A Question for medical students

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:20 am

There's a report now that some Muslim medical students are boycotting biology classes because discussions of evolution in them "conflict with the Qur'an." Which makes me wonder why they would bother to attend medical school in the first place? I mean, it should be obvious that if the Qur'an had the information you need to understand biology, surely the medical practices of Muhammed's day would be PERFECT for them.

Of course, I've known American fundamentalists who went into medical professions refusing to discuss evolution as well. It just seems pretty odd to me. I know I'd be highly skeptical of any doctor who refused to accept modern biological knowledge, because it conflicts with his chosen holy book written thousands of years ago... wouldn't you?

by **A Person** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:59 pm

Ahhh - Harun Yaha, the fish-hook Turkey strikes again.

The solution is simple. Evolution is foundational to biology. If the student won't learn it - they don't have to believe it, but they do have to understand it - they don't pass. If they were interested in learning the truth (and truly believed Mohammed posessed it 1450 years ago) they would welcome the chance to learn the theory so that they could see how false it is. Refusing to take the classes reveals that they can't handle the truth

I wouldn't want a Muslim doctor - just as I wouldn't want a Catholic, Southern Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Scientologist or other believer in myths. That includes acupuncture, homeopathy, Reiki, ear candling, crystal therapy, etc. etc.

by **Liv** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:15 pm

I don't know how you get that far in school with such beliefs.

I personally have seen dozens of students drop out of science classes at GTCC because they disagreed with the evolution/big bang approach to the teachings.

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:18 am

You get that far in school because there are teachers who will give students who object to evolution a "C" they didn't earn when they respond "this question is against my religion." They do the students who try that crap a disservice, as well as the students who learn the material.

by **Another Person** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:32 pm

According to "A Person" biology did not exist before the 1800s. Rubbish. Biology has been around for many centuries without the distortion of evolution. Evolution is certainly not the foundation of biology, however, evolutionists do try to make it a big part of it.

:hand:

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:03 pm

You know, Another Person has an interesting point. Come to think of it, physics existed long before Einstein came along to "distort" that science. I guess in addition to tossing out the discoveries that Darwin's "distortion" made possible, we should also get rid of all the impertinence that was built on that idiotic relativity stuff.
:roll:

by **A Person** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:33 pm

I suspect Another Person is just a drive-by troll. We'll see.

Atomic and molecular theory is foundational to Chemistry. Chemistry existed before then but it had no foundational unifying theory that made systematic sense of the observations. That alchemy existed before atomic theory does not imply that atomic theory is not foundational.

People studied biology before Darwin - Biblical Creation was untenable before Darwin and evolution was known to have happened - it was lacking a mechanism. Darwin's insight was to see that natural selection could be a force for speciation - rather than conservation. All set in the context of an ancient world.

'Evolutionist' and 'biologist' are synonymous - except that biologists do not refer to themselves as 'evolutionists' or 'Darwinists', just as physicists do not refer to themselves as 'Gravitationalists' or 'Newtonists'

If it makes you happy - insert the word 'modern' before 'biology', 'physics', 'chemistry' and 'geology' to distinguish it from pre-enlightenment studies.

by **Another Person** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:43 pm

Perhaps "A Person" is confusing biological science with evolutionary biology. That happens quite often with evolutionary types. "Evolutionary biology" is simply a philosophy and not real science. And it never will be. It’s an effort to explain the origin and developmental history for all forms of life on a strictly naturalistic basis - without the involvement of special creation. Or real science for that matter.

Troll drive by x 2

by **A Person** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:40 pm

Another Person wrote:Perhaps "A Person" is confusing biological science with evolutionary biology. That happens quite often with evolutionary types.

I'm not confused at all. Biology (or Biological Science) has five foundational theories: Cells, Evolution, Genetics, Homeostasis and Energy transformation.

So evolutionary biology is a subset of biology, just as genetics and cell theory is. What is an 'evolutionary type' I wonder? Scientist perhaps?

Another Person wrote: "Evolutionary biology" is simply a philosophy and not real science. And it never will be.

You are not so much confused as just plain wrong. Evolutionary biology is a science by any measure.

Another Person wrote: It’s an effort to explain the origin and developmental history for all forms of life on a strictly naturalistic basis - without the involvement of special creation.

All real science is an effort to explain the real world on a strictly naturalistic basis -i.e. without resorting to magic, fairies, mythology or gods.

: miracle-science.gif (13.9 KiB) Viewed 1000 times

Because as soon as you invoke magic or miracles, you have stopped doing science - magic is an answer that explains nothing.

Another Person wrote: Or real science for that matter

I don't think you'd know real science if it dropped a rock on your head. Here's a clue - special creation isn't.

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:26 pm

Another Person sure has a familiar RING to him, doesn't he? Almost REGAL, eh?

by **A Person** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:45 am

It's a little short of 'repents' and bible quotes for him

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:36 pm

He could be trying to disguise his posts. If so, not doing a very good job of it. And if he is a new troll, he's a very effective replacement for the old one.

by **Liv** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:03 pm

Well I knew they wouldn't stay away long, yet I'm perplexed by BHL's request to have his account removed. I would think, he'd want to keep up the good fight against the likes of us.... and after all, I think this site, exactly the same as the last except for branding is MORE inclusive by name than one focused around a certain geographic region. More to the point BHL and RD both live in a secular country, (I know that's up for debate) so their objections seem silly.

More to the point, the site has done nothing but grown in readership, and I suspect it would do nothing but that, now that we've opened the door for discussion.