Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor Refuses Letters of Recommendation to Creationist Students
AP Breaking News ^

Posted on 01/30/2003 7:15:04 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-evolution-dispute0130jan30,0,713004.story

Professor's Letter Refusal Causes Probe By LISA FALKENBERG Associated Press Writer

January 30, 2003, 9:50 AM EST

DALLAS -- A biology professor who refuses to write letters of recommendation for his students if they don't believe in evolution is being accused of religious discrimination, and federal officials are investigating, the school said.

The legal complaint was filed against Texas Tech University and professor Michael Dini by a student and the Liberty Legal Institute, a religious freedom group that calls Dini's policy "open religious bigotry."

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: creationzealots; crevolist; flatearthsociety; highereducation; michaeldobbs; zzzzzzzzzz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 921-939 next last
To: Con X-Poser
If you are an evolutionist, you are un-American.

LMAO! Ponder this quote. "Anyone who can't use a slide rule is a cultural illiterate and should not be allowed to vote." Robert Heinlein. This also reminds me of the New York Times newspaper ridiculing Robert Goddard in 1920.

So what "science" do you find acceptable since 1776?

781 posted on 02/16/2003 8:36:57 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: Con X-Poser; VadeRetro
Now that is one great post. I care deeply about this subject and I care deeply about the fact that you are posting such great truths. I care a lot that you are taking your time to help these poor people see the truth.

I care. :-)
782 posted on 02/16/2003 8:39:50 PM PST by Jael (Thy Word is Truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: Con X-Poser; whattajoke
Great post, great points. What's the problem that these people can't see these obvious truths?
783 posted on 02/16/2003 8:41:25 PM PST by Jael (Thy Word is Truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: Con X-Poser; VadeRetro
My son was born at 29 weeks. Wish I knew how to post a picture to show how perfect he was!! No evolution going on there!!

And why did Heckel fake those drawings and was do school textbooks still use them?
784 posted on 02/16/2003 8:50:41 PM PST by Jael (Thy Word is Truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Con X-Poser
Why can't you refute his evidence instead of just stooping to personal insults?
785 posted on 02/16/2003 8:59:15 PM PST by Jael (Thy Word is Truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 767 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; Con X-Poser
This is a subject I really care about. But it seems all you care about is tossing out insults. If you disagree, then why don't you refute something?
786 posted on 02/16/2003 9:01:38 PM PST by Jael (Thy Word is Truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Thank you so much for the article!

It was very interesting. It takes a “looking back” position to explain why aging evolved. And it offered a few specific theories and predictions. From the article:

Why are we born, only to suffer and die? Because those who suffered and died in the past outreproduced those who didn't

If selection and adaptation were perfect, it would give us organisms that begin reproducing right way, keep doing it continuously, producing an infinite number of offspring, and living forever. But this isn't possible; there are both physical constraints- can't reproduce infinite amount. But even before you hit obvious physical constraints, there are biological trade-offs, e.g. if produce too many offspring, increase chances of dying

Do you have a link to a “forward looking” explanation? - that is, an explanation of why a mutation which caused aging would have been selected from the earliest.

The above article left it as a survival thing, that if predation is such that all are killed in x amount of time, then an aging gene would be coincidentally selected. But that doesn't help to explain how such a phenomenon could arise across all species with different ages and effects.

787 posted on 02/16/2003 9:15:39 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: Con X-Poser; RadioAstronomer; VadeRetro
If you are an evolutionist, you are un-American.

You are kidding...right? The Founding Fathers were concerned about establishing a nation where everyone was free to worship (or not) as they saw fit. Many of the Colonials had suffered religious persecution in the Old World, and I cannot believe they intended to create a new nation that was fundamentally repressive.

I suppose next you'll be telling us that in order to be "saved", a person must be a Creationist. If so, I challenge you to direct us to the appropriate book, chapter and verse in the Bible.

788 posted on 02/16/2003 9:39:07 PM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: Con X-Poser; RadioAstronomer; VadeRetro
A quote from a Founding Father youu may find interesting:

"Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered." (James Madison, in Memorial and Remonstrance)

Thus, the obligation falls upon Believers to guarantee the rights of those who do not believe in a God or gods.

789 posted on 02/16/2003 9:55:42 PM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Check out post #756 They laid out their reasoning clearly in that post.

I suppose next you'll be telling us that in order to be "saved", a person must be a Creationist. If so, I challenge you to direct us to the appropriate book, chapter and verse in the Bible.

The Founding Fathers were more concerned with an Old World Church twisting the teachings of Christ and making bogus power grabs with divine authority.

This passage explains how the Father watches over every sparrow as well as knows us intimately. (Exhibiting more than just a Creator but also a concerned Creator actively participating). Then Jesus lays out clearly what "saved" means.

Matt 10:28-35

28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. 32“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

790 posted on 02/16/2003 10:45:48 PM PST by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Also God has given us free will. He could in His power force all of us to follow Him. He chooses not to make us robots. So like God's non-compulsion of us we should expose people to His goodness, but force nobody to acknowledge Him.

Loving God by choice is what pleases Him.
791 posted on 02/16/2003 10:50:56 PM PST by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: Jael
Why can't you refute his evidence instead of just stooping to personal insults?

His posts are intellectually insulting, resulting in insulting.

Also, there is that pisser of a sticking point: He has posted no evidence yet. In fact, no creationist has ever posted one iota of evidence. Posting past mistakes which have since been corrected from the field of biology is hardly evidence for a creator. It is merely evidence for the scientific process.

Furthermore, the day creationists stop being picayune literary critics, and try some science once in their lives, this whole so-called "debate" will finally go away.
792 posted on 02/17/2003 5:37:59 AM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: Con X-Poser
Your right to own a Colt (I like Browning), can be legitimately taken away tomorrow if whoever gave you that right changes his/her/its mind. I got my right (and responsibility) to protect my family from the Creator. It's unalienable.

You'll be in a superior position when your God peeks out from behind the clouds and says "Hey, governments and other thugs of the world! Leave the people that go to MY church alone!"

My rights are as good as my willingness and ability to guard them. I can be overpowered, robbed, imprisoned, or killed. People have died for their rights before. Your position would seem to be about the same.

793 posted on 02/17/2003 6:39:09 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Do you have a link to a “forward looking” explanation? - that is, an explanation of why a mutation which caused aging would have been selected from the earliest.

The above article left it as a survival thing, that if predation is such that all are killed in x amount of time, then an aging gene would be coincidentally selected. But that doesn't help to explain how such a phenomenon could arise across all species with different ages and effects.

Some senescence mutations would be almost as old as life itself and thus very ancient and very general. The kind of factors they talk about in that link start operating as soon as mutation and natural selection do.

It is basically enough that you can get away without living forever if you reproduce a lot. Recall that the optimum strategy--other things being equal, but especially if your personal odds are not good--is to reproduce as much as possible as early as possible and get "compound interest." Be prolific, die young; you still win.

Living absolutely forever wouldn't really hurt, but it's irrelevant. It's never been selected. Living somewhat longer can be selected (recall the birds and turtles) where predation is luxuriously light, but enough reproduction eventually happens to take the pressure of natural selection to ineffective low levels for older individuals.

So there are a lot of things--not just a few--in your genome that tend to make you come unraveled over time. You might think it's important, but in fact it has never mattered. Evolution, as Dawkins likes to point out, is about genes, not individuals.

794 posted on 02/17/2003 7:08:36 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You'll be in a superior position when your God peeks out from behind the clouds and says "Hey, governments and other thugs of the world! Leave the people that go to MY church alone!"

Er, care to discuss the remarkable history of Jews and Christians and the nations which harbored them?

795 posted on 02/17/2003 7:12:23 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Lions 10 -- Christians 0.
SS camps 6,000,000 -- Jews 0.

(Oh, Lord! Why have you forsaken me?)

796 posted on 02/17/2003 7:16:29 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Thank you so much for your post and for sharing your views!

You might think it's important, but in fact it has never mattered. Evolution, as Dawkins likes to point out, is about genes, not individuals.

I'm not the only one who finds the subject interesting. There are several organizations and corporations working on it. Strangely, one of the major ones originated in Russia.

It seems to me that the theory of evolution would require, from inception, genetic coding which did not provide for self-destruction over time. That suggests two things which should be there to support the theory of evolution:

1) something made self-destruction an advantage in the environment, and

2) there should be evidence in fossil record of when it emerged for certain species (e.g. arthritic conditions of the bone.)


797 posted on 02/17/2003 7:25:52 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
It seems to me that the theory of evolution would require, from inception, genetic coding which did not provide for self-destruction over time.

Relentless strawmanning. You're the only major evolutionary theorist who thinks so.

798 posted on 02/17/2003 7:28:24 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I’m curious now what your position is as to how aging and death evolved by natural selection and what we should expect to see in the fossil record to substantiate it.

Evolutionary models of aging are supported by population studies and by molecular biology.

There is obviously a selection bias toward the reproductive years in a lifespan. Mortality is also a tradeoff against cancer. The programmed cell death you allude to is part of a tightly controlled network of genes that guard against damage to cells that would lead to uncontrolled growth. These are two effects fall under the antagonistic pleiotropic models. And they make perfect sense. But there is greater support for the model that aging is a result of mutational and cellular damage. It's a surprise that we live as long as we do and the pleiotropic effects that may contribute to cellular and organismal senescence don't control lifespan as much as the simple inability of stress and mutational repair mechanisms to extend lifespan.

799 posted on 02/17/2003 7:29:08 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Jael
My son was born at 29 weeks. Wish I knew how to post a picture to show how perfect he was!! No evolution going on there!!

So he still looks the same now?

And why did Heckel fake those drawings ... ?

My guess, Haeckel was so in love with his proposed "law" as to suffer creationist levels of reality-fudging.

... My son was born at 29 weeks. Wish I knew how to post a picture to show how perfect he was!! No evolution going on there!! [Why] do school textbooks still use them?

Are these the same school textbooks that are "still using Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man?"

800 posted on 02/17/2003 7:39:09 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 921-939 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson