasnt oblivious. I had made it clear from before that I didnt consider the word fact under its scientifical meaning. Not my fault if you couldnt pick it up all this time.

You know the scientific definition of "fact" and all this time I was using that word in another way, I mean how could you not tell, seriously? And Im the oblivious one? Is it a scientifical fact? Yes it is. Is it a fact(non scientific one)? No, it's not.


----------



## Seph (Nov 30, 2011)

> Scientific theories are not as empirical as mathematical theorems, but they are treated as facts for the sake of convenience.



Theories and facts are completely different things.

Evolution is no longer a theory. It's a fact now that it's been proven over and over again. A theory is just that, it hasn't been proven. It's just a theory.


----------



## Xion (Nov 30, 2011)

hammer said:


> I think its fair if they dont want to learn it as long as they want to fail



My thoughts exactly.

Especially if you're there to be a biology/science major. Then you should probably be laughed at and thrown off campus.


----------



## Salem (Nov 30, 2011)

StrawHeart, please stop before you hurt yourself. ("Scientifical"?)



Sephiran said:


> Evolution is no longer a theory. It's a fact now that it's been proven over and over again. A theory is just that, it hasn't been proven. It's just a theory.



Oddly, you're under the same misapprehension that most people are when it comes to the definition of a scientific theory. But I agree that evolution is a "scientific theorem" as Richard Dawkins would say.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Dec 1, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> Well, thats whats come to be accepted by the human societies. Technically though, you'd have to witness and observe the history as you'd have to do the same with a crime with no other witnesses. Otherwise, everything you'll ever think and say, no matter how rational and plausible it seems to you, will be a hypothesis. I dont see whats so hard understanding about that. :/



Nope, that's stupid. Eyewitness testimony is one of the least reliable forms of evidence and thus worthless compared to empirical evidence. Finding a man soaked in the victim's blood, holding the murder weapons with gunshot residue on his hands is infinitely more valuable in finding the truth than having no evidence at all and just one guy who tells us exactly what he thinks happened.



> Right. If nobody has seen it, how can you be so sure that this wasnt all a plot to trap the murderer? I mean is it that unheard of to think out of the box? Gladly for the world, some people actually took the burden of doing that, even if others thought them crazy and "irrational beings".



What if somebody has seen it? What if our murder suspect tells us "yeah, I've seen everything. There was this tall, black guy who shot the victim, then splashed me in his blood, put the weapon in my hand, made me fire it to produce the gunshort residue and then ran off". Okay now we've got empirical evidence vs. eyewitness testimony. According to you, we should let the poor guy go and start looking for a tall, black guy somewhere who set him up.

I hope for all of our sakes that you'll never be summoned for jury duty. You're obviously completely incompetent when it comes to determining truth.


----------



## Owl (Dec 1, 2011)

This is just ridiculous...
Man, it's fucking BIOLOGY for fuck's sake.


----------



## Toby (Dec 1, 2011)

StrawHeart said:


> No, it shouldnt. The teachers are there to serve YOU, it's their job. Education offers you information, but it is YOUR choice whether you will accept it or not and how. Also, the theory of evolution isnt all that biology is about, and its taught in all biology universities, so I dont see why someone who wants to study biology should refrain from it simply for not warming up to a part of it.



A student who blocks out essential information can be failed if the teachers feel that this was an important part of the curriculum. Students are supposed to learn. They can object on scientific grounds to the theory, but they have no inherent right to refuse to cherrypick those parts of the curriculum that doesn't match their personal values. As long as this is on the test, you get tested. And as a matter of fact, none of the students' rights, either political or those given by the university, have been violated. So you seriously need to step up your claim about rights and shit because this is obviously political for you.

The reason you keep getting proven wrong in this thread is because you are using one criteria to blame the scientific community, but you have not (and cannot) apply this criteria on any other scientific theory nor does it seem to apply to the alternative theories. It's a false criteria. 

This is what you do:



> Scientists are closeminded for not considering the students' alternative views to the theory of evolution.


We respond:



> The students do not present an alternative scientific theory to the theory of evolution. We do not think that they have any alternative theory to offer, and therefore we reject  their criticism as invalid.


You respond:



> It doesn't matter that they don't have a theory of their own. They refuse to learn the theory of evolution and that is their right.


We respond:



> No, they don't have that right. They can object on scientific grounds, but without evidence to the contrary they must accept to learn the theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation at present time. We do not foreclose the possibility that there might be alternative explanations, nor do the scientists, but as of today there are none on the same level of scientific scrutiny and support. Whatever happens in the future is uncertain but should we be proven wrong by scientific means then we would embrace a new theory.
> 
> However, we think that this particular story is in reality an attempt to bring non-scientific views into the classroom and we object to this as favoritism for religious groups and invalid criticism of the theory of evolution, which is a science.


You respond:



> You are close-minded.



But precisely how are we closeminded? You have yet to prove that there is an alternative theory to evolution that scientists have unfairly ignored based on some criteria that cannot be used on the theory of evolution.

In our view, the scientists have used their criteria for scientific theories quite fairly and rejected alternatives like creationism and intelligent design. If you are to disagree with us about any of this at all, you need to make your damn case. What are the alternative views if not creationism and intelligent design? 

For example, if you doubt the theory of evolution, why not the other theories, like for example discoveries in organic chemistry? The closemindedness is entirely on the sceptics' side because they cannot distinguish anything especially wrong or flawed about the theory of evolution that cannot be found in any other scientific theory. This is why they will not be taken seriously until they offer a scientific theory of their own.

So I say: You are closeminded, because you have somehow missed the fact that we have used the same criteria as used on a scientific theory when discussing your views in the context of a science. We could go on like this forever, but it won't go anywhere until you accept to use the same meaning of the words "theory" and "fact" as us, and make your case that there are alternative scientific theories that biologists have ignored in favor of evolution.



White Tiger said:


> Yeah I'm being biased and ignorant. I'll admit that.
> 
> However, I actually want to know how learning about evolution of apes to humans has helped us in creating medicine and saving peoples lives?



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2etmGcRl1c[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## impersonal (Dec 1, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> Theories and facts are completely different things.
> 
> Evolution is no longer a theory. It's a fact now that it's been proven over and over again. *A theory is just that, it hasn't been proven. It's just a theory.*


Are you trolling or just really really really ignorant?


			
				Strawheart said:
			
		

> Is it a fact(non scientific one)? No, it's not.


What are you talking about?


			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be shown to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.





			
				Merriam-Webster dictionary said:
			
		

> *fact*
> noun \ˈfakt\
> 
> 1: a thing done
> ...


Now tell me, under which of these definitions is evolution not a fact?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2011)

Good to see that this forum is still so hung up on evil Christians that they take time to bitch about them in threads not even about them. Some things never change.


----------



## hammer (Dec 1, 2011)

CTK if you noticed we moved passed bashing Christians and even then it wasnt even that bad


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Dec 1, 2011)

hammer said:


> CTK if you noticed we moved passed bashing Christians and even then it wasnt even that bad



It doesn't matter. There shouldn't be discussion on the first page about off topic bullshit. 

If you were to go into a thread about how bad soda is for you and someone burst in talking about how bad beer is, it wouldn't really make much sense. 

This place is so rife with undue bashing of Christians (undue because the topic isn't about them). On the contrary when you say something negative about Muslims (in the right context) they get coddled and you get infractions or some low level mod negging you crying about it.


----------



## Nihonjin (Dec 1, 2011)

hammer said:


> I think its fair if they dont want to learn it as long as they want to fail



This is pretty much all that needs to be said.


----------



## Sunrider (Dec 1, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It doesn't matter. There shouldn't be discussion on the first page about off topic bullshit.
> 
> If you were to go into a thread about how bad soda is for you and someone burst in talking about how bad beer is, it wouldn't really make much sense.
> 
> This place is so rife with undue bashing of Christians (undue because the topic isn't about them). On the contrary when you say something negative about Muslims (in the right context) they get coddled and you get infractions or some low level mod negging you crying about it.


I can't really comment as to the feelings of retribution regarding Islamic criticism, but the subject isn't limited to Islam, it seems endemic to religious regressionism. 

It's not unfair to discuss Christian fundamentalism here; we've been fighting an even worse battle in the US than the UK-based topic--they're putting up with Islamic fundamentalist students, we're combatting Christian fundamentalist _legislators_. 

When in the US we've megalolomaniacal fundamentalists in positions of authority repeatedly trying to circumvent the constitution and rout an increasingly non-Christian population, you can't be shocked or dismayed that Christians be brought into the discussion when you've got Islamic fundamentalists following suit.


----------



## Toroxus (Dec 1, 2011)

Entire Thread said:
			
		

> We can't be certain of evolution!


-We are certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
-Stop asking for certainty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
-Science is not democratic.
-No one is crying about hearing the evidence that "the Holocaust didn't happen" in history class.
-Just because you don't like the facts because they interfere with your fairy tales doesn't mean that no one else is allowed to understand them.

-Take your pick:
1. Get dangerous surgery from a Doctor who decided that some of the material in his course was wrong because of his faith-based beliefs so he completely ignored it and refused to learn the critical information that was being taught.
2. Get a dangerous surgery from a Doctor who took the experience of his superiors seriously and critically evaluated the material with a scientific mindset and completed all his studies thoroughly.

Now if that isn't natural selection right there, I don't know what is.


----------



## Elite (Dec 1, 2011)

They're overreacting. It's part of your study, just learn it for your tests and get over with it. Whether you believe in it or not is a completely different matter.


----------



## Seph (Dec 2, 2011)

> Are you trolling or just really really really ignorant?







> *a proposed explanation* *whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation*, *in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact*. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, *substantiation*.



I don't see a problem. I mean, the _antonym is substantiation_..

And you were calling me ignorant?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 2, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> I don't see a problem. I mean, the _antonym is substantiation_..
> 
> And you were calling me ignorant?



With this logic most of what we know about science is "just a theory".  Which may be true by pure definition but the connotation with that statement it is pretty obvious and fallacious.  Scientific theory is the product of success in the scientific method which is the basis for our understanding of our surroundings.  Facts are statements that can't be logically disproven but hold no experimental value.  They don't explain anything, they just state.  They're usually a byproduct of a theory that either involves mathematics, philosophy or just some type of irrefutable logic.  They, again, don't explain anything but simply provide a statement that can't be logically disproven.  Theories explain, with evidence, phenomena and are under constant revising and improvement.  They are the best explanation for a particular subject of understanding that hasn't yet been disproven.  The "best explanation" is subjective in essence but objective in consequence, and usually holds the most applications, experimental value and overall evidence.


----------



## abcd (Dec 2, 2011)

Atleast the professors know that they are listening to their classes


----------



## Headless (Dec 2, 2011)

Well, it's their choice, no matter how stupid it may be. Too bad religion needs to neglect science like this. It's one of the few problems I have with religions what-so-ever. When it pretends to know something about science.


----------



## impersonal (Dec 2, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> > Are you trolling or just really really really ignorant?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I certainly am calling you ignorant. You're also a terrible liar and a terrible debater. Here is the *complete* definition, from the page where you found it:


> the?o?ry
> [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
> 
> noun, plural the?o?ries.
> ...


"Theory", for scientific theories such as "the theory of evolution" or "the theory of relativity" (that second example was given in the frigging definition), has obviously the first meaning, not the second one. Now go hide your hypocrisy and ignorance under a rock or something.


----------



## Seph (Dec 2, 2011)

> "Theory", for scientific theories such as "the theory of evolution" or "the theory of relativity" (that second example was given in the frigging definition), has obviously the first meaning, not the second one. Now go hide your hypocrisy and ignorance under a rock or something.



And you're borderline incapable of rational, coherent thought. I was obviously not speaking of the "theory of evolution" specifically, I was obviously using the second definition when I spoke of theories before.

This is what I replied to:

_Scientific theories are not as empirical as mathematical theorems, but they are treated as facts for the sake of convenience. _

See? Nothing about evolution per se whatsoever.

Calling me a "liar" is false, because I chose which definition I was talking about beforehand. It's unfortunate that you're simply not intelligent enough to pick up on it, but hey, it's not really my fault if that's how you are.

Doesn't change the fact that I'm right.


----------



## Vynjira (Dec 2, 2011)

Numinous said:


> Scientific theories are not as empirical as mathematical theorems, but they are treated as facts for the sake of convenience.


Wait... WHAT?

Scientific Theories are *MORE* empirical than Mathematical Theorems.... Are you talking about proofs? Mathematics is the purest form of axiomatic systems, as opposed to Science focuses on empirical systems.


----------



## impersonal (Dec 2, 2011)

Sephiran said:


> And you're borderline incapable of rational, coherent thought. I was obviously not speaking of the "theory of evolution" specifically, I was obviously using the second definition when I spoke of theories before.
> 
> This is what I replied to:
> 
> ...


Scientific theories. SCIENTIFIC THEORIES you goddamn fool.



*Spoiler*: __ 



You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. *In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations*.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory! 






*Spoiler*: __ 



Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.”  
 Response: *Scientific theories *are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory—a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution. 


 





... I can find dozens more of these pages explaining what a scientific theory is, in words that primary school children can understand. But I'm sure you'll manage with these if you just try your best to concentrate.

And _n_o, you don't get to choose which definition of "theory" applies to "scientific theory".


----------



## Salem (Dec 2, 2011)

Vynjira said:


> Are you talking about proofs?



Yes, my apologies. Thank you for the correction!


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Dec 2, 2011)




----------



## Petes12 (Dec 3, 2011)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Few things to say
> 
> 1) Hope there are plenty of questions about evolution in the course evalution so they can get the shitty grades and third rate positions they deserve
> 
> ...



all of this applies to the religious right as well -_-


----------

