To: balrog666
[Professor Michael Dini's position] Sounds reasonable to me. Yes. If you were a math teacher, would you recommend someone for further math studies if he didn't truly believe that 2+2 = 4?
To: PatrickHenry; Doctor Stochastic
If you were a math teacher, would you recommend someone for further math studies if he didn't truly believe that 2+2 = 4? More to the point, if you were a Mathematics prof, would you want to put up with a Numerology lunatic jumping up to contest everything you put on the blackboard for your students?
If you were an Astronomy professor, would you want Astrologers jumping up to contest everything you present to the class?
If you taught medicine, should you have to tolerate a devotee of Chiropratic jumping up every five minutes to claim that disease is caused by spinal misalignments that cause undetectable energy flowing through the nervous system to be impeded?
If you taught Chemistry, would you want Alchemists jumping up and down during class to pollute your students' minds with their bizarre theories about transmutation of Elements?
To: PatrickHenry
Yes. If you were a math teacher, would you recommend someone for further math studies if he didn't truly believe that 2+2 = 4?More to the point, should one that equates Darwinian "evidence" with mathematical "proof" be believed?
185 posted on
10/06/2002 8:01:27 PM PDT by
AndrewC
To: PatrickHenry
Re: Post 50
[Professor Michael Dini's position] Sounds reasonable to me.
Yes. If you were a math teacher, would you recommend someone for further math studies if he didn't truly believe that 2+2 = 4?
Why is it important for a physician to 'believe' in Evolution? Its an unprovable hypothesis that has nothing to do with the quality of medical care that the prospective doctor can provide. If anything a stronger case can be made that someone who believes you are just another dumb animal, is not going to quite offer the same care as someone who sees you - warts and all - as being created in the image of the Holy God.
Sir Issac Newton believed in a young earth creation. As did Faraday, Hoyle, and others. I guess their accomplishments shrink when compared with those of evolutionist giants such as Carl Sagan, Huxley, Dewey, Hitler, and others.
We are blessed in this country to have the freedom to worship as we will, and you, and the other members of your faith based religon, are free to believe in the 'goo to you' dogma; but I (and others) don't...
as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Seek ye the Lord while He may be found. Call ye upon Him while He is near.
186 posted on
10/06/2002 8:06:36 PM PDT by
El Cid
To: PatrickHenry
Yes. If you were a math teacher, would you recommend someone for further math studies if he didn't truly believe that 2+2 = 4? Interesting point. How can evolution be called science when the idiots who call themselves scientists propose that you can add genetic information by destroying it (natural selection)? Evolution does not even pass the logic test that is why its proponents have to indulge in the thuggish tactics which Dini is engaging in and which the evolutionists on these threads engage in.
To: PatrickHenry
Yes. If you were a math teacher, would you recommend someone for further math studies if he didn't truly believe that 2+2 = 4?These kinds of arguments by evolutionists, like suggesting the degree of certainty in abstract reasoning and evolution are comparable does not indicate real confidence in evolution, but deep down a realization that it's BS. It's an attempt to dismiss creationism with a wave of the hand. The fact is there are all sorts of theories in the physical sciences which have been verified by controlled experiments, which evolution certainly has not, and if a student declared he didn't believe some of them it would not cause him to be considered unqualified to advance his studies. To say that someone is unqualified to study medicine because he doesn't believe a theory which has no application whatsover in medicine or anything else for that matter indicates a desire to stamp out or punish belief in creationism and hence make it go away. It's indicative of deep fear on the part of evos.
To: PatrickHenry
Yes. If you were a math teacher, would you recommend someone for further math studies if he didn't truly believe that 2+2 = 4? Well... I'm not sure how much real science a physician needs to know. So much medical training is rote memorization, and contrary to how it's portrayed on TV, anyone who tried to be really creative in modern medicine would be awash in malpractice suits. My brother the MD swears that most of his training involved discouraging him from too much independent thought.
I do write letters of recommendation for medical school. I'm generally not aware of students' views on evolution; the subject comes up only infrequently in my teaching. But if I were aware an otherwise talented student had creationist views, I think I'd be obliged to mention it in the letter, and let the admissions committee make up its own mind.
To: PatrickHenry
"The centerpiece of Gould’s essay is an analysis of the complete text of Pope John Paul’s statement of October 22, 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences endorsing evolution as "more than a hypothesis." He fails to quote the Pope’s crucial qualification that "theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." Of course, a theory based on materialism assumes by definition that there is no "spirit" active in this world that is independent of matter. Gould knows this perfectly well, and he also knows, just as Richard Lewontin does, that the evidence doesn’t support the claims for the creative power of natural selection made by writers such as Richard Dawkins. That is why the philosophy that really supports the theory has to be protected from critical scrutiny."
"Gould’s essay is a tissue of half-truths aimed at putting the religious people to sleep, or luring them into a "dialogue" on terms set by the materialists. Thus Gould graciously allows religion to participate in discussions of morality or the meaning of life, because science does not claim authority over such questions of value, and because "Religion is too important to too many people for any dismissal or denigration of the comfort still sought by many folks from theology." Gould insists, however, that all such discussion must cede to science the power to determine the facts, and one of the facts is an evolutionary process that is every bit as materialistic and purposeless for Gould as it is for Lewontin or Dawkins. If religion wants to accept a dialogue on those terms, that’s fine with Gould—but don’t let those religious people think they get to make an independent judgment about the evidence that supposedly supports the "facts." And if the religious people are gullible enough to accept materialism as one of the facts, they won’t be capable of causing much trouble."
"The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked. Propagandists like Gould try to give the impression that nothing has changed, but essays like Lewontin’s and books like Behe’s demonstrate that honest thinkers on both sides are near agreement on a redefinition of the conflict. Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. When the public understands this clearly, Lewontin’s Darwinism will start to move out of the science curriculum and into the department of intellectual history, where it can gather dust on the shelf next to Lewontin’s Marxism."
To: PatrickHenry
Even Nazi Germany was a reaction/version to/of it(evolution)!
To: PatrickHenry
Slander/LIBEL too...using a good name--person--FR for evil!
To: PatrickHenry
Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson