...does that mean I'm...50%...less clever...than I am? My head hurts :)
Evolution is a religion -
A small but vocal minority of people may treat it this way, but you and I and CDL and the rest of the intelligent folks here know that it really isn't.
and evolutionists are usually NOT open to other scientific explanation.
I would say only that it's dangerous to generalize - That would be like saying that "creationists" (whatever that means) are usually not open to other explanations for the origins of the universe. I think this is true again with a small but vocal minority, but I think that, as reasonable and intelligent and open-minded folks, this need not be the case with us, or indeed, with most people. We can't condemn everyone for the actions of a few, though.
I think it's also fair to say that there isn't one of us who couldn't use a little work, with respect to seriously considering the ideas of others, even when they are diametrically opposed to our own - We're all trying to do the best we can. I know that I have not always been as willing to listen as I should've been, with respect to arguments like this one - I will readily admit that - But I am trying my best, as an imperfect being, to understand how others feel about this, and maybe reach some common ground... I accept evolution as our best current scientific explanation for the origins of man, and I believe that it in no way contradicts the message of the Bible or the central tenets of Christianity, and I know numerous others who are like-minded as well. I am willing to listen to you, so I hope you will not completely give up on folks who accept the theory of evolution.
Some good scientists have proffered evidence of intelligent design...at least as much as that supporting evolution.
OK, let's talk about that. How are we defining intelligent design? I am not saying I disbelieve you here, but depending on how you talk about intelligent design, it is or is not contradictory to the theory of evolution, yes? So, just to get things straight, before I go any farther, which theory of intelligent design do you refer to?
Whichever it is, of course, we must also consider seriously all well-supported theories, and look at the evidence for each - Whether they are bsaed on intelligent design or evolution, or something else entirely.
Evolutionist have also weakened their claim to science because of the several knowlingly fraudulent claims that have been promoted as evidence (Jonathan Wells - Icons of Evolution) - the act of a devotee, not a scientist.
If you're looking for evidence that scientists are human, too, and that they err, and they can be overproud, you have it. This has no relevance on the theory of evolution - It only means that scientists are people too :) I have witnessed, in my own field, people becoming wedded to their own ideas regarding how something works. This does not change how well their ideas describe the physical world - It only changes their ability to change their mind in the presence of contradictory evidence. The existence of false observations supporting the theory evolution is not the same thing as the existence of accurate observations contradicting the theory of evolution.
So by your own definition of the distinction between science and faith, evolution is a faith - because its adherents reject the notion of an alternate view.
[See my comments on why such generalizations are not really fair, no matter who we apply them to]
Michael Behe - biochemistry, William Dembski - mathematics, Jonathan Wells - molecular and cell biology, (and several others) are all serious scientists that present an alternate theory to evolution.
I would like to know more about their theories, and the support they claim - Are they all of the same mind in this respect, or do each of them have a unique take on things? If you could provide some links or somesuch, I am certainly willing to take a look, and give what they have to say some thought...
Inasmuch as their ideas are debated on the grounds of their work, their premises, their logic, their evidence - it is honest scientific debate,
Glad to hear it! As it should be...
and a few evolutionists accept that challenge. But most reject their arguments BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCLUSION - a hallmark of faith and its intolerance of apostacy.
Well, again, I must respectfully disagree with the idea that "evolutionists" all think alike and are all extremely intolerant folks, but with that said, what have been the results when the "evolutionists" engaged in debate? Were they completely one-sided, or was it really more up in the air? I agree with you, however, that, unhappily, such close-mindedness and intolerance can indeed be a hallmark of faith, and that such an attitude will necessarily destroy our ability to have a reasoned discussion on such important issues...
The situation of a Catholic school, established and maintained for the specific purpose of educating and training Catholic scholars is clearly different than that of of a typical university.
If science is a religion, as you have repeatedly stated, wouldn't the training of scientists be an analogous process? I agree with you that, in practice, it should not be this way, I am simply trying to point out that science is not a religion.
If you want to establish a university for the education and training of evolutionary scholars, THEN we have some equivilance.
...but if the University is supposed to train biologists, and the theory of evolution is the currently accepted explanation for the existence of things biological, then how can we have a University that claims to train biologists, that lacks this equivalence?
But the professor, who was the genesis of this discussion, does not teach at a school of evolution -
That's not the school's primary role, no - But it is a role, in the context of the biology curriculum, simply because this appears to be the best scientific explanation there is, so far, and it would not make sense to talk about the origins of life, from a scientific standpoint, without talking about this theory.
This professor sets his criteria in such a way as to include ONLY evolution as an acceptable theory (creationism is not science),
Again, not exactly - He sets it up such that you have to give a scientifically supported explanation for the origins of life. If someone had given a scientifically supported explanation for the origins of life that involved intelligent design and then he had refused to write a recommendation, that would be wrong, and he would clearly be at fault - But so far as I know, that has not happened.
requires that a student accept both his false criteria
Would you say that everyone agrees that the criteria or false? Is that issue completely settled? Is that opinion or fact?
and his religion -
...Catholicism? :) Seriously, though, science isn't religion.
and he does this under the false colors of the honest pursuit of truth and fact and furthermore, his standard is immaterial to the situation. As proof of such immateriality, let me pose this question - Would you, if faced with a delicate, risky and necessary medical procedure, insist that your doctor be an evolutionist?
Depends on the procedure, and the consequences of the presence of absence of that belief - I am not willing to assume (because it would be an assumption) that it would never ever ever be relevant, especially considering the discussion on the (micro)evolution of bacteria, for instance. Perhaps I'd been treated with antibiotic A previously, and there was good reason to suspect an evolved resistance. If I had a doctor who denied that such an evolved resistance could occur, and gave me the same antibiotic, and it didn't work, I might very well be in trouble. But of course, it would need to be a specifically relevant situation - I wouldn't insist on a neurosurgeon to look at a wart, either :)
Or would you seek the most highly skilled doctor available?
Yes :) This is the more important question, though, and it's not an "either / or" thing. If acceptance of the theory of evolution makes a doctor more highly able to deal with a situation, great, that's who we should look for - I think there are some situations where this could reasonably be the case, but admittedly there are not too many. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, and we shouldn't care either way.
Do you assume that such skill and a belief in creation are mutually exclusive?
Absolutely not! That would be silly. Do you assume that a belief in creation and an acceptance of the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive?
I can answer that those issues would come to my mind - because I would not knowingly place my life in the hands of a person who believed that life in general was merely a happenstance and of little significance. I would want my doctor to have a firm belief in and commitment to life as sacred and purposeful generally and mine in particular.
...and I think it would be a mistake, and an insult to doctors everywhere, and a second-guessing of the Hippocratic oath, to imply that acceptance of the theory of evolution in any way dilutes how much a doctor values human life. It seems like this is what you are saying, but I hope I am mistaken.
Before, we were talking about going out of our way to look for a doctor who accepted the theory of evolution. We agree that, in and of itself, this is silly, and that what is really important is the ability of the doctor to make the best medical judgement in a specific case - If that depends on evolutionary theory, we should find one who accepts it - If not, we need not do so.
What you seem to be telling me now, though I hope I am reading this wrong, is that you support active discrimination against doctors who do accept the theory of evolution, because you feel they will not value life as much as those who reject the theory of evolution in favor of one involving intelligent design or Biblical Creation.
Is this really what you mean? If so, how can you reconcile this with your previous arguments against discrimination?
The professor's criteria has absolutely no bearing on a student's fitness for consideration for an advanced degree -
Maybe, maybe not - What if they take their Biology degree and go into, well, Evolutionary Biology?
it is placed there soley as forced obesience to his faith and nothing more.
Science isn't faith; if he rejects a well-supported alternative theory, then we can bring him to task, but not before.
As such, it is grossly out of place and an offense to science itself.
Here we absolutely agree - It is always an offense to science when we cannot be uniformly skeptical of those things we believe to be true, for the purposes of being objective in our conclusions.
Thanks for reading,
DFS