...but here is the difference:
If it is religion, the belief is unshakeable, and we need no evidence - That's why it's called faith.
If it is science, you only accept a theory as being the best possible scientific explanation, so long as you have physical evidence. When presented with a better theory and sufficient evidence, you accept that one instead, even if it contradicts the previous one.
We cannot argue that faith, of the religious sort, and acceptance of a scientific theory, based on evidence, are the same thing.
Since there is no scientific answer to the question, the professor sets an impossible standard
Based on your assumption, this is absolutely correct. However, that's one heck of an assumption :) Can you show me that there is no scientific explanation for the origin of man, despite evidence to the contrary? If you can, we'll be in agreement.
- forcing a student to accept his religion of evolution in order to receive his recommendation.
Again, it's not a religion - We must make a distinction between belief in a religious sense and in a scientific sense, because they are not the same. This is why I generally choose to say that I "accept" a theory, because "believe" is too loaded a word for some, and I want to be clear about my meaning.
Akin to a professor of theology demanding that students affirm the truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to be recommended for a doctorate. Acceptable in a Catholic school, certainly. Especially one intended to produce Catholic scholars. But not acceptable from, say the Princeton School of Divinity.
So that sort of belief-based standard is acceptable, so long as it's properly related to the training? I guess we don't need to argue after all :)
A reasonable presumption, when a person is persuing a degree in medicine, is their belief in the efficacy of medical science - hence my dismissal of your "faith healing" doctor premise.
...but if a Christian Scientist wants to go to medical school to study the relationship between prayer and healing, should we deny him / her that chance? Wouldn't that be discrimination based on religious beliefs?
Any belief about the origins of life is religious in nature,
Why? Does that mean that athiests who accept evolution are actually religious? :)
since faith is required as a foundation of belief.
Faith is not required as a foundation for the acceptance of any scientific theory - And in fact, it must be discouraged, for science to remain skeptical, as it must remain.
So any belief that meets the criteria will suffice - such belief being a religion of sorts.
...OK, so, then, the "religion of science," as you call it, would suffice? Or is that not really a religion? :)
I don't doubt that you mean well, or that you believe strongly in what you say - But your logic seems to be inconsistent:
You're telling us that any belief in the origins of life is by definition religious in nature, and that any religious belief that meets your previously stated criteria regarding the origins of life will suffice.
At the same time, you're decrying Dr. Dini's (alleged) treatment of evolution as a form of religion. Well, by your logic, it is a form of religion, since it deals with the origins of life, and as a "religion of sorts", it passes your test! So where's the problem? :)
DFS