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."
Chiefly among them the idea that randomness is not divine. How else would some being equal parts evil and good distribute his Will? In closely examining randomness we find what patterns we will, allowing us to imagine we grasp the whole until the patterns devolve until they're just a cloud.
It's humor to keep a divine being amused for all time - to tease us with imagined understanding.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
are they comparing notes with bible belt Christian fundamentalists? not a good sign.
different types of extremists, religious or secular, have some of the same stuff going on.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
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
Then the school should make the course mandatory, and fail them as doctors if they do not show up.
I went to school to become a programmer, I would have failed if I didn't show up for Math, even though I almost never use it as a System Developer now a few years after.
I see no problem in failing doctors cause they do not show up to Darvin class, I would not want to be treated by a Doctor that does not understand the body, and I am sure our customers would not like a programmer that don't know any Math.
Why are we discussing a Daily Mail article?
The Daily Mail is closer to a tabloid than to a newspaper. Technically it's 'middle-market', so it has some real stories in there, but I'd never rely on it as a sole source for any opinion or discussion....which is what this summary asks us to do.
Preface: I am not religious.
I guess you could call me an optimist or idealist, but I always thought that when you went to college or any university of repute where you CHOOSE to study something like the science of evolution, or you CHOOSE to go to a lecture about evolution, why would you bring your religious baggage with you? I thought the idea of attending a lecture or university was to expand your mind, not defend your beliefs.
Again, maybe it's because I'm an optimist, but shouldn't these "scholars" behave a little more... I don't know... scholarly?
...it's "mysterious ways".
The CB App. What's your 20?
So, the article is from The Daily Mail, also known as The Daily Racist. Not that silly fairytale believing people aren't acting silly, but how big of an issue is this, really? Is there an agenda pushing this "news"?
Another aspect of this is that some of these people may well actually cause harm to society in this way: it is known that overprescribing antibiotics is causing evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. A doctor who does not believe in or agree with principles of evolution might then ignore the guidelines and thus add to emergence of new strains. (Overprescribing is also a problem in some countries where the medical practice is rather casual and antibiotics are too-commonly given out for viral diseases like colds or flu.)
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.
As many said before me: just fail them and let natural selection take its course.
Wouldn't boycotting an academic lecture be equivalent to willful ignorance? Understanding your opposition's arguments, even if you know going in that you completely disagree with their conclusion, is a useful thing to have.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I, too, will pitch my hat in the ring to provide a Muslim perspective.
I am from Pakistan, which is about as conservative and Muslim as you can get (okay, so KSA is even more so...but you get the gist)
However, when I was taught biology in school, guess what, I was taught Darwin!
It was simple, the text simply said, "Charles Darwin, a renowned Scientist hypothesized in his theory that..." and then followed by "However, we as Muslims, believe that [insert relevant verses here]"
Simple as that!
If these students were to come to a medical college in Pakistan (and we quite a few of International level) then, surprise surprise, there would be a chapter on Darwin.
Look, we are Muslims, and I know the general trend of Slashdot is towards atheism/agnosticism, but 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.
However, if an eminent scholar presents forward a *theory*, there is no harm in at least reading what he is writing.
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Only if you make up the religion yourself. Otherwise the priest class do the governing, and are sometimes part of the government, or are manipulated by the ruling class.
Evolution is the incarnation of the will of god/ Allah / Jane / whomever / the Universe. What's so hard about that ?
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.
I don't get what the problem is. If you don't grasp the material, regardless of the reason, you fail the course.
Agreed.
I sure as hell don't want to be treated by a doctor who doesn't understand evolution.
To quote you, I don't get what the problem is. What does belief/disbelief in evolution have to do with medical treatment? A medical doctor needs to know how the body works right now, not how it got to that point. I'm a bit fuzzy on how a belief in evolution helps a doctor diagnose and fix a problem in the patient in front of them.
Now if you want to say certain avenues of medical research should probably be closed then I'd agree.
Religion is getting nuttier.
Today, evolution is an engineering technology. Watching vruses and bacteria evolve from generation to generation is routine medical research. Genetic engineering and some kinds of drug discovery are forced evolutionary systems. Most of the mechanics of the process are understood. It isn't mysterious any more.
At this point, denying that evolution is real is on a par with claiming the earth is flat. Yet religious denial of evolution has increased.
More religions are anti-education than 50 years ago. Some branches of Islam are explicitly anti-education. Now that's infected Judaism, too. Which is strange, after centuries of a strong drive in the Jewish community to achieve a good education.
While I find radical religious fundamentalism just as distasteful as any other atheist, I would also hesitate to launch into Muslim bashing just because one professor has noticed "an increasing number" of Muslim students boycotting his lectures. For all we know, it may be a small number of students boycotting that do not represent a larger trend, and there may be more to the story than reported here (what if, for example, the professor made offensive remarks about Islam and its followers during a lecture, a la Richard Dawkins).
In regards to whether or not these students should be allowed to graduate and become doctors, I'm a little torn. On the one hand, I don't see how someone's stance on evolution is going to have any demonstrable impact on their ability to perform surgery, for example. On the other hand, if a doctor doesn't believe in evolution, they might also not believe that over-prescribing antibiotics can bread new strains of drug resistant bacteria, which could lead to genuine threat to public health.
I guess I'd say that if evolutionary biology is a requirement for the major, then they should be required to pass the course in order to graduate. They don't need to attend the lectures, and they don't need to believe that it's true - but in the same way that we force future doctors to suffer through organic chemistry (often against their will), these students should be required to pass the final exam in order to demonstrate that they are at least capable of understanding the material.
http://s2.b3ta.com/host/creative/85367/1322136043/DailyMailCorrectionsbig.jpg
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
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".
Too many Muslims have gotten caught up in Christain dogma instead of reading and thinking about the book they believe in. There's nothing inherently contradictory about evolution and Islam. The Quran doesn't specifically say days in Arabic regarding creation, it uses a word that really means periods of time.
Allegory is used to explain many subjects because describing something like quantum physics to 6th century bedouins wasn't really feasible. Hell, it's something most 21st century Americans can't understand.
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.
"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."
These news failed to report about the number of Jews and Christians...
Richard Dawkins (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawkins0.htm): "Children really ought not be spoken of as a Catholic child or a Muslim child. They ought to be allowed to grow until they're old enough to decide for themselves what their beliefs about the cosmos are. But ... the fact [is] that we do treat [children] that way, and ... parents seem to be regarded as having a unique right to impose their religious beliefs on their child; whereas, nobody thinks they're going to impose their beliefs about -- I don't know -- why the dinosaurs went extinct, or something of that sort."
Here is a rabbi (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html) trying to comprehend: "Unlike you, I see no deep fissure between science and religion. The Biblical story of creation relates that a supreme intelligence gave rise to the world in a manner that would easily accord with evolution, beginning with inanimate matter and slowly ascending through the vegetable, animal, and human spheres. What perhaps separates us is that you believe all this happened through random mutation and natural selection, and I instead focus on the mathematical improbability of such complex life ever arising spontaneously and without guidance."
So, why not put this M-word together with the J-word or the C-word and put it into perspectives?
Moreover, how many H-word and B-word or Any-Other-word anti-evolutionists aren't here...
Let me get this straight: you were taught evolution in school, but it was with the caveat that it was "his theory" - as in the layman's definition of theory (i.e. a wild guess)? And what appeared in the [insert relevant verses here] section? From the way you setup the sentence, you're really making it sound like Darwinism is presented in school, but it's Darwin's "wild guess" and Muslims are instructed to believe something different. In the past, I've heard this same thing about evolution being taught in Islamic countries - i.e. evolution is "just a theory" but if you want to be a good muslim and believe what God says, then you'll believe something different. Could you clarify?
That depends on the belief. If (theoretically) your religion says germ theory of disease is bunk, all disease is caused by demons (Saint Augustine*) or is an illusion (Christian Scientist Church), then, we're not going to let you believe whatever you want. The facts are not negotiable.
* Saint Augustine taught that all diseases were caused by demons: "All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment fresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless, newborn infants."
Don't remember his name but he commanded a small carrier in the Atlantic during WW2. He said that if a soldier prays before going into battle he is going into battle with the wrong mind set. A soldier should take charge, not leave it up the fate/beard in the sky.
He has a point. In Islam, the idea of "It is the will of god" is very strong, stronger then in most faiths. It is a fatalist attitude. Whatever happens has been pre-determined and it is useless to go against it.
It is kinda funny to see then Muslims use it when they go into war. Since Muslims always loose unless they fight each other (which is another kind of loosing), obviously the loosing is the will of god. Notice how the phrase "if Allah wants it" is rarely used AFTER the lost battle.
But are Christians and Jews really that different? Yes. A lot of the advancement in the west has been due to religion taking a back seat. Take Einstein, religious but doesn't let it control him. The west still has various religions but the advances were strongest when church and state or at least science and culture were separated.
Not that this has nothing to do with the faiths themselves. Fatalism is determined by environment. In Europe, the environment allows people to take charge. There are flooded areas but they are small and so you can build small raised areas to build your house on. And now your house doesn't flood away every year, you can start building dyke's. You can influence the environment in small ways, allowing you to build up to big ways. There is a reason the greatest land reclaimers are the dutch where doing it with primitive tools was relatively easy AND rewarding.
Fatalism is a survival strategy when your entire dependence is on a river that may or may not flood and which you can do nothing about. When a dry spell doesn't mean a lesser harvest but mass starvation. when all your work is wiped out in front of your eyes, it helps to think that it is all part of some divine plan. Raising your hands in anger at the gods... doesn't work for to long before you die of a heart attack. Just accept it, bury the death and move on.
And when YOU do that, when you have given up, it becomes VERY hard to accept someone else can move on. That is why in ghetto's there is enormous peer pressure NOT to succeed but to fail. Because if someone else CAN make it, then you are a bigger failure.
And that is another aspect of Islam. The world moved on and in general they can't move on. Look at Turkey, flexing its wings because it thinks that massive growth when you came from nothing has meaning it KNOWS it is completely at the mercy of the west. Every time a Turk answers his cell phone, uses his computer, powers a light, it is western tech. And despite billions invested from oil rich nations, this hasn't really changed.
Why? Because Islam never had a renascence. They never had an enlightenment. Individuals have moved on and learned to seperate faith from daily live but as a group, in general, it hasn't. And it is causing massive culture conflict.
Note the huge problems Israel is having because by its nature it has to be friendly to ultra-orthodox Jews.
In most of the west, the religious freaks have isolated themselves and good riddance. There is no Amish TV channel trying to win heart and minds. More or less, the US can ignore them. Good luck doing that with Islamic extremist. Note how the revolutions so far have not yet lead to a progressive government. Moderate muslims is about as good as it gets and moderate is a very inaccurate term. It completely depends on how extreme the non-moderates are.
Mind you, nothing of this is new. We had Darwin on trial. It is just annoying to have to fight the same battle over and over again. And last time we didn't insist on importing Hillbilly's by the truck load.
Culture clash sounds so harmless but it is the root at many of the worst moment in human history.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
apparently Muslims believe that god plays dice...
There are plus and minus sided to this.
On the plus side, there will be a Darwinian pressure involving superstitious orthodox patients selecting orthodox superstitious medical practitioners. Since the quality of medicine (particularly medicine that involves utilizing a full grasp of MEDICAL SCIENCE) will lead to a significant increase in the percentage of people with poor medical outcomes.
On the minus side, there will be a Darwinian pressure to breed bigger, stronger, healthier Muslims. Perhaps they'll also breed the stupid out... and orthodox churches just be abandoned and intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Islam was actually less anti-evolutionist than Christianity in the early years of the theory - Qu'ran is kinda vague on its whole creation account, and there's much stronger tradition to taking it as allegorical (I guess it would be because Islam didn't get its Protestant Reformation, which had a tendency towards literalism in extremes). "Divinely guided" evolution is consistent with all Islamic tenets, and widely believed in, same as for Catholics.
Islamic creationism is a relatively recent thing, roughly from 1970s on, and most of it has, ironically, originated in Turkey - the most secular Islamic majority state on the Earth. They also tend to use a lot of American Christian sources, such as those of Institute for Intelligent Design etc - so you could say that it is largely a "gift" from American creationists to the rest of the world that took on its own life.
"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.
It was simple, the text simply said, "Charles Darwin, a renowned Scientist hypothesized in his theory that..." and then followed by "However, we as Muslims, believe that [insert relevant verses here]"
Out of curiosity, what do you believe as Muslims, and what are the relevant verses? You preceded it with "however", which kinda implies that it's not in accord with Darwin's theory, but GP claims that evolution is perfectly in line with Islamic dogmas (which matches my limited knowledge of Islam) - do you disagree with him?
Look, we are Muslims, and I know the general trend of Slashdot is towards atheism/agnosticism, but 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.
There is some confusion here. Creationism is not a religion. Religions are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. Creationism is a distinct and much narrower belief. The problem with it is that it is often presented as a scientific theory (and, worse yet, as an "alternative" to evolution), which it plainly isn't. It's not even "wrong" - science has no way of saying that something is right or wrong which plainly doesn't fall into its scope - it's just unscientific. And I dare say that, if you study a science degree in a university, accepting that creationism is unscientific is something that would rather be expected of you, even if you believe it to be otherwise true.
fine prove it..or at least offer some evidence. you've made quite a claim.
To quote you, I don't get what the problem is. What does belief/disbelief in evolution have to do with medical treatment?
Presumably such a doctor would have no qualms about handing out antibiotics like candy - after all, it's not as if the bacteria might adapt to it. And how do they explain where all these new diseases come from anyway?
The most fundamentalist folk I've talked to that mentally shut down when you use the word "evolution" have no problem with the concept of individual organisms having varying levels of resistance and that the repeated use of some compound will lead to a population dominated by the most resistant. "Survival of the fittest" is something that the most fundamentalist will accept in a short term context yielding small changes.
Try it out for yourself. Talk to a fundamentalist, do not use the word "evolution", discuss the drug resistant organisms, the moths that changed color pre/post industrialization, etc. Use phrases like "survival of the fittest", "change over time", etc and you will have no problem. Utter the word "evolution" and then its like a switch flips. These people have no problem with the concept of drug resistant organisms, they just don't want to use the word "evolution" for this. To them "evolution" is exclusively apes became man type of stuff.
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.
Seeing as the professor is "Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics", it would be likely that the course he teaches is genetically related, probably quite technical (i.e. not a run-of-the-mill basic course) and thus also suggested that these people's medical degrees / training include a genetic element.
As someone who lives with a qualified medical practitioner in a genetics field (most "doctors" who work for health services are actually PhD's, not General Practitioners - the doctors you go to see with a cough - working in medical labs around the world to analyse your test results so the GP can be told what you have), it would be incredibly unusual to suggest that a GP would require a thorough grounding in genetics so it would be assumed that either a) this is an extremely basic grounding in genetics aimed at the general practice or b) these students are, in some way, more in-depth (e.g. potential research scientists, lab workers, etc.). If the scenario is a), as mentioned above it's unlikely to be run by an Emeritus Professor who's so outspoken (the prof would be unlikely to be a controversial one, or be doing it for very long if he was), and it's unlikely that such a fuss would be caused and they would be able to skip the courses if it conflicted religiously .
In scenario b), they aren't going to be surgeons or GP's but they would work instead in labs combating the viruses you are talking about, running tests on your (and your virus's) DNA, formulating antidotes, etc. etc. There, it is extremely easy to argue, you have to have a thorough grounding in evolution and, most importantly, not be offended by it or only grasp it incompletely. That happens to be the job that my girlfriend does.
Apart from that, I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who skipped parts of medical school because they were offended by them - that only leads to madness where you end up with doctors who won't look at a woman's private parts, won't operate on certain religions, won't perform certain operations, object to circumcisions, etc. etc. etc. That's a slippery slope into hocus-pocus medicine rather than scientific medicine.
But then, my girlfriend once had students join her after they'd had several YEARS of medical school and honestly had them ask what a shoulder was, and some of them asserted that you could tell a man from a woman because one has less ribs (not true, if you didn't know, but comes directly from the Bible instead). These are the people who would, if they passed, be qualified to be performing forensic examinations, identifying your cancer, formulating treatments, testing drugs, tracing your family tree, fertilising your IVF, etc. That's a *scary* thought and if something on your medical course offends you, you can walk out and complain, sure, but you have to ask yourself why you were in the lecture in the first place.
You're seriously attending a lecture by a professor of genetics that's vital to your successful passing of a medical degree that will take YEARS and lots of money to finish, and you get offended by the suggestion of evolution? Then you probably should have thought that through beforehand.
That's what you get when you mix religion with ... anything.
Religious beliefs should have no place in a non-religious institute (be that a university or something else), and that means neither the teachers nor the students should bring up religious issues in such an environment. If I understand correctly the starting point, students refused to attend a class dealing with a non-religious issue, although others might (and are, as I see above) disagree. The point is, Darwin's and related theories might not fit into some religious dogmas and ideas, nonetheless they belong to teaching. If some don't want to hear about it, they should be judged as any other student would be judged who refused to attend a class or take an exam.
A student is not required to believe in everything (s)he's taught, nor is (s)he required to integrate what (s)he hears into her/his religious belief. One must be able to differentiate and separate these issues and be able - and grown enough - to not be such sensitive to these issues.
Everyone can enjoy and practice their religion and live according to their beliefs, but should not require everybody else to adhere to their religion in any way. If they go to a non-islamic university, then they should not expect it to follow islamic rules and teachings. It's ridiculous.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
That is the nearest we inthe UK have to Glenn Beck.
Move along, nothing to see here.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Everything about this story rings false.
it does?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution
According to Guardian some British Muslim students have distributed leaflets on campus, advocating against Darwin's theory of evolution. At a conference in the UK in January, 2004, entitled Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools, Dr Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain stated that "Muslims interpret the world through both the Koran and what is tangible and seen. There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest."
I apologise, but I can't exactly remember *what* biology books said, since it was oh so long ago, and I dropped biology afterwards. Also, due to flaws in our education system, we have had multiple varieties of textbooks (in all subject) due to changes in curriculum every few years, so frankly I am not even sure now which class biology *is* taught!
But I remember the gist of it, it was about the evolution of biological research, how scientist discovered plants needed needed air(oxygen) not just water as earlier hypothesized etc... You get the idea, among those discoveries was Charles Darwin's discovery too, that I definitely remember.
However, I reflecting back, I am not exactly sure whether the verses were there to refute Darwin (or any other scientist for that matter) in particular. There was just a chapter on the Quranic version, where it said how Allah created man from a clot of blood etc. You can search on the internet.
So I guess my setup of the sentence was perhaps wrong, but I think I maybe attributing what my teacher said to what was in the text book.
My apologies, I will try to track down a school level biology book if I can, but I won't be surprised if the entire chapter on research was deleted, not due to Darwin, mind you, but simply because one of the many curriculum changes might have deleted this entire section for something he thought was more appropriate and *up-to-date*, like the discovery cells in wood cork etc.
In fact, I distinctly remember a friend complaining his brother's biology book had the chapter on the verses missing too ("Dude! our education system is being taken over by the Infidels!11!")
AS for the part about beliefs, I am not going to mess over that. Islam insist you take treatment for ills, that whole "prayers alone will save me" shit doesn't fly in our religion, you *must* take action, and pray too, basically the motto is "Do your best, and *then* leave the rest to God", if you won't take medicine or preventative measure, that means you are not doing your part.
However, if a Christian friend were to refuse medicine...well I am not sure. That's a bridge I will cross when I come to it.
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
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.
These religious fundamentalist are all alike. Obviously it doesn't matter how they call their deity. For evangelical Christians evolution is a lie (though their own idea of creation of life is not even a theory (if you think it is a theory, please look up the scientific definition of theory)). And now fundamentalist from the monotheistic abrahametic religion version 1.2 come to the same "conclusion".
I always wonder why all these fundamentalist believe in a stupid god who works by rules which are totally imprecise and dependent to certain properties of a region and technical level. Fundamentalists from version 1.0 are not to work on $HolyDay and that included making fire (some 6000 years ago). Nowadays they are therefor not allowed to use cars on $HolyDay or cook on $HolyDay even though today making a fire in your home does not require any big thing to do. And new problems arise with microwaves is that fire in the ancient context? What they forget is. Why the people (er. god) came up with that rule?
I guess they should merge their religion interpretation into the fundamentalists. We could even make a TV series from it.
It depends on the exact way it's done, but there are ways of doing that sort of "we really believe X" that end up coming off as more pro-science than others, sometimes almost just paying lip service to the religious view. A lot of late-middle-ages European scientific books would do things like that, starting off with some blather about how everything is really caused by God of course, with some quotes from the Bible, and then moving on to more or less: "but that said, let me describe for you an experiment I did and a mathematical model that seems to capture it..."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
"religion tells us how to live life as human beings, science tells us how we live as biological creatures... the two domains don't touch."
I call this the "Gould Gambit" and I disagree with it. This "don't touch me!" approach fundamentally underestimates the many real-world claims that religion can make, and the multitude of ways that religion structures peoples' thoughts, lives, communities, and schedules. It's not entirely dissimilar from students walking out of a lecture on things they don't want to think about affecting their personal goals.
I say this as a non-religious person (but with a degree in philosophy and religious concentration).
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
And there is this:
tl;dr version: Einstein said that "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
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. Then, to any degree that Islam clashes with science, Islam *must* win; that's not irrational, that's a good design feature designed to ensure Islam's continuance. What's irrational is the nonsense content in the book, and there, the bible and the Koran stand shoulder to shoulder.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The courts themselves aren't secret. Rabbinical Courts exist in the U.K. as well as other places around the world.
A more apt term would be "private" as opposed to "secret".
To the best of my knowledge, both Rabbinical and Sharia Courts operate in secular nations under the rule of Binding Arbitration as opposed to being criminal courts.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
In turkey, muslim doctors who actually practice the religion (most are muslim only in name and tradition) refuse to touch and treat women. female muslim doctors who practice the religion refuse to treat men.
if you let this evolution refusal thing keep going on, the radicalization will increase.
Read radical news here
Your arguments are analogical or circular, and then you resort to announcing that "believe" means different things according to context. From the point of view of a sociologist of religion, you are using religious thinking.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not a relativist. I just believe that "religious" thinking is part of the way our brains cope with reality, because what we perceive as reality is actually a lot of analogies. Any scientist who thinks that he or she is 100% free of religious modes of thinking and completely objective is slightly deluded. Accepting that science involves a small kernel of unprovable and untestable assumptions is, in fact, just being objective.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
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.
No, you are wrong, the OP is correct: there have been Jewish religious courts in England for centuries. Religious courts already in use. A London woman this week expressed shock at the prospect of being divorced by a rabbinical court against her will — in part because she allegedly wore clothes it deemed “provocative”.
There are several evolutionary topics that doctors must know about, including antibiotic resistant bacteria and animal testing of humans drugs and procedures.
Medical students should be taught about various cases of bacteria acquiring immunity to specific antibiotics, taught how challenging finding new antibiotics is, and taught how many lives would be lost without them. You might even ask them to work through a simplified mathematical model of immunity acquisition.
Medical students should be given an overview of why some animals make more suitable animal models for human medications, including how our closest relatives like chimpanzees make the best models but require more care, more expense, live too long, and raise moral issues. Rats are used earlier in the process because they cost so little but model some human systems reasonably. All these reasons should be explained in terms of convergent and divergent evolution.
If they fail that material, fine don't give them the degree that let's them prescribe drug.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Since the modern scientific method was invented approximately 400 years ago, not one single repeatable experiment has ever been devised, by anyone, anywhere, anywhen, which has been able to show an "irregularity" (truly random processes such as radioactive decay, quantum weirdness, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle notwithstanding)
Occam's razor. Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.
When Newton discovered his laws of motion, he was right to accept them. When the scientists who followed him for the next 300-odd years accepted them, they were right to do so. Even though he was eventually shown to be wrong by Einstein, until that point, no-one had any good reason not to accept those laws. However, as soon as Einsten came up with new data, came up with new theories, came up with new experiments, came up with new evidence and proved Newton wrong, then scientists changed how they saw motion.
Yes, scientists should always be aware that their theories might not be correct, that there may be an edge case they've not seen yet. But until someone's actually found it, the best you can do is go with what you've got. If an experiment ever comes along to show that the universe isn't regular, science will use that to show how the universe is not regular. Anyone who refuses to accept the new evidence will not be, to all intents and purposes, a scientist. And science might have to do a lot of work to probe the boundaries (if any) of that irregularity and work out how much it affects the millions of experiments and observations that have been done over the last few centuries.
But until that time comes along, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the universe is regular. Because that's what every experiement ever done has ever shown.
Your black swan argument could just as well be a 10-headed sheep argument. So what if no-one's seen them? No-one's proven that there aren't 10-headed sheep. So it's an absurdity to say they don't exist!
Bollocks.
If you show me a 10-headed sheep, I'll believe you. Until then, it is so mind-bogglingly unlikely that such thing exists that they are not worth considering in any reasonable model of the universe, and you're just engaging in philosophical wankery, not science.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
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
Yeah, they and the religious laws they enforce are also incredibly, unbelievably sexist. Notice not just the really creepy arguments used, but also how a man can divorce his wife without her agreement but not vice-versa. It's actually worse than the article implies; women that ignore religious law and remarry are meant to be treated as tainted, along with their children and their children's children and so on forever. (I don't think this example of sexism actually has any Islamic counterpart.) Also, while the religious courts are nominally voluntary, there's a huge amount of religious and social pressure to use them; it's part of the reason why there's so much objection to the creation of sharia courts.
I've looked at your website and realised that you aren't a scientist, you are basically an engineer. They are different...engineers tend to take science for granted and ask "how" questions rather than "why" questions. You're arguing about how science works, but from your misconceptions, not from experience. Oh, and given your rants about Muslims, how many do you meet up there in Montana?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
For US readers who might not know about the Daily Mail I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
Please don't post links to Daily Mail "news".
Cheers,
Jeremy.
Is the class required for the degree?
If so, and they don't attend, or at least cannot answer the questions on the tests properly (as expected by the professor), then don't give them a degree. Simple as that.
I'm sure you know this, but I can't let it go because other people might come along and read it: Newton wasn't wrong.
Well, not entirely wrong.
Newton's laws of gravity and motion still work very, very well. If you attempt to calculate the trajectory of a ball in a gravity field given a certain force acting on it, Newton's laws are the ones that you'll use. They're also the ones that will work.
Einstein's work didn't invalidate Newton so much as recontextualize where it was appropriate to use his laws to make predictions. But F=ma continues to function just as well as it did before Einstein said anything in 99% of the applications that are relevant to us.