Skip to comments.
Churches urged to back evolution
British Broadcasting Corporation ^
| 20 February 2006
| Paul Rincon
Posted on 02/20/2006 5:33:50 AM PST by ToryHeartland
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 2,341 next last
To: Dimensio
You really don't see a problem with a professor who tells students to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm" an answer to a controversial question concerning religious beliefs as fundamental as the origin of humans????
To: MamaTexan
If science is going to operate under the assumption that only what is provable IS science, it cannot prove that life originated by 'accident'.
Fortunately, science does not operate under such an assumption. In fact, the scientific method acknowledgedes that absolutely no scientific explanation can be "proven".
282
posted on
02/20/2006 11:55:03 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Vicomte13
My compliments on a very well written reply and analysis.
283
posted on
02/20/2006 11:55:16 AM PST
by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
To: Always Right
If you affirm a belief in a scientific explaination for the origin of life Dr. Dini did not ask about 'origin of life'. He asked: "How do you think the human species originated?"
284
posted on
02/20/2006 11:55:25 AM PST
by
dread78645
(Intelligent Design. It causes people to misspeak)
To: Always Right
You really don't see a problem with a professor who tells students to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm" an answer to a controversial question concerning religious beliefs as fundamental as the origin of humans????
What I don't see is a requirement that sudents completely "disavow" any belief that a creator was involved in the process, which is what you claimed.
285
posted on
02/20/2006 11:55:44 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio; Right Wing Professor; Always Right
Okay, I read the article, but I could not find where it was stated that Dini required that students "to completely disavow any belief that a creator was involved". I just see a requirement that they accept evolution. (empahasis mine)
From the article:
The Web page advises students seeking a recommendation to be prepared to answer the question: "How do you think the human species originated?"
"If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences," Dini writes.(emphasis mine)
Accept and affirm. I think this is the crux of the issue, and I'm going to put a different spin on things.
Do you think it satisfactory to answer the question "How do you think the human species originated," with the affirmation: "...by the tentative theory of evolution"
286
posted on
02/20/2006 11:56:36 AM PST
by
csense
To: Always Right
Dini was of the opinion that a person who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution is likely to be a bad doctor. I share that belief. It derives from my conviction that the underpinnings of medicine are scientific, and that you cannot reject science without rejecting the foundations on which medicine is based.
If that's bigotry, so be it.
To: Always Right
This complaint against Dini is interesting:
Those are his requirements for giving a student a letter of personal reccommendation.
Doesn't he have a right to decide what criteria to us in such personal things?
If he were to say he'd only give personal letters to Dallas Cowboy's fans, wouldn't that be well within his rights?
Are you actually suggesting he should give a personal letter of reccommendation to someone he feels does not understand something he believes is important?
To: csense
The theory of evolution is not in the least tentative. That is simply a false statement.
To: Theophilus
Christianity doesn't make sense to me.
290
posted on
02/20/2006 11:59:13 AM PST
by
stands2reason
(It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
To: Right Wing Professor
Bad Doctor, or Incompetent Doctor?
291
posted on
02/20/2006 12:00:24 PM PST
by
csense
To: Right Wing Professor
Is it not it true that all scientific theories are tentative?
292
posted on
02/20/2006 12:01:58 PM PST
by
csense
To: csense
Bad Doctor, or Incompetent Doctor?From the point of view of the patient, is there a difference? I don't care if he/she is a serial adulterer.
To: csense
Is it not it true that all scientific theories are tentative?To the extent that they are, the word tentative is redundant, no?
To: Right Wing Professor
In context, no, it is not
295
posted on
02/20/2006 12:06:40 PM PST
by
csense
To: Right Wing Professor
Dini reworked his criteria so that it could not be read as requiring a "belief" in evolution to avoid running afoul of the free exercise clause so that he might continue to remain on the public payroll.
His reworking of the wording is a tacit admission that he was in deep doodoo if the case went to the courts.
To: Elsie
297
posted on
02/20/2006 12:07:05 PM PST
by
stands2reason
(It's now 2006, and two wrongs still don't make a right.)
To: Right Wing Professor
But we're not arguing from the point of view of a patient, are we....
298
posted on
02/20/2006 12:07:50 PM PST
by
csense
To: Vicomte13
I hope that helps. Indeed, yes, a very meaty and thought-provoking piece, many thanks--let me stew on it and get back to you. I think you are spot on about the Church of England--and you have a credible explanation for the gulf of incredulity which divides some aspects of conservatism. Thanks again.
To: kittymyrib
From the
list:So we all have to believe in the religion of evolution?
C1
Where is the tolerance? Where is the inclusiveness?
D11
The mullahs of Science need to be aware that millions of us will never bring up our children to believe that they are ape-men instead of created by God in His image.
D9
Science giants of the past have been Christians who believed that God created the world. Today's science pygmies are too insecure to have their religious ideas about evolution challenged. Whose fault is that?
C1, C13 and D2 all in one shot.
Evolution is not a religion. Science does not have to be "tolerant" or "inclusive" of unscientific ideas. Scientists are not "mullahs," and they will never force you to teach your childrean anything. Finally, science is not atheism.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 2,341 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson