Medical & Biology Students Reject Evolution In Favor Of Creationism

Posted by majestic on December 8, 2011

Photograph of Charles Darwin by Maull and Polyblank for the Literary and Scientific Portrait Club (1855)

Charles Darwin. Maull and Polyblank for the Literary and Scientific Portrait Club (1855).

A growing number of biology and medical students are rejecting the very basis of their chosen subject in favor of creationism, reports Steve Jones in the Telegraph:

…Now, though, we have evolution, the grammar of biology. More and more, students do not like it. I no longer teach medics but I do have a lot of contact with biology undergraduates and go to many schools and to student conferences. Over the past decade there has grown up a determined denial by many people of the truths of modern science.

At University College London we have numbers of Islamic students, almost all dedicated, hard-working and able. Some, unfortunately, refuse to accept Darwin’s theory on faith grounds, as do some of their Christian fellows; and just a couple of years ago a Turkish anti-evolution speaker (a Dr Babuna, as I remember) was invited on to campus to give an account of why The Origin is wrong. He was the scion of an extraordinary – and very rich – anti-evolution organisation based in his native land that has sent out thousands of lavishly illustrated creationist books and has linked Darwinism to Nazism and worse.

Much of their propaganda has been lifted from Christian fundamentalism and there is a certain irony in where it has ended up. I have had plenty of verbal complaints from undergraduates of both persuasions that I am demeaning religion, while others ask that they be excused lectures on my subject, or simply fail to turn up.

In schools things are worse: some kids will walk out rather than listen. Their teachers can be just as bad. The most virulent attack I have had in recent years came from a physics teacher in a respected north London state school, who – to the embarrassment of his colleagues – barracked my talk on evolutionary biology with repeated statements that Darwinism contradicted the laws of thermodynamics. I was forced, uncharacteristically, to be rude.

Anyone, of course, is free to believe whatever they wish. But why train to become a biologist, or a doctor, when you deny the very foundations of your subject? …

Read More: Telegraph

Posted in: Darwin, Evolution, Medical Students

Anonymous

I suggest we build a time machine and so back to the day of creation, or whatever, then we will know 100% where we came from. But we can’t do that? Then that is why people think about these things and come to logical conclusions (scientifically) We can’t know something that can’t be known – yet. Unlike religion there is physical proof that can back up the evolution theory; fossils of hominid humans that stretch through thousands of years tell a very sound story.

Where do you think we all come from? Or is it pointless to think about these things since we don’t know and the chances of us knowing may be slim?
Anonymous

What?
Derp the idiot

Every time an organism reproduces something that is from its own species it supports creationism dipshit.
Tuna Ghost

No one is talking about mules. No one mentioned mules. Why are you talking about mules. Mules are not an example of evolution.

It isn’t about looking similar. It couldn’t be because no one has ever seen a dinosaur. Is that really what you think the scientific method entails? Looking at stuff and deciding they’re similar?
Andrew

How so?
Andrew

How so?
Tuna Ghost

Religion completely agrees with facts

Tell that to Galileo.
Andrew

Evolution in no way disproves the existence of God. It only disproves literal interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis.
Andrew

“Religion” is plural, and they don’t all agree on the facts.
Andrew

A more accurate theory would be that God designed the structure of matter to form life and evolve.
Mysophobe

Actually, the bible’s description of the observable celestial effects of gravity is pretty much completely wrong. A flat earth at the center of the universe surrounded by a dome embedded with the celestial bodies? C’mon. Why does god need to lie about the nature of his own creation? For an example of a religious person fixing the facts to suit their agenda, look no further than a guy downthread attempting to distort the fossil record for his own ends. Not to mention that the strawman version of evolution you seem to be arguing against exists only in your imagination. How many times do you have to be told that evolution is a painfully slow process before you stop demanding to see an example of radical observable changes in a single generation. If that’s really what you think evolutionary theory purports, then you can declare victory and go home. You win. That particular “evolutionary” theory is just silly and not worth defending. Let me try to explain to you how it really works in a way you can understand. You’ve heard people say that they can trace their heredity back say 10 generations, right? Would you agree that the current generation would appear, on average, slightly taller, more lanky, more tolerant of lactose, more naturally resistant to malaria, generally genetically dissimilar in many, less observable ways than his oldest known ancestor? Now take that same 10 generation timeframe and multiply it by 20,000 and imagine the changes you’d observe, even in a relatively static environment such as ours. Do you really think this distant descendant would look so similar to contemporary humans that we could be called the same species? Do you really think we could successfully mate together? Now imagine that we manage to seed a distant planet identical to earth with human life in the near future. Without contact with each other, do you really think these two human groups would closely resemble each other after several million years of independent evolution? This is evolution. Minute changes over hundreds of thousands of generations, not sudden changes in a single generation. This is what everyone else here is talking about. If you really want to make a case against something, you should first understand it. Unfortunately, this may require you visiting some science websites instead of religious ones.
Tuna Ghost

Out of millions of years, currently right now, not one single organism out of the millions of species, is currently evolving into a different genome.

You don’t know what the word “genome” means, do you. I ask because I haven’t seen you use this word correctly yet.

That still doesn’t explain why all the animals didn’t evolve into the “lowest common denominator” that would ensure survival

That doesn’t ensure survival. Lack of variation in organisms means greater vulnerability to extinction rather than less, no matter how suited they are. Extinction events in the history of the planet have demonstrated this time and again. Besides, even bacteria, which are the most resilient organisms we’ve come across to date, would eventually evolve into something if left on its own for a billion years. Why aren’t you able to grasp this?

No other animal, besides primates, happened to grow a mutation out of all those years that would give them opposable thumbs?

Because apex predators don’t need thumbs. At any rate, you say “only primates have thumbs, lol that’s dumb” when in reality the scientific community says “if it has an opposable thumb, its a primate”.

Besides, the thumb issue speaks for evolution, not against. Many different species of mammal have similar bone structures in their limbs (see dolphins) which suggest a common ancestor.
Mysophobe

Instinct and desire have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. An organism doesn’t will itself to have genetically improved offspring. It’s all about random genetic mutation. Being at the top of the food chain in no way implies greater survivability. Actually, the opposite is probably the case. Recall that vegetarian rodents survived a cataclysm that wiped out the mighty t-rex. Why are lions threatened with extinction while their “less evolved” prey are thriving?
Andrew

Evolution, once you understand it, is simply logical. Even if some species were originally created by God, it would still happen as it is happening today.
Mysophobe

Your attempts to put the science of the bible on equal footing with actual science does both a gross disservice. Debating the “facts” in the bible versus the “religious faiths” in science is a pretty pointless exercise. You are looking for common ground where there is non. I think if you were to ask scientists who call themselves religious what they believe, you would find that they are in pursuit of understanding the true nature of God, not trying to reinforce the biblical version of Him. An atheist scientist would probably tell you the same thing, although in different terms, without a single thought towards disproving the bible. The bible simply isn’t the least bit pertinent to the actual pursuit of the best scientific explanation of a given subject. I’m not knocking the bible at all, it’s a wonderful collection of books with many great lessons. But we do ourselves a horrible disservice when we use it as a starting point in the pursuit of knowledge.
Emberleo

Evolving from primate to human is a change in species(the smallest possible distinction in the animal order) whereas bacteria changing to fungus would mean an organism changing kingdoms, which is the most broad classification of organism. Two hugely different comparisons. You’re right, changing kingdoms is absolutely rediculous. So, basically you shot yourself in the foot with that argument considering it doesn’t relate at all to the evolution of primate to human.
Andrew

Changing kingdoms is ridiculous, but developing a new kingdom isn’t ridiculous at all given millions and millions of years, and given that kingdoms are just human defined terms in the fist place. And domain is the highest taxonomic rank (”most broad classification of organism”), not kingdom.

Also, humans (species) are primates (order).
Abdallaa09

You right Evolution is the theory, adaption is the principle.
Adam

And the gray area between or joining of Quantum and Newtonian Mechanics
is where a potential Theory of Everything comes in, correct? That a
scientific theory that can reconcile both the macro (”traditional” physics involving roughly human-sized objects) and the micro (subatomic
particles and “quantum weirdness’) is sort of the Holy Grail of physics
at the moment.

My question is, where does Einstein’s Theory of
Relativity, Cosmology, and the physics of huge planet- and
star-sized objects come in? It was my understanding that a key dilemma in physics was how the physics of the really big stuff (stars, galaxies, etc.) jibes with that of the really small stuff (electrons, protons, quarks, and so on). Does Relativity and the like fit in with the regular “macro” or is it really in a category of its own.

Legitimate question, by the way; I’m not trying to provoke an argument here.
Daedalus

As does most of the jobless hanging out on the frontline, Brixton. So at least those students wont want for company or an occupation when they finish college.
UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.
UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.
UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.
UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.
UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.
UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.
UrbanMonk

People die every day, we are still here. We are figments of your imagination only because you haven’t figured out who we are. Without Truth, what else can you do but project? Sorry, your not special, Reality gave all to all.
Expanding Idea

Use your intelligence to figure it out. If you have intelligence, where did you get it?
DeepCough

It seems to me that you are hung up on this label of “human,” and that shows to me what a fucking retard you are. You insist too much that “Homo sapiens sapiens” is just “too human” to have come from a mere “animal” like an Australopithecene, which means you probably beleive that a deity or a Designer created us EXACTLY the way we are now 10,000 years ago.

Well, I hate to break it to you, Jack, but evolution is NOT a SUDDEN PROCESS, okay? That is why the age of the Earth is important in the argument of natural selection: it takes time–AEONS–for organisms to develop, because no one–NOTHING–comes out of thin air instantaneously. Now how could you possibly keep trying to debunk evolution on a logical basis without considering that first? Ever hear the adage that “Rome wasn’t built in a day?” Because it wasn’t–it took seven centuries before the fall of the Res Publica Romana, and this is just one way you can apply the argument of evolution outside of a biological context.

Speaking of biology, are you even the least bit familiar with the birthing process, because, chances are, you’re a Christian fundamentalist who abhors sex and all that is attached to it (because your overbearing prick of a god said so). You see, when human babies are birthed from human vaginas, their heads are NOT perfectly round shaped like mine is and yours might be, since birthing something like that could break the baby’s skull or the female’s pelvis, which is already built for such an act. When a baby comes out, for a while, it look like a conehead (refer to pic). Seriously, every person on the planet who has been birthed vaginally had a misshapen head, because that’s the easiest way for the baby to slide out. You really, really need to get over the fact that we humans are perfect when we are anythiing but, because no deity in the entirety of human history ever desired that for humans in the first place. And, if you read the article “Unintelligent Design” from Discover Magazine, you’ll find an intriguing argument that states it was viruses that helped to determine the course of life here on Earth, as they are rogue pieces of RNA and DNA that test which lifeforms have the best genes suited for survival. If you still think there is a god or Designer after that article, then you will have to assume that such a being is certainly not benevolent: rather, it is clearly a mad scientist.

http://www.futcher.com/homepage/img/conehead.jpg
Mysophobe

You’re in good company. This was essentially Ayn Rand’s view of death. Explains a lot. There’s audio of it floating around the Internet somewheres…
Mysophobe

How can someone claim to be intelligent if they can’t even comprehend the origins of their own intelligence? Doh
chubby

you know, I am surprised a paradigm shift has not yet occurred (maybe only in the tenure gripped minds of institution lackeys), the -ologies have no distinct advantage, one over another. they all occupy the same reality, they are not separated by different dimensions spying one another from computer screens (although we do) they are all working, this instant, if one is incomplete, then what does that say of the others? many are decried as archaic to not toe the various lines, but things are changing at such a rate that there seems to even be no line anymore….
Paul

Some people here are losing sight of the real issue here…

Creationist’s are morons, and they’re having moron children. While the world around them adapts to new information, they stay the same. In their own way they’re a living argument against evolution…

nonetheless, a stupid argument.
Paul

Quite a lot of waffle!
Creationist’s aren’t chasing ANYTHING, because they think everything’s been explained.
Science on the other hand holds nothing to be sacred, and if you have the evidence ANY of it’s principles can be challenged. Science itself evolves.

You are a dumb human.
Anonymous

There is wide variation in pelvic shape (anteroposterior diameter/ width of pubic arch, transverse diameter, etc.) in human females. Of the four pelvic shapes, two (which account for 33% of females) have poor prognosis for vaginal birth because the fetal head cannot adapt to the birth canal. Thus we have C-sections, and in the past we had high infant/mother mortality rates.
Anonymous

There is wide variation in pelvic shape (anteroposterior diameter/ width of pubic arch, transverse diameter, etc.) in human females. Of the four pelvic shapes, two (which account for 33% of females) have poor prognosis for vaginal birth because the fetal head cannot adapt to the birth canal. Thus we have C-sections, and in the past we had high infant/mother mortality rates.
DeepCough

For comment #200 of this overblown thread, I would like to submit for
the viewing pleasure of ardent Disinfonauts and goddamned trolls alike
the following documentaries: “Flock of Dodos” and “Expelled: No
Intelligence Allowed” as a way to sum up how debate is made on both
sides of the aisle on the issue of evolution in Biology.

P.S. “Expelled” sucks. It sucks so hard, it makes you wanna drink a whole bottle of Clear Eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnf_LAm3Hrc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEvq4xIHmH4
Butter Knife

While some theists many subscribe to religious doctrine that meets your description, most believe that to be a wholly inadequate understanding of things. I was once told a parable by a very devout evangelical Christian, one who believed absolutely in the power of prayer, creationism, divine will, the Rapture, etc. It went something like this:

A very pious, Christian man, watching the evening news, sees an urgent alert that his town will be flooded and everyone must evacuate. He decided that God would protect him from any flood, because he was so faithful, and decided to ignore the warning. Then it started to rain, and flood, and as the water rose he climbed to his roof in order to escape the water. One of his neighbors came to him in a fishing boat and offered to take him to safety, but he declined, insisting that God would save him. Exasperated and confused, his neighbor left the man on his roof. A while later a helicopter came to rescue him, but again he told them to leave, that God would save him, and eventually they too left him alone on his rapidly disintegrating rooftop. After a few more minutes, the house broke apart, the man was sucked into the water, and he drowned.

The man went to heaven, and received a short tour and meet and greet with the major players. God asked him if there was anything else he had questions about, and the man responded: “Just out of curiosity, why didn’t you save me from that flood?” God looked at him and replied “I sent a warning on the TV, your neighbor with a boat and a helicopter to save you. Why did you just sit on your roof?”

Your criticism of theism is no more valid than the criticisms some theists have of science.
Anonymous

Arguing with intentional ignorance is a fool’s errand.

Re the bottom line in science: The theory that explains the most empirical data with the fewest assumptions comes the closest to describing reality.

If deniers of biological evolution can field a theory that comes remotely close to explaining as much (detailed) empirical data as the theory of evolution, let’s hear it. Else, they should be labeled as the anti-scientific wackos that they are and kept as far away, as legally possible, from policy making based on science and the science-education system.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jai-Ankers/100000395755973 Jai Ankers

He pisses me off, but I do agree that aliens gave civilization a helping hand. Way too many cultures have stories of “gods” descending from the sky.

But that they created us, not so much.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jai-Ankers/100000395755973 Jai Ankers

But there is proof of evolution for other creatures, so evolution for humans would be the most logical conclusion, right?
justagirl

i wish people wouldn’t get creation confused with the christian faith. furthermore, i wish the christian “faith” wouldn’t scare people into “believing” in their religion.

Medical & Biology Students Reject Evolution In Favor Of Creationism

more disinformation

more disinformation