Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by kattracks
Does that mean that they believe in a God who is not a Creator?
This drivel from a PhD? I'm depressed. What has become of our state institutions of higher learning?
What you guys don't realize is that you open yourselves up to the same investigation of sincerity by the opposition.
BTW, are you posting on work time? Are you wasting our tax dollars defending your superstition when you should be exercising your bigotry against creationists on campus?
You: Does that mean that they believe in a God who is not a Creator?
No, it means they believe in a God who created life using the methods of natural law (inheritance, variation and selection) He created for that purpose. That is, in any event, what I (a Jew) believe.
Apparently it doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself. Certain evos won't acknowledge it. They are either mentally incapable of understanding your words or they prefer to make false charges rather than debate.
I hope the lurkers notice how close-minded, bigoted and irrational the opposition can be. I would expect, wouldn't you, that these defenders of what they call science would at least pretend to be intellectual?
That's not a threat and it's a very weak, if nonsensical, analogy. How you've decided this specific student was threatened by this specific professor is way beyond a stretch. It is, in fact, halluncinatory.
Fact is you want this professor removed and prosecuted because he's not a creationist. You don't care about the far-reaching consequences. You've marginalized yourself.
There's no threat in refusing a favor.
If a) Dini is not being paid by government funds and, b) if Dini's job description does not include writing letters of recommendation and, c) if Texas Tech is not receiving any government funds, and d) if letters of recommendation are not required for medical school - then the student's case will not prevail in civil court.
If either a) or c) are true then the government has a substantial interest in protecting the student's rights under the Constitution. If any of these are true, the student has good cause.
Or is it:
"'Mutual admiration society' does not equal 'cult of brainwashing' equals 'evolution'"?
Are these mathematical formulas? How did you arrive at them? Since few seem to understand you, why do you persist in posting them?
No, it's not. But what you're proposing is that state-funded universities should be able to seal off debate on certain issues because of non-fact based assumptions. If Darwinism is not allowed to be challenged, then it isn't science; it's faith.
And you, as I remember, are a libertarian!
Oh brother! A principled Christian is now a crazed terrorist? Here we go again. Does the dentist ever notice the footprints in your mouth?
The fact that, often, reality is in conflict with certain religious beliefs is a problem for the student to resolve, not something to punt to the world around him.
This has nothing to do with the student's Constitutional rights. The kid has freedom of religion protected under amendments one and fourteen. Infringement of those freedoms is actionable in a court of law.
Does that mean that they believe in a God who is not a Creator?
Not at all. They just believe that God performed his creation in a manner consistent with observed data that indicates said creation proceeded iteratively over a long periood of time.
There is plenty of controversy surrounding Darwinism not just from 'Bible-thumpers', but from serious scientists. But apparently this doctrine cannot be challenged because of institutional pressure best exemplified by this situation.
How, specifically, is this student being prevented from "challenging" the theory of evolution?
In an instance of delicious irony, right after you remarked:
Apparently it doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself [that I am not advocating bringing criminal charges against bigots]. Certain evos won't acknowledge it.
catspaw posted this:
Fact is you want this professor removed and prosecuted because he's not a creationist.
Shaking my head now...
That may be, but the question before is whether that applies in this case. Does an affirmation of scientific theory infringe on religious freedom? Surely not!
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.