Slashdot Mirror
Muslim Medical Students Boycott Darwin Lectures
First time submitter Readycharged writes "The Daily Mail reports on a piece from The Sunday Times revealing that University College London have seen an increasing number of Muslim students boycotting lectures on Evolution due to clashes with the Koran. Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics, says, 'I've had one or two slightly frisky discussions with kids who belonged to fundamentalist Christian churches, now it's Islamic overwhelmingly.' He adds, 'What they object to — and I don't really understand it, I am not religious — they object to the idea that there is a random process out there which is not directed by God.' The article also reveals that Evolutionary Biologist and former Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins also experienced Muslims walking out of such lectures."
I would rather not have a religious whack-job as a doctor.
Well, I suppose it's within their rights to up and leave a lecture because they don't like the topic. However, when they subsequently fail the exam due to their refusal to attend the lecture or personal disagreement with the topics taught, they shouldn't complain. I don't understand why you'd even take a class knowing full well that you don't accept fundamental parts of it.
I don't get what the problem is. If you don't grasp the material, regardless of the reason, you fail the course. I sure as hell don't want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't understand evolution.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Why do they think that the "random" process is not the face of God, or something? If things work a certain way, that's the way they work. If it's God's will, it's God's will. If you think the two are contradictory, you have no faith. The problem is with you, not the science or the religion.
If they do not accept evolution, they should not be issued with a medical degree.
It's that simple.
If they are so fucked in the head they don't accept evolution, I don't want them practicing medicine in this country.
I don't know what else to say.
To suppress closed mindedness, exams on evolution etc. should be show stoppers. Don't pass them, no graduation. This is science. Can't handle facts? You're in the wrong business. Don't like the facts? Prove them wrong by the rules.
Bert
This.
The story is basically anti-immigration trolling. A statistically unverified, anecdotally reported "increasing number" of anti-evolution Muslims making their way into the gold-paved halls of med school and thus upper society = OMG TEH BRITANNIA IZ BEING OVERRUN BY SALADIN'S HORDES. OUR PRECIOUS FISH AND CHIPZ WILL BE REPLACED BY HUMMUS.
Also, hummus is yummus.
First I should say that we ought to know a little bit more about this story before we can make a complete analysis, but as a Muslim, I will be the first to say that there is no problem with evolution. I'm not going to go into all the details of the argument about whether or not evolution explains the biological origins of man; there are mountains of evidence supporting evolution and no other plausible alternative explanations. What I would like to say is there is really no inherent conflict between believing in a Creator and accepting evolution. In Islam especially the case for conflict is weak because the Qur'an lacks a creation story as detailed as the one laid out in Genesis. Yes, the Qur'an has references to creation and even Adam and Eve (the first humans), but conspicuously absent from the Qur'an are any statements that defy the scientific view of evolution. Does the Qur'an say that Adam and Eve were put on the Earth right after the Earth was created? No. Does it say no other creatures existed or preceded humans? No. In fact, one verse of the Qur'an talks about God breathing His spirit into Adam, which some scholars have read to mean that Adam was alive prior to becoming human (in a spiritual sense), and that Adam may even have had parents instead of being materialized spontaneously. Either way there is really no timeline for creation, and Islamic theology suggests that God is *active* in creation, meaning that God didn't just create everything all at once and stopped, but that creation is a current and ongoing process (in line with evolution).
I do believe that there is no basis in Islamic tradition and culture for rejecting evolution--on the contrary, Islamic emphasis on science and knowledge would make Muslims more receptive to the idea. To me this habit of denying evolution is something that Muslim communities learned from Christian communities, and the article actually does a good job of pointing this out.
As for the lectures, what I want to know is if it's really the mere idea of evolution that is offending the students, or if the lectures contain unnecessary statements that are specifically hostile to God and religion. If the course material or the professor is unfairly preaching atheism or making wild assumptions like "God has nothing to do with evolution" then I'd say the students have some legitimate grounds to object. The article doesn't make this part of the story very clear, but at least in one way suggests that this may be what's happening.
If I understand it correctly, one of the Quran's directives is to seek all knowledge. I hypocrisy is a human failing, not a religious one... but then again, religion is a human failing.
The story is basically anti-immigration trolling. A statistically unverified, anecdotally reported "increasing number" of anti-evolution Muslims making their way into the gold-paved halls of med school and thus upper society = OMG TEH BRITANNIA IZ BEING OVERRUN BY SALADIN'S HORDES. OUR PRECIOUS FISH AND CHIPZ WILL BE REPLACED BY HUMMUS.
Indeed. The very first thing I thought upon reading the summary was, "What about all the other muslim med students who don't have a problem at all with studying evolution? Why are they focusing on a tiny minority of fundos rather than the vast majority of regular mos?"
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It's almost as if religious folks -know- that they're wrong. Thus to preserve their wrongheadedness, it's requires to not even learn about the alternatives. (presumably, learning would risk realising that the alternative theories are correct.)
Learning about something, doesn't require *agreeing* with it. I've read both the Koran and the Bible, and spend hundreds of hours learning about both. I don't *agree* with it,but it's still useful to understand it and know about it.
But religious folks are frequently panicked about the idea that they might have to learn about something they themselves don't agree with. In my opinion, they're scared. And rightfully so. The thing about reality is that it does not go away, even if you don't believe in it.
Unless sound scientific evidence is discovered that suggests that "there is a God who has an active role in the guidance of evolution", then there is absolutely no reason to discuss such a concept in a science class.
P.S. you deserve to get modded as a troll for using the phrase "Slashdot groupthink".
I was going to write basically the same comment. You'd think that if they truly believed they would not have a problem going to a lecture and hearing arguments against their belief. It's the furious opposition to education that betrays how little some people *really* believe. They just cover their ears and go "la la la" not to hear anything that would lead to even worse cognitive dissonance than they already have to face.
Newsflash: At least here on Slashdot most of the people bitching about it honestly don't give a shit whether it's Muslims Christians or some Native American dropping peyote to visit spirit animals. If some ignorant fundie religious twit walks out of a medical class because they refuse to hear anything about evolution, then flunk their ass on the test and let them get a degree in burger flipping or French literature.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Hey hey hey! Let's just remember there are plenty of sane religious folk in the world. Some top physicists/biologists/chemists/etc... and scientists in general are religious in one way or another.
Let's not put the crazy with the sane...
I don't care if you don't "believe" in evolution. It is the basis by which many of our concepts of biology come from. Even if it isn't FACTUAL by your standards, it's the best description of how the medicine and biology we practice work.
I was once talking to a physicist friend of mine and she was explaining to me that the math is NOT the reality, it's simply the best representation that we have currently, and using it helps us to manipulate the world around us.
If you really CHOOSE to not believe it, you should at least take a pragmatic approach and understand the usefulness of understanding the concepts.
Because we also focus on the tiny minority of idiots who believe in intelligent design bestowed from upon high by the Noodly Appendage.
Sorry ... I meant God and his intelligently designed banana.
But I may be mistaken in thinking, that we should laugh at, ridicule and point fingers at all religious nutjobs, and not just the ones of my own skin colour and my country's largest denomination.
I don't care about the colour of their skin OR their religious freedoms - they're idiots.
PS.
We also focused on Ted Stevens and his series of tubes and made fun of him for it. Should we instead have focused on the 534 other members of congress, who weren't this stupid? No - we shouldn't.
Evolution applies to bacteria and viruses, which is very much pertinent for a doctor.
God does not play dice.
-- Albert Einstein (aka Anti-science Jewish fundamentalist)
It is worth noting that the great man produced little of scientific note later in life, mostly because he could not accept the evidence produced by the quantum scientists. If you allow your beliefs to interfeer with reality, you can no longer do science.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
"Ok. 'Bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out"
You're welcome to get your medical or other degree from ibn Osama bin Kamel Inst of Technology, etc if our university is no longer your first choice.
As I see it, the reason is fear of "being led into temptation" (spiritual this time, not carnal), and fear of getting it wrong (so that they are due for a severe, and quite possibly eternal, ticking-off by their vengeful deity in afterlife).
This is a theme that has pervaded religion as provided by the Catholic Church throughout the (Middle) Ages.
Why-ever do you think that Catholics are (and have been for as long as the Catholic Church exists) discouraged from reading the Bible on their own instead of the officially approved Catechisms?
Because the flock cannot be relied upon not to err when reading of and thinking about theological matters, and for very good reason: theological reasoning can be err ... complex and subtle ... to phrase it politely. And erring is dangerous for the soul. That's why The Flock needs a shepherd (the Latin word for that is: Pastor) as provided by the Catholic Church, in order to guide them along the True Path through the thickets of thought.
We're seeing the very same thing with Fundamentalist Christians in the good old US of A, now enthusiastically mirrored by a resurgent Muslim Fundamentalism.
The most surprising thing to me is that people are actually surprised. Religion, after all, is (as I see it) first and foremost a desire for an inviolate frame of reference (spiritual and intellectual) that provides an answer to all vexing questions ("the Lord is my shepherd") and solace ("pillar of strength"), and solace ("thy grace ... etc").
Can you not understand how awfully threatening it is when someone in a white coat starts uprooting the emotional and intellectual certainties this provides? Especially if he makes a convincing case that large parts of "the Gospel" simply have no relation to actual reality? If "God's Word" is shown to be wrong in any respect, be it ever so minute, then what of all the rest of it? The whole edifice of trust comes crumbling down. Believers will certainly not thank you for that.
In times past a popular way of dealing with such heretics was to burn them at the stake. Nowadays the preferred method seems to be to use IED's.
Dude, it's "losing". It's hard to come across sounding educated when you can't spell.
The simple fact is that religious people don't truly believe the stuff they claim. They might want to believe it, but not to the same level that I believe a bullet to the head will kill me. If you honestly believed 100% that when you die you go to a beautiful place then why mourn death? Why be afraid of death at all? It should be like winning the lotto when you find out you have a terminal illness, or a friend dies. Why even look when crossing the road, when that could be your path to nirvana? Because deep, deep down they don't believe. Just like the rest of us they know it's the end, but there's some sort of cognitive dissonance preventing them from accepting objective evidence.
I strictly believe in a right to believe your religion in peace. So I will not say that the very idea of Creationism is wrong, If I (and they) want to believe that, it is my(/our) right.
That's fine, but by the same token you have to afford us the same right - to say that we believe that Creationism is wrong.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
That's not actually a big surprise is it? All these religious people preaching the love of their deity are all scared, really, really scared. That's the problem. They can't listen to other arguments and risk going to incarnation of a less pleasant afterlife, hell, or whatever other things they might believe in.
Religion is about instilling fear and shame in it's followers and this is just another example of what effects it has.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
Greetings and salutations.....
My first reaction is "well, why are they going to college in the first place??" For much of their existence, colleges existed to provide a safe haven for the free flow of ideas and alternative theories. Many times, I, and a number of other students, would end up sitting around a table discussing a new theory in computer science, or, cosmology, or political science. We debated topics such as the morality of War (When I was in college, the Vietnam War was in full swing, so it was a topic near and dear to those of us that were classed 1A, and, had selection numbers in the single and double digits), and what America's place in the world should be. There was always a collection of quite divergent views at the table, and more often than not, little or no agreement. However, we all listened to the arguments of the other person, debated points about them, and thought about their point of view. The only folks that were not welcome were the extremists who would degenerate into screaming matches and insist that it was "their way or the highway".
WHile the education we received from the faculty was important, even there, some of the most important lessons learned came not from the lectures, but, the discussion in class and in meetings with the professor, where disagreements about the interpretation of some facts were expected, and, debated when they arose.
From a personal example, when I was taking some history classes ranging from the colonization of America and the spread Westward, to the massive social upheaval of the early 1900s in Russia, I ran into problems with my professors over my analysis of the events. Why? Well, at the time most of them held onto the concept of "manifest destiny" - the divine right of Americans to roll across the middle and Western united stats, crushing the native population under them, or, of the people to rise up and overthrow their government. I, however, was more a follower of "Economic Determanism" - holding that the best way to explain large scale actions of society was to follow the money. I could, without too much trouble, find what I felt to be an obvious and strong economic pressure that caused these changes in society. Needless to say, my papers discussing social trends were not received well by the professors. In order to get even an adequate grade, I had to provide at least twice the foundation for my arguments that other students (who DID toe the party line) had to include. Even in the best case, though, my papers were, typically, marked down by a half to full grade simply because I disagreed with their point of view. However, I did not get into a huff and walk out of class, or boycott anything. Rather, I worked twice as hard to justify my point of view, and, to ensure that my arguments were clear and well supported. I did pass the classes, but only just, but, the lessons I learned there both about life in general, and, the nitty-gritty of organizing supporting points for a given argument were a valuable addition to my life and remain so today, some 30 years later.
regards
dave mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
The reason religion is getting nuttier is because there are less and less gaps for it to fill. So when you have a subset of religion who defines itself by being able to provide answers to the questions science can't, it gets threatened when science provides more and more of those answers. The gaps that you can fill get smaller and smaller.
That is why there is more and more of it. For some, religion fills a spiritual needs and specific answers about the world aren't a part of it, and as such science isn't a threat. It is a different thing. However for others, they need their religion to be right about explaining things, and science keeps encroaching on that. So they lash out and get all anti-knowledge.
Though it has been going on in Islam for a long time. Again, the talk by Dr. Tyson covers that.
If you honestly believed 100% that when you die you go to a beautiful place then why mourn death?
Because their friends and family and loved ones have still lost someone very dear to them. If you think about it, funerals are for the living as much as they are for the dead, if not more.
I went to university in a country where more than half of the population is Muslim(I am talking about Lebanon). I remember during Quantum Mechanics and Relativity lectures "religious" students tend to object more often and refuse to accept certain things, most of the objections were on a religious basis. I still remember a certain day, when the speed of light in vacuum was being discussed, and some students stormed out of class, because the the professor ( whether he correctly used the term or not) used a term which described the speed as absolute, and the objection was that only Allah/God can be absolute, and that they can't tolerate staying in a class where such blasphemy was taught. It was 4 students out of ~50.
This does not have something to do with the religion. It has something to do with a strange interpretation of the text. Normally, people should read a text and put it in the historical context. Otherwise the language cannot be understand, as language is not a constant thing. Language reflects the traditions and context of the time it is used in, which is no surprise as it is used to communicate (and yes books are also communication). Furthermore, people use analogies to illustrate their thoughts. And in ancient times, people used to describe wonders to elevate a important person. Therefore, texts shouldn't be over interpreted, like god made everything in 6 days. We know today that time and the progression of time is not a constant. And for the assumed deity which exists out of time, 6 days is a stupid construct. It is much more logic to assume that the people of that time, assumed that the creation of everything happened in 6 phases. And this is not untrue, by what we know today. We need matter and energy to form planets and stars. We need planets to create/evolve simple life. We need simple live to evolve complex life. And yes humans appeared very late and from our perspective now the "creation" is complete.
I always wonder why religion fanatics believe in a most stupid deity which act upon a strange set of rules. And by following those rules they act disrespectful to others. Fundamentalists are a little different, they try not to be disrespectful. However, the core message for all those religions out there is: "Be nice to each other." And we all fail greatly in that.
Furthermore, if the god thing is true and one day we stand before god, he will not ask you. Have you always believed in creationism or evolution. He will ask if you tried to be a good person.
This desire that Science must be subjugated to religious interpretation essentially destroyed Arabic Science after islam arose. Prior to islam the Arabs were scientific leaders. After islam, their students were all directed to an internalized study of the koran - ad absurditum. Islam actively suppresses any potential reformations (like all the old time religions, they wanted to grab converts and keep people from leaving). I recall the pilgrims came to America to find freedom from religion - as distinct from freedom of religion. In schools here in Canada the islamist students hound the other students into the 5 times/day prayers. The students need freedom from this oppressive process - freedom from religion...
Actually, the core assumption was "unprovable" only at the very inception of the scientific method. The vast body of scientific results since then have largely worked to prove the correctness of that assumption. To put it simply, turns out, the universe (at least the parts of it we have been able to get at thus far) is largely orderly, and even when it doesn't seem to be, when we look, we tend to find orderly rules that govern the apparently random behavior.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No. You're assuming that assertions with no weight in evidence have equal value with those assertions which have support in evidence. That is fundamentally unsound thinking. It's the same kind of cognitive error that makes newspapers give equal time to evolution and "gawd didit." The reason that science shows regularity is because science looks at what is real and attempts to reveal it in human terms of metaphor, from math to rules to randomness. In the process, it consistently finds regularity. If irregularity were present, it would find that just as well (see quantum mechanics for a good example of this.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The problem isn't so much that Islam is irrational (Christianity is just as irrational), the problem is that Islam works much harder to consume the individual with learning the contents of the Koran, leaving much less time for learning how the world actually works.
That's quite wrong: Ask your typical American fundamentalist Christian about whether it's better to spend time studying physics or studying the Bible, and you'll get a very clear answer. Christianity has in some places attempted to define the value of pi by legislation, for instance. And that's even ignoring the usual Christian opposition to the teaching of evolution that continues to the present day.
You also have to explain why during the period between about 750-1200 CE, the Muslim world and Mecca in particular was one of the 2 major centers of scholarship and science (the other being China), while Christian Europe had mostly paltry scientific output throughout the same period.
There's nothing that gives any indication that Islam is any more hostile to science than Christianity, or does any more to crowd out scientific thought with religious thought. Religious idiocy exists in every society and every religion.
I am officially gone from
Some top physicists/biologists/chemists/etc... and scientists in general are religious in one way or another.
That is not evidence that religion is compatible with science. That is only evidence that human beings can hold incompatible ideas in their mind simultaneously.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well I say a good judge of whether something works or not is how they function when they have their idea of utopia, and as we have seen countries that are pure Muslim and run everything based on Sharia are total hellholes with NO freedoms except the freedom to be a good little drone.
I'm sure I'll get hate for daring to point out PC bullshit IS bullshit but the numbers don't lie and if anyone wants the citations I'll be happy to provide them. You look at any chart and the more Muslims a place has? The more violent it becomes. Muslims just don't play well with others and the fact they refuse to even hear a lecture that goes against Islamic teachings really don't surprise me, this is the same bunch that went apeshit and rioted over fucking cartoons. Can you imagine if Christians rioted every time there was a Jesus cartoon? South Park would have probably caused cities to burn!
Sooner or later the west is gonna have to accept there is NO "religion of peace" when it comes to Islam, that is a total lie. Islam simply doesn't play well with others, Muslims simply don't respect the rights of others to believe as they will, and you will NEVER see Christians or any other group for that matter treated as an equal in a Sharia country. The sooner we accept this and accept that a path of appeasement is a path of subjugation the better off the west will be. Look at the EU and how Sharia ghettos are springing up all over the place, is that REALLY how we want things to be here?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.