Posted on 01/30/2003 9:33:28 AM PST by matthew_the_brain
Letters of Recommendation
Before you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences, there are several criteria that must be met. The request for a letter is best made by making an appointment to discuss the matter with me after considering these three criteria:
Criterion 1
You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me.
Criterion 2
I should know you fairly well. Merely earning an "A" in a lower-division class that enrolls 500 students does not guarantee that I know you. In such a situation, all I would be able to provide is a very generic letter that would not be of much help in getting you into the school of your choice. You should allow me to become better acquainted with you. This can be done in several ways:
1) by meeting with me regularly during my office hours to discuss biological questions. 2) by enrolling in an Honors’ section taught by me. 3) by enrolling in my section of BIOL 4301 and serving as an undergraduate TA (enrollment is by invitation only). 4) by serving as the chairman or secretary of the Biology Advisory Committee.
Criterion 3
If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "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.
Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?
If you still want to make an appointment, you can do so in person during office hours (M-Th, 3:30-4:00), or by phoning my office at 742-2729, or by e-mailing me at michael.dini@ttacs.ttu.edu
Citations
Ewald, P.W. 1993. Evolution of infectious disease. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 298.
Ewald, P.W. 1993. The evolution of virulence. Scientific American 268:86-98.
Morgan, E. 1990. The scars of evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 196.
Myers, J.H. and L.E. Rothman. 1995. Virulence and transmission of infectious diseases in humans and insects: evolutionary and demographic patterns. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(5):194-198.
Nesse, R.M. and G.C. Williams. 1994. Why we get sick. Times Books, New York, pp. 291.
_____1997. Evolutionary biology in the medical curriculum -- what every physician should know. BioScience 47(10):664-666.
Rose, Michael. 1998. Darwin's Spectre. Princeton University Press, Princteon, NJ. pp. 233.
Seachrist, L. 1996. Only the strong survive: the evolution of a tumor favors the meanest, most aggressive cells. Science News 49:216-217.
Stearns, S.C. (ed.) 1999. Evolution in Health and Disease. Oxford University Press. pp. 328.
Trevathan, W.R., Smith, E.O. and J.J. McKenna (eds.). 1999. Evolutionary Medicine. Oxford University Press. pp. 480.
Williams, G.C. and R.M. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66:1-22.
You're absolutely right, there is a close correlation between life and religion!
Which interpretation of which religion shall we have people understand and believe in, as a criterion for getting into medical school?
Or shall we be more general and fair about it, and use any sort of religious belief as a criterion for medical school, including religions where, for instance, Creation is addressed differently (or not at all), or where people believe in prayer as the only acceptable means of healing?
DFS
Don't worry about it, i figured you'd catch up to that on your own, but i couldn't resist the line, (mea maxima culpa!).
And more seriously, it also shows us how crazy things get when we change the speed of light by a factor of a million.
It is difficult to conceptualise.
Let's look into that. In order to have the same energy, the radiation currently emitted from stars, in the form of visible light, would need a wavelength a million times longer, in order to make up for the increase in the speed of light.
This means that stars would cease to emit visible light, and instead would emit mostly radio waves!
Let me state the conditions that i was alluding to:
First, a speed of light that is graphed on a time ("x"-axis), speed ("y"-axis) scale.In that i have not cracked open a text book on Ordinary and Partial differential equations in well over 10 years, i am not as able to describe this senerio as adequately as i should, my apologies. None the less, small decreases in the speed of light, measured by the same techniques (so as to eliminate or reduce measurement error) have been observed. i stress again, a linear rate of change is not postulated.
Second, the resulting function is asympotic from "infinite" speed to "infinite" time.
Third, we are currently on the "flat" end of the time (x-axis) asympote, where the dirivative of the function (rate of change) is getting smaller.
Concerning your citation of scripture, the time vs. speed function would undoubtably fit within the senerio if you graph the function.
Unless, that is, you also want to make an argument for arbitrarily changing the nuclear binding energy of all of the atoms in the universe.
Doesn't the "big bang" theory do just this and more as expired time from the "event" approaches zero?
We can go round and round like this, but it really isn't necessary. Consider:
God must be pretty darn smart, right? Divinely smart, even. So He knew about all of this stuff we're talking about, and more, from day one - He understood the mechanisms behind all the processes in the universe, having created them.
i believe the word you are alluding to is "omniscient"...It is also helpful if one is able to ordain the process from all eternity.
But He also knew that, if He went and tried to explain astrophysics to everybody a couple thousand years ago, that it would simply confuse people and obscure His central message. It's like giving a good talk - You want to keep things simple, to the point, and at an appropriate level for your audience. So He uses metaphor to explain what happened. What's the problem?
Since God is, by definition, perfect, He must therefore be the perfect scientist, and be perfectly able to apply the scientific method in all cases. If Dr. Dini wants us to do the same, then, why is this then so problematic?
It is hardly neccessary to explain astrophysics to anyone! It does not follow that one must use metaphor in order to explain phenomena. After all, we were able to adequately (for our purposes) explain the motion of the heavenlies long before relativity were we not? Did we then have to rely on metaphor? No, we simply acknowleged inconsistencies until such a time as they could be explained.
Here is the problem:
First, as you have said, God is perfect.
Second, it does not follow that He is the perfect scientist, or a scientist at all!
(a)Being by definition omniscient, He has no need to seek knowlege.
(b)He is under no obligation to explain His actions in creation to that creation.
(c)Finitus Non Caprux Infinitum, exhaustively explaining processes of creation by an Infinite Being to a finite creation is a fool's errand!
Third, if the "metaphor" that God uses is contradicted by "scientific inquiry", it then makes the entirety of God's special revelation to us unreliable, therby calling into question the character of God, therby presenting a contradiction with the defined attributes of deity, therby disproving God's existence.
Finally, you are making a comparrison in motivation and attribute between God and Dr. Dini that i am certain that Dr. Dini would not make, namely the idea of application of the scientific method in all cases.
i rather hope that you can see that there are difficulties between science and biblical revelation. If pushed to Reducto Ad Absurdum we end up questioning epistomology, and have no basis for any knowlege. i do agree that those tensions must be recconcilled, and that cannot happen by mutually exclusive claims, no matter how "reasonable" they may seem.
Blind faith in any scientific theory is automatically misguided, this is true. But isn't really what Dr. Dini is asking for, I don't think. He is asking for our current best theory, scientifically speaking - No more, no less.
Now, if you please, let's get back to the questions I asked:
Which interpretation of which religion shall we have people understand and believe in, as a criterion for getting into medical school?
Or shall we be more general and fair about it, and use any sort of religious belief as a criterion for medical school, including religions where, for instance, Creation is addressed differently (or not at all), or where people believe in prayer as the only acceptable means of healing?
Looking forward to hearing from you; thanks for reading,
DFS
The Scripture has been edited and revised over the course of a couple thousand years, meaning we are implicitly putting faith in a bunch of fallible human beings when we read it in its current form.
In addition, we cannot argue effectively that metaphor has no place in the Bible, and that everything must be taken literally, because we know that some of the descriptions in the Bible, is taken literally, are demonstrably untrue, physically. If there's a way around this, I'd like to hear it. In addition, I believe there's room in Christianity for faith in more than just a literal reading of the Scripture.
Granted, if the Scripture was metaphorical, indeed both might be true.
Excellent :) We're getting somewhere - I agree that a metaphorical interpretation allows for us to reconcile evolution and Creation.
Nevertheless, as one is seeking truth, care needs to be taken where that faith is placed.
Absolutely.
2) The example of speed of light and discussion regarding 10000 light years or more as evidence of history extending beyond literal Scriptural accounts. A counterexample looming in my background is associated with arguments postulating wormholes.
...so we're to believe in a theory postulating wormholes, with no physical evidence, while we disbelieve in other theories that, while imperfect, have at least some physical evidence to support them? This seems logically inconsistent.
Additional variables might seem to complicate issues, but it might also be the case that those other variables might be the 'missing pieces' to the Creation/Evolution puzzle.
Anything is possible :) But again, since this is a debate revolving around science, let's concentrate on what we can support via the scientific method - Otherwise we will just be speculating ("hand-waving", as they always say), which can be fun and interesting, for sure, but not too productive or rigorous, in the end - We need more than unsupported postulates here.
I have no problem associating evolution timelines with simply un-normalized sequential timelines,
Excellent! So, in short, we can agree that the timeline given for Creation may not be with respect to the same kind of "time" we're used to, therefore allowing us to reconcile the age of the universe, as we observe it using our current scientific methods (this is a much more basic issue even than evolution, I should add) with the age of the universe as implied by a literal reading of the biblical description of Creation. Sounds good to me!
but I've found those who insist upon evolution to also fall into a trap of assuming such timelines are invariant.
I will absolutely grant you that it is certainly possible that the nature of time has changed, over the course of what we believe to be the age of the universe. But again, we are dealing with a postulate with no physical evidence that I have seen so far. There's a big difference between that's possible and the best theory to explain what we observe regarding the nature of the universe. In addition, it pays to remember Occum's Razor - Paraphrasing, the simplest explanation to fit the facts is the best one. We need not invoke complications like changes in the speed of light or the nuclear binding energy, neither of which have ever been witnessed, in order to explain how the universe is really only 10,000 years old, when all we need do is recognize that the Bible was never meant to be read 100% literally, cover to cover.
As for your third point, I won't quote it, for the purposes of making this a reasonable length. There are two things to consider, however:
When the scientific method allows us to accept something that is not physically accurate, this is not a failure of the method; it is due to incomplete evidence, or improper application by the author of the theory (which is what our description implies). I don't deny that this happens, but no one ever said scientists were perfect. What alternative method would you have us use, in the study of science?
You say that you find a number of areas where "science isn't nearly as truthful as the Scripture". Let's be fair, that's your interpretation on the Scripture, and not all Christians are uniform in this interpretation; this statement blurs the line between interpretation (even if it is completely literal, as others are possible) and fact. Remember, this is the same Scripture that we talked about before, edited by numerous imperfect human beings, and including descriptions that are known to be physically inaccurate, if they are taken (too) literally.
We can put an end to all arguments regarding mathematics and exponentials and how accurate or inaccurate things may or may not being depending on what the scientists in question might or might not do by answering a simple question. Since your postulate is that the age of the universe that science currently gives us as its best guess is wrong...
In your scientific opinion, by how much is our estimate of the age of the universe "off"?
Whatever your answer is, if it's well supported and the simplest way of explaining our observations of the physical world you'll have my agreement. But you're going to have to stick your neck out eventually :) We can't just keep postulating about possible problems with things - There are always possible problems with theories, but that doesn't necessarily mean we completely throw out the results - We need a better theory to replace the first one with, before we do that.
I suspect even most Christians probably don't give much thought to those miracles. Many rigorous Christians are still quite scarred in carnal, fleshly, and natural worlds to simply attribute blind faith that these events occurred. Too many might resort to the metaphor world in order to retain conviction to other mammon, by placing other gods before Him,
I do not see how believing in a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, in some cases, either A.) detracts from the message of Christianity or B.) constitutes a lesser degree of faith (for the reasons I've already explained, that the Bible was written and edited over thousands of years by fallible human beings, who have our implicit faith nevertheless). If you can explain this to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
...in these cases perhaps scientific materialism.
Accepting a scientific theory does not imply a belief in scientific materialism, nor does an acceptance of the value of science imply an acceptance of materialism. Likewise, an acceptance of the value of the Christian faith does not imply a rejection of science, or vice-versa.
My main point of contention to the arguments posed is that it is unneccessary to alter one's faith in Him in order to understand pertinent things in the natural or fleshly world,..including science.
You are absolutely right, and here we agree 100%! You can pursue and accept a scientific understanding of the laws of the universe without altering your faith in God! I'm glad we're on the same page here - That's what I've been saying all along. In other words, we can reconcile science and religion, without harming the core principles of either.
Thanks for reading,
DFS
You will, of course, post citations from mainstream, refereed publications, that cast doubt on the mainstream tree of life interpretation, or the mainstream estimate of the age of the earth.
:) No problem.
Let me state the conditions that i was alluding to: Second, the resulting function is asympotic from "infinite" speed to "infinite" time. Third, we are currently on the "flat" end of the time (x-axis) asympote, where the dirivative of the function (rate of change) is getting smaller. First, a speed of light that is graphed on a time ("x"-axis), speed ("y"-axis) scale.
Got it - I see what you mean. Interesting idea, certainly...
...small decreases in the speed of light, measured by the same techniques (so as to eliminate or reduce measurement error) have been observed.
I was not aware of that. Can I have the reference? :)
i stress again, a linear rate of change is not postulated.
If I go back to your initial point, which is valid, we only know the value of the speed of light (with any degree of accuracy) over a very, very short period of time. Therefore, even if this measurement was performed accurately and what are presumably very small changes are actually occurring, and not due to measurement error, that still doesn't tell us anything about times outside the measurement period. Therefore, we cannot make the leap to saying that it proves the asymptotic nature of the speed of light vs. time that you refer to - That would be an unsupported postulate, and one of many possible explanations for these observations.
Again, it's an interesting idea, and I do not deny the possibility, but I need more information before I can reach any conclusions.
It is hardly neccessary to explain astrophysics to anyone! It does not follow that one must use metaphor in order to explain phenomena.
If God wanted to explain the origins of the universe to people living thousands of years before us, and if those origins were consistent with our current scientific theories, he still would not do so using the language of 20th century scientific inquiry, or he would confuse the hell out of everyone. He would make basically the same description, then, whether or not what science currently tells us is truly the case. This means that we cannot conclude which of these two situations took place, from the description in the Bible, because in the end the description would not change. See what I mean? In short, we cannot assume that the Bible was meant to be taken literally. In certain specific instances, we must explicitly take a non-literal intrepretation, or risk denying what we observe (i.e. the earth is round, it goes around the sun, for instance). This shows that we cannot take a 100% literal view of the entire Bible. Is there a way around this logic that I am not seeing?
After all, we were able to adequately (for our purposes) explain the motion of the heavenlies long before relativity were we not?
Depends on what you mean by "adequately", "long before", and "for our purposes" :) In general, though, if you mean pre-Galileo, then the answer seems to be "no".
Did we then have to rely on metaphor? No, we simply acknowleged inconsistencies until such a time as they could be explained.
Sure, we must keep working on our best explanation 'til a better one comes along, explaining more than the old one. We're now in the process of acknowledging inconsistencies - In this case, between a literal reading of Biblical Creation and what is accepted based on scientific inquiry combined with physical evidence. I am attempting to explain these inconsistencies by postulating that the Bible was not meant to be taken completely literally, and I am offering evidence of this (cases where it cannot be taken litearlly and still have relevance to physical observables). While I don't expect that everyone will agree with me, I hope the logic I use, at least, is clear.
Here is the problem:
First, as you have said, God is perfect.
Second, it does not follow that He is the perfect scientist, or a scientist at all!
(a)Being by definition omniscient, He has no need to seek knowlege.
True. He should, however, be able to apply the scientific method, if He so chooses, better than any scientist ever could. This is what I mean when I describe him as being the perfect scientist. This does not mean he is actively practicing science - But if He felt the need to illustrate his ability to reason objectively based on evidence, I'm sure He could do so :)
...right, so expecting that he has done so for us, and in a very literalist sense, too, would be foolish.
(c)Finitus Non Caprux Infinitum, exhaustively explaining processes of creation by an Infinite Being to a finite creation is a fool's errand!
Absolutely! Which is an excellent argument against the supposition that He has done so, in the Bible or anywhere else. Therefore, we are relegated to relying on what we can divine from the descriptions in the Bible - Which, by your logic, will not be at all clear or precise, as we cannot know the mind of God, nor expect him to explain everything. Therefore we must combine this with what we can learn about the natural world, based on the scientific method (as it is the best way we've found so far to figure things out) and using our God-given talents in doing so.
Third, if the "metaphor" that God uses is contradicted by "scientific inquiry", it then makes the entirety of God's special revelation to us unreliable, therby calling into question the character of God, therby presenting a contradiction with the defined attributes of deity, therby disproving God's existence.
I'm certainly not questioning God's existence, and anyway that can't be disproven. Since, as you say, God has never explained to us the full details of his Creation, and we have only accounts written and edited by men to understand it by, if we find that our interpretation of those accounts does not jibe with scientific inquiry, that hardly means that we need doubt God's special revelation to us - That is not what's unreliable. It's the people who wrote down and edited what we read, and our own interpretations, that must clearly be at fault, since we agree that God is perfect, and we are not. The metaphors we refer to are man-made.
Finally, you are making a comparrison in motivation and attribute between God and Dr. Dini that i am certain that Dr. Dini would not make, namely the idea of application of the scientific method in all cases.
As I have been told before: "With all due respect, there is no way you could possibly know that."
i rather hope that you can see that there are difficulties between science and biblical revelation.
All is not simple in life, no, but we should strive to find solutions to such difficulties, not deny their existence by being inflexible with respect to alternate interpretations, no matter what we believe or our level of scientific training and knowledge.
I am willing to entertain the idea that the speed of light has changed, and I will accept it if it is properly supported.
I must therefore count on you to entertain the idea of biblical metaphor, and at least address my argument, especially with respect to known discrepancies between literaly-interpreted descriptions in the Bible and what we have observed of the world.
I'm not asking anyone here to agree with me - By all means, make up your own minds - But if I am wrong, show me how I am wrong, so that we both may learn something.
If pushed to Reducto Ad Absurdum we end up questioning epistomology, and have no basis for any knowlege. i do agree that those tensions must be recconcilled, and that cannot happen by mutually exclusive claims, no matter how "reasonable" they may seem.
My argument has two major tenets:
I'm offering such a description - I don't claim it's the only one, but if you agree with the tenets of this argument, and I think you do, I think we have some common ground here, and I certainly welcome alternatives.
Thanks for reading,
DFS
Dataman, I'm glad to hear that you agree with my sentiments!
Likewise, I agree that there are both religious and scientific objections to aspects of the theory of evolution.
However, I think it would be a mistake to jump to the conclusion that the theory is therefore "imploding". While imperfect, it is still the best explanation science has to offer, as far as I can see. What are our scientific alternatives?
Again, in order to completely discredit a theory (i.e. throw it out and start from scratch), it is not enough to simply find its flaws. We can do that with Newton's "Laws" of Motion, though I think we can admit that the theory is quite valid under most circumstances. A theory's flaws, therefore, need not detract from its usefulness. In order to completely scrap a theory, we should have a better idea, an alternative theory, as well as supporting evidence.
In addition, I would hold that the majority of biologists accept the theory of evolution - Some with more reservations than others, yes, but it is not nearly this controversial in the community of people most effectively trained to understand it, and we cannot dismiss that either.
If, however, you can show us that there is indeed a significant challenge to the theory of evolution among the people most qualified to understand it, I will happily accept the idea, given a workable alternate theory and the appropriate level of evidence. But, as js1138 implies, here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/832645/posts?page=308#308
...we need to see the basis on which you make this claim, in order to believe it. Otherwise, as Dark Knight has rightly pointed out (see here), science should remain skeptical.
DFS
"Why would anyone want an recommendation from a reluctant source?"
He also suggests that, as a compromise, maybe the student could be allowed to write his own recommendation, after which the DoJ could force Dr. Dini to sign it :)
Thoughts? Anyone? Good solution or government interference?
Which brings up another, much more practical question, all intellectual issues aside:
What, if anything, should be done in this situation?
Because...
...while I can understand people not agreeing with Dr. Dini's attitudes, I don't see any justification for punishment, and certainly no justification for any sort of government action or investigation. Remember, your tax dollars are being spent on this! Are you really OK with that?
Let's back up those arguments :) Thanks for reading,
DFS
Not only have you failed to explain, you have failed to justify your statements and in this particular case exhibit a predetermined desire to promote false statements. Your statements speak volumes to your lack of faith, lack of knowledge and desire to decieve.
I've never met man nor angel who possesses full knowledge and education is merely a popular grouping of information to elevate a social norm in knowledge. There are many who accuse me have being too 'educated' and indeed I've been fortunate, although not wealthy, to have competed, studied and and conferred by some, if not the best in several generations. As for science, I've found the historical studies in philosophy, mathematics, and science to provide the best understanding of current technological methods, their assumptions, premises, and limitations when applied to different domains. As for evolution, I've found much more fruitful studies in statistics and applied mathematics than preoccupation with the pseudo-intellectual topic of evolution. Over the past 80 years of theoretical physics, there have been numerous occasions in which long elaborate quantun echanical and analytic arguments based upon exponentials and exponentials of exponentials have later been discovered to have been slightly/grossly/simply premature/inaccurate/wrong. The more I look into the arguments of 'evolution' the more I find significance of human arrogance in the academic community than I find significant intellectual advancement of science. Such are my observations on the topic. Whose observations do you seek response other than (how has it been described by others here?) your personal interpretations?
The "good" doctor is demanding belief in a religion - one that proports to be science. Serious scientific minds disagree with his assessment of "the faith", but he demands adherence nonetheless.
I took a look back at his third criterion to refresh my memory - It's here:
If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "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.
Now, I'm going to ignore the rest of the text he has on why he asks it, because it doesn't matter why - What we are talking about right now is what he is asking.
He asks the student to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question."
I don't see anything in that question, as stated, stating that he requires the students to "have faith" or "believe in" evolution. I see him asking for a scientific answer to the origins of man. What scientific answer shall we give him? What are our choices?
In short, because of the phrasing of the question, religion doesn't enter into it, in any form. Science is not about faith or belief, it's about the best theory to fit the observations, and that's what he asks for.
I think my criteria is a better measure...and to answer your question, the applicant would need to show how his religious belief values human life and would act as his philosophical foundation in serving life and the preservation and respecting thereof.
OK, so that's your criterion, explicitly stated - I'll go with that. Would it be sufficient to show that the applicant's belief system, religious or not, values life?
Why would you think that someone who believed only in prayer to heal would seek to be a medical doctor?
This has nothing to do with what I think. Previously, you said this:
I would hesitate to recommend someone for medical school that didn't have an understanding and belief in religion.
This implies that you believe that an understanding and belief "in religion" would make someone a better candidate for medical school, in general.
I simply took this belief of yours to its logical conclusion. Since you haven't yet limited "religion" to mean a particular religion, there was no way I could logically conclude that you would automatically exclude Christian Scientists from your rules, for instance. My point was to show that we cannot make such a blanket statement, across religions, and claim to have the "better criterion". That, in turn, implies that we must apply your logic only to certain religions, which would then be discrimination based on religion - Also problematic.
That question is either facetious or simply argumentative...and therefore not demanding of a response.
As you can see, it was neither - I am simply showing the possible consequences of your own reasoning.
I'm sorry that you felt offended by this, however! This was never my intention, and I do apologize for making you feel that way.
With that said, it may interest you to know that Harvard Medical School is associated with an entire institute devoted to examining the relationship between spirituality and healing (see here). It seems to me, therefore, that perhaps there are cases where a Christian Scientist would want to go to medical school, though perhaps not to become a medical doctor. Since your criterion relates to admissions to medical school, however, regardless of career goals, this seems relevant.
At any rate, don't worry too much about this, there's no need for us to get totally sidetracked. I'd definitely like to hear your thoughts on the questions I ask above.
Thanks for reading,
DFS
I'm a bad person :(
[sniff]
But seriously, all unwarranted personal attacks aside, I'm sorry you're unhappy with my explanations, to date - I'll try to do better, if you specify exactly which statements are not supported to the degree you would like to see. It's true that we're all fallable, myself included. We might even go so far as to take a person we don't know anything about and judge them, misinterpret their intentions, label them as ignorant, or imply malice where there is none. Usually, the problem is simply a miscommunication; people don't always see things the same way. That doesn't make for bad people, though, and doing such things never helps us to find common ground in a debate, thus I'm loathe to do so. Of course, we all fail at that sometimes. This is a regrettable situation indeed, but then, nobody's perfect...
Now, riddle me this:
Who wrote and edited the Bible?
DFS
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/createvol.html
Also, these links provide good background information, regarding the variety of points of view on evolution and Creation:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world1.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world2.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world3.htm
Finally, this one addresses all points of view on Biblical inerrancy:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm
I don't agree with everything that is said in all of these pages, and you won't either :) But it's definitely an interesting read, because it shows that there exist a great variety of views on the subject - It's not simply "us vs. them".
DFS
I was not aware of that. Can I have the reference? :)
As noted, the first link is creationist (as are you if i have read your posts correctly) but note that the postulation is heavily debated even within that community.
On the hermes link, you will simply have to right click, select "properties" and follow the link as written, as i was not able to find a direct path. At any rate, it is a repetition of another link (assumed due to the fact that the link took me to Adelaide University in Austrailia.
i will be formulating a response to the rest of your post, but may not get it finished this evening...excuse me, morning
regards,
CDL
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.