Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)

The Lubbock Avalanche Journal ^ | 10/6/02 | Sebastian Kitchen

[HiTech RedNeck]

As a Ph.D. in biology, I can say that Dini's statement doesn't even rise to the level of being moronic.

This would be a better term: "bigoted."

If the theory of evolution (though we must ask which one) were suddenly gone tomorrow without a trace, it would make no practical difference at all in most fields of biology.

[scripter]

I don't believe you answered my question regarding "the truth about man"!

So what I read here is that physical evolution isn't a problem for the Church; and man's spiritual nature is a whole separate issue, which theology claims for itself. Personally, I have no problem with this at all.

From the link you provided which is an English translation from French, in your opinion, is the Pope:

1. Endorsing evolution
2. Endorsing special creation
3. Not taking either side

I haven't said my motto in awhile: context is everything.

Whatever you do, please do not think I'm saying or endorsing anything in particular here.

[texson66]

BINGO!

[Condorman]

You are here.

[texson66]

Sorry your assertion is not true. A physician is actually a systems engineer: he must understanding the human system and its subsystems and how they work and interact, normally and under duress/stress. Most of the medical arts are based on long term observations and guesses as to cause and effect. Only in the last 70 years has science started to be applied.

How the human system "evolved" or "was created" has nothing to do with a preson's ability to act as a medical doctor.

Having said that, I would still want a Christian physician who believes in Jesus as his personal Savior to provide me treatmernt.

[ALS]

I can answer that. I'm assuming you are referring to the word "inequity". The word used in Exodus is Paqad, which can be conveyed as "observe". So the so called "contradiction", lies within the english translation and the mind of the reader. As usual...

[PatrickHenry]

... in your opinion, is the Pope:

1. Endorsing evolution
2. Endorsing special creation
3. Not taking either side

I haven't said my motto in awhile: context is everything.

I really made an effort to answer your earlier question, and I went way out of my way, even to including the guts of the Galileo matter, to put it all in context for you. I shall try once more to answer the question you just raised:

I think the Pope is accepting the theory of evolution regarding man's physical nature, and is asserting special creation for man's spiritual nature.

Whatever you do, please do not think I'm saying or endorsing anything in particular here.

Not a problem.

[whattajoke]

Boy you sure don't talk much brilliance. The bible has produced thousands of different denominations because not everyone views or interperts it the same, but you wanna sell the notion that there's just one view of creation?

You're incredible misinterpretation of Dimensio's sarcasm aside, you do display the christian egotism and ignorance we have come to love. ALS, did you ever stop think there are a few billion people on our planet that have non christian creation myths told to them?

[riggedtosail]

Quite the opposite. A growing body of evidence is beginning to prove a young earth from a scientific standpoint, which then leads to disprove the theory of evolution. Funny, I ran into a well thought of heart surgeon a few months back and he mentioned that there had to be a creator. Just the complexities of how the human heart works is enough justification for him. I guess he wouldn't make it to med school now.

[VadeRetro]

A growing body of evidence is beginning to prove a young earth from a scientific standpoint...

So easy to say. This growing body is published where? AnswersinGenesis? ICR?

[scripter]

I really made an effort to answer your earlier question, and I went way out of my way, even to including the guts of the Galileo matter, to put it all in context for you.

After reading your post again and trying to look at it from your perspective, I see that. Please ignore my earlier question.

I think the Pope is accepting the theory of evolution regarding man's physical nature, and is asserting special creation for man's spiritual nature.

It's my opinion, and I'm not Catholic so I could be way off base here, that the Pope isn't saying either way. When I first (i.e. months ago) read the link you provided I thought the Pope wasn't endorsing evolution. After reading a lot of different opinions on his words I think he's, as I just said, not saying either way.

Past experience with the NCSE has demonstrated an extreme bias on their part, so I tend to read very carefully everything they say. Having said that, I think the link you provided is a good translation. There are others that, IMO, don't hold up to scrutiny.

Some places I've been reading today are here, here and here.

With this I want to be careful - it is not my intent to offend. It is quite possible the Pope being who is is, is also being political. There, I said it. That's been on my mind all day.

[AndrewC]

They'd certainly suck as paleontologists.

Paleontologists suck as paleontologists.

Whale bones.

[PatrickHenry]

With this I want to be careful - it is not my intent to offend. It is quite possible the Pope being who is is, is also being political. There, I said it. That's been on my mind all day.

You're not offending me. I agree with what I think you're saying -- the Pope is trying to have it both ways. But I think he's done a very good job of it. One thing is clear -- he's not supporting a fundamentalist reading of Genesis, that is, he's not coming out and bashing evolution. The institution he heads ended up looking like fools over the Galileo incident, and they seem determined not to ever let that happen again. The Pope does not want the Church to end up in an intellectual backwater, while the world passes them by. This is entirely admirable.

[scripter]

I can answer that. I'm assuming you are referring to the word "inequity". The word used in Exodus is Paqad, which can be conveyed as "observe".

Actually that's not what I was referring to, but thanks for the info.

So the so called "contradiction", lies within the english translation and the mind of the reader. As usual...

That's not how I would have said it ;-), but yes.

[ALS]

Well what was the question then?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Been there. Done that. (Or at least seen that.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

One can be a fine clinician and believe that the moon is made of cheese.

But could an Apollo Astronaut believe the moon is made of cheese?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Absent evolutionary theory, difficulty in understanding comparative anatomy obtains. Antibiotic resistant bacteria similarly.

[general_re]

[scripter]

Well what was the question then?

I was wondering if by pinging you in that post it would cause some confusion. I pinged you because you had responded to Dimensio.

The question *to Dimensio* was: "Without implying any condescension in my question... have you tried to search this out yourself?"

Sorry for the confusion