"Muslim medical students boycotting lectures on evolution... because it 'clashes with Koran"

[MarkCharles]

"Muslim students, including trainee doctors on one of Britain's leading medical courses, are walking out of lectures on evolution claiming it conflicts with creationist ideas established in the Koran.
Professors at University College London have expressed concern over the increasing number of biology students boycotting lectures on Darwinist theory, which form an important part of the syllabus, citing their religion.
Similar to the beliefs expressed by fundamentalist Christians, Muslim opponents to Darwinism maintain that Allah created the world, mankind and all known species in a single act.
Steve Jones emeritus professor of human genetics at university college London has questioned why such students would want to study biology at all when it obviously conflicts with their beliefs."

......

"Evolutionary Biologist and former Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins has expressed his concern at the number of students, consisting almost entirely of Muslims, who do not attend or walk out of lectures."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066795/Muslim-students-walking-lectures-Darwinism-clashes-Koran.html#ixzz1eviNoCL5

[Seedersandleechers]

1. Let them walk out if they want

But I wouldn't make a separate test for them.

[Adsos Letter]

4. +1

[saras]

12. Yep. Walk out if you want, but if you don't know it, you DON'T GET THE DEGREE

[RC]

2. How can one be an effective medical doctor if you don't understand

evolution? Microbes and all that!

[immoderate]

9. You give him an aspirin. That's what they do.

Sometimes an ointment.

My point really is that a knowledge of evolutionary biology is mostly irrelevant to the practice of medicine. Furthermore, walking out of lectures is symbolic. If they are dedicated professionals, they will deal with realities when they encounter them, or lose patients.

I remember that as a psychoanalytically oriented psych major, I listened to a lecture by a behaviorally oriented therapist. He said, "There's no such thing as an Oedipus Complex, but we know them when we see them."

--imm

[saras]

13. Losing patients, as in having them die unnecessarily, is already far too common...

...and is, for that matter, EXACTLY what medical school is supposed to prevent. We attempt to not allow people whose irrationality clearly and obviously interferes with their ability to do a job to have professional certificates asserting that they can do the job.

If my doctor is up against an antibiotic-resistant microbe, they had damned well better understand evolution. It matters a lot.

If they were dedicated professionals, they wouldn't walk out of classes, and they'd abandon the foolishness in their religion that interferes with their ability to do the job they are training for.

[immoderate]

24. You make a good point.

I was being somewhat facetious, but I think that it's unlikely that missing some lectures on evolutionary biology will decide any patients' fate. The more competent ones will surely assimilate the appropriate knowledge. For the rest that make it through, they will have been instructed on proper practice. It's hard to imagine that any that get all the way through would not be competent.

OK, a really superstitious doctor does not inspire confidence. :shrug:


--imm

[grantcart]

3. The great irony is that if the right wing would stop hating these folks for a minute

they would see that in their undisturbed state they are very conservative and would be natural allies to the Republicans (like many Hispanics).

In another strange twist Muslims devoutly believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Then their Medical Degree better not be recognized in USA

[Seedersandleechers]

7. They have to pass the same board tests

that American doctors take, and they have to do a residency as well.

[digonswine]

8. Or at least let patients know who they are-

so we can avoid doctors who trust their religions more than the science. I sure would.

[haikugal]

6. So What? Can they answer the questions on the test?

Do they support science? If the answer is no then fail them.

[snagglepuss]

10. What happens if they have to treat pagans, polytheists, atheists? It is

unacceptable that they are so beholding to their fanaticism in a pluralistic society, a society which btw is subsidizing their education. Admission to medical schools should require students signing oaths stating that they accept that their personal beliefs are to be separate from their education.

[Odin2005]

11. That's their choice, and it's the Professor's choice to fail them.

[LeftishBrit]

14. Caution: Note that this is the Daily Mail

They can't decide whom they hate more, Muslims or secularists; but it's probably Muslims by a tiny margin. Thus, they could well be exaggerating the numbers involved, for example.

Normally in order to get into a medical school at all, let alone one as selective as UCL, you would need to have very good grades in science A levels including biology, which requires some knowledge about evolution. Of course, students who come from abroad (a significant proportion at London University) might not have had the same form of school instruction.

Certainly, people who aren't prepared to study science should not be studying medicine, and I would not wish to go to a doctor who didn't accept basic scientific facts like evolution.

[MarkCharles]

15. I share your feelings about The Daily Mail. But usually there is a whiff of

truth to articles like these.

No doubt, a handful of medical students coming from abroad and missing a few lectures in evolution will not shut down the study of medicine in the UK.

But I just found it interesting that some followers of Islam are behaving like fundamentalist Christians.

I have been treated by a Muslim physician in the USA, and, I assure you, he doesn't put HIS faith in Allah above his professional obligations.

[intaglio]

16. There might be a grain of truth to this report but

It's from the "Daily Mail" and I refer you to those sages called Dan and Dan

[rug]

17. Yeah, the "who, what, when and where" are noticeably absent from this report.

[skepticscott]

18. Only to blind or blatantly dishonest apologists

Who: "Muslim students, including trainee doctors on one of Britain's leading medical courses" "increasing number of biology students" "Steve Jones emeritus professor of human genetics"

Where: "University College London"

What: "walking out of lectures on evolution claiming it conflicts with creationist ideas established in the Koran." "boycotting lectures on Darwinist theory, which form an important part of the syllabus, citing their religion" "questioned why such students would want to study biology at all when it obviously conflicts with their beliefs."

When: "now"

You didn't mention the "why", but maybe I'm presuming too much if I think that you even got 1 out of 5.

Please don't be shy about responding with one of your laughably content-free one-liners.

[rug]

19. "Muslim students" - that clears it up.

"University College London" - is there a paericular class? Might there be a quote from the (gasp!) lecturer who they walked out on?

"lectures on evolution" - that narrows it down.

"now" - when? Did something precipitate this? Has it been going on all year? Oh, never mind, I see you ansswered it: "now"

On the other hand, there's a lovely photo of Turkish author Harun Yahya who has no demonstrable connection to University College London. Wait, Muslims4UK is blaing him. http://muslims4uk.org.uk/ So their motto is "United against al-Muhajiroun, EDL and the Daily Express." I wander what their beef is against the Express.

For someone who is a skeptic you're rather uncritical.

BTW, scott, you wouldn't be calling me a "blind or blatantly dishonest apologist", would you? Thay may be consired a personal attack.

[skepticscott]

23. Well, you'd be a blind or blatantly dishonest apologist

if you were saying that the article mentioned nothing at all about Who, What, When or Where. Were you saying that? You make the call.

Of course, I'd probably say that someone who claimed in one post that those things were "noticeably absent" and then in another post said that they actually WERE there, but not in as much detail as a full-blown investigative report was moving the goalposts and making unfounded claims.

[rug]

29. It didn't.

As I demonstrated.

Now, do you want to own those words. Don't be coy. Go on, say them.

[skepticscott]

30. You demonstrated nothing

except that a brief little new blurb didn't have as much exhaustive detail as a full page article might have. If you're saying that the things I pointed out in #18 weren't in the article AT ALL, then I guess you've adopted the label for yourself. That you don't admit it doesn't fool anyone here whose opinion matters. Wear it well.

I really hope you didn't spend too long trying to spin a response that would let you save face here, because this sure wasn't it. That's time you'll never get back.

[rug]

31. Figures.

You just keep being skeptical.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

[skepticscott]

32. Very relevant link

Some people never learn: Blinded and battered bullfighter vows to return to ring in first public appearance since horrific goring

I'm guessing this guy is your inspiration.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067261/Blinded-bullfighter-vows-return-ring-public-appearance-horrific-goring.html#ixzz1f3M9qhaF

[rug]

33. I see you have a thing for posting bull.

[LeftishBrit]

20. They do say where. etc. but not 'how many'

My reservations are from long experience of the Daily Mail; not from any sort of sympathy for creationists, of the Muslim or any other variety. (Are you aware, for instance, that the Daily Mail was one of the key propaganda organs for Wakefield and against the MMR vaccine?)

Also, I know people who are involved in medical teaching at UCL, and if this were a BIG problem, I think they'd have mentioned it. Which does not, of course, mean that it's not a problem at all.

[struggle4progress]

22. The Daily Mail isn't following established journalistic standards? I'm shocked!

:rofl:

[MarkCharles]

25. Just LOVE Dan and Dan !

Well, I like one more than the other! :P

[w4rma]

21. They had better be Failed from the class if they aren't even willing to learn what science knows. nt

[Azooz]

26. Ayatollah Google

I used Ayatollah Google to look up "islamophobia evolution Dawkins"

Richard Dawkins attacks Muslim schools for stuffing children's minds with 'alien rubbish'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8814298/Richard-Dawkins-attacks-Muslim-schools-for-stuffing-childrens-minds-with-alien-rubbish.html



Richard Dawkins claims Muslim schools are teaching 'alien rubbish' ... but says CofE schools are OK
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/10/8/richard-dawkins-claims-muslim-schools-are-teaching-alien-rub.html

[LeftishBrit]

27. Actually Dawkins doesn't say that C of E schools are OK

He's against faith schools in general.

He does say, which is probably correct in this country, that C of E schools are less likely than Muslim schools to try to promote creationism.

To keep things in perspective: there are very few Muslim faith schools in this country in any case.

[MarkCharles]

28. Yes, I'm pretty sure Dawkins has no fondness for any organized religion that

holds beliefs in a mythical or supernatural forces above logical scientific explanations.

[Deep13]

34. Sorry, the school has no duty to lie to preserve ones feelings.

If ones religion is contradicted by objective, verifiable fact, that ought to tell him something.