Posted on 02/07/2003 1:28:25 PM PST by Caleb1411
Liberal statist power ==== tyranny ==== BRAINWASHING // INDOCTRINATION ! ! !
Dini, in my opinion, does indeed go to far, in insisting that a student "honestly affirm a scientific explanation of human origins" rather than merely "cogently articulate" such a view. But you are caricaturing his views when you say that "his religion" is that "life on this planet originated de novo and spontaneously, without any influence other than time and accident." Dini is quoted on one of the other two threads linked above as saying that he is "a devout Catholic," and students who are professing Christians are quoted in the lead article on that thread as saying that Dini gave them letters of recommendation.
That's my own summary of an hour or so of web searching; there are both creationst and theistic evolutionist sites who claim Lewis as one of their own, and I defer to the Lewis scholars (I am not one) if my synthesis is inaccurate.
Well, I hope he didn't say that. To me, it's one of those statements which starts out sounding deep until you think about it, then comes up empty. The Bible clearly regularly uses terms like "sign," "miracle," "wonder" (in both Testaments) to designate acts of God out of step with His normal works of providence.
For the tide to ebb and flow is an act of God in His providential working. For the sea to split in two is an extraordinary deed.
And the work of Creation was not an act of providence. It was the miraculous beginning, you might say, of providence. How it was done is described by God Himself in plain prose and non-magical, non-mystical language. Six days of work with evening and morning, analogous to the Jews' work week (Exodus 20:11). I'd ask a reader to believe it or disbelieve it, but let the text say what it says. Any ambiguities as to its fundamental meaning do not arise from the text.
Dan
The student didn't take Dini's course.
Sorry, but your response is totally irrelevant to the point being made. His 'rule' applies to all students - including those who have taken his courses for more than one semester. Now it is usual in colleges to ask for letters of recommendation from teachers that one has had for more than one semester. It Dini needs to make this 'rule' that all who ask for a recommendation need to BELIEVE in evolution, then my statement is totally correct - either Dini is a very bad teacher or evolution has very little convincing scientific evidence going for it.
Either way, Dini's "rule" is an act of desperation from an ideologist hack who does not belong in front of a classroom.
But one accomplished through purely natural means: a strong east wind blowing all night (Ex. 14:21).
One view (of two, I hasten to add) in the Talmud is kol hanissim b'derach hatevah, "all miracles occur in a natural way"; the miracle is that natural forces appear in a particular time and place to accomplish God's intervention in history.
You and I, you posted recently in another thread, are not in the same spiritual place. Let us agree that our existence is due to God's miraculous intervention, and agree to disagree on the details. Fair enough, yedidi hayaqar li?
Oh, I dunno, unless one can interpret the slant as hyperbole. But then again, if the thread is really that bad you should believe more in de-evolution than in evolution:^)
Cordially,
It was an International Relations Class (guest speaker was Kurt Waldheim) and my Prof was an unabashed socialist. He taught that the driving force of relations between nations was "North/South" or "Haves/Have Nots". I understood his points, but "believed" that the driving force was ideological "East/West" or "Collectivism/Capitalism". Without getting too much into the gory details, all exam questions were essay and I would answer like "we have been taught in this class that the driving force of international relations is North/South and while I can see why the Professor thinks that, I believe the East/West dynamics must also be considered." I would, of course, get the answer marked wrong.
My advisor, one of the Department Heads, told me that in some classes the Professor wants you to think, and in others they want you to absorb, and that it is important to understand and identify the difference. Not being one who could turn my brain off, I only pulled a "C" in International Relations.
I guess my point is that Professors, being people, come to their jobs with prejudices. They consider themselves experts and think, often rightly, that those who disagree with them are wrong. In Mathematics this is a good viewpoint to have. In Political Science it is laughable. In Biology, especially concerning something like creation - where no one "knows" anything - it is a questionable standpoint and borders on faith.
I agree to disagree agreeably, 'ohabi; but, believing as I do all the scriptures of both Testaments, I cherish the prayer and hope that it is a temporary disagreement.
Dan
Yes. And given the fact that there is no objective and unabiguous criteria for determining which features are homologous and which are analagous, your inference is at the very minimum just as reasonable as any that concludes that such features constitute one of the major 'proofs' of evolution. It is only because evolution has been elevated by some to the status of metaphysical truth that such observations would ever be considered to furnish its proof.
Cordially,
The observed fact that the hominids (people, chimp, gorilla, et al) all share the *exact same mistake* in our DNA (the one that prevents the synthesis of vitamin C) clearly shows descent from a common ancestor. What are the alternatives? That the hypothetical designer had very poor quality control, and is therefore not the Christian God?
IMO, this is a classic example of true prediction based on evolution theory: Biologists had concluded, based on anaatomy and the fossil record, that the great apes and people are related, and lo and behold, the DNA shows a shared defect, a defect not found in any other mammal. QED
Evolution may accomodate the observation, as it can accomodate just about anything. But as for furnishing proof of common descent, that's a different story. Argument based on some notion of what the hypothetical designer would or would not do that would not meet your expectations, ie, as shown by your characterization of the observed DNA features as a 'mistake', is a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. Which has been my very point on this thread.
Cordially,
The DNA is identical to that which codes for the enzymes that produce vitamin C in other animals, except for one base pair which renders it useless. Why is it there?
The argument is not so much based on speculation about some designer, it's the logic that a court uses when deciding if something is plagiarized: if the mistakes are the same in the alleged copy as they are in the original, there is a strong likelihood of plagiarism.
Arguments from classification of phylogenies are subjective. While it is true that biochemical features tend, in general, to conform to body plans, and while this fact may constitute interesting evidence for evolution, it is evidence for evolution only if evolution is true. The observed facts, instead of supporting an argument against a Designer using identical DNA could just as easily be interpreted as a Designer's DNA corrupted over time because of the futility to which the creation has been subjected. Arguments that a Designer would never repeat a pattern do not constitute proof of evolution because they depend on a particular metaphysical notion that a Designer is obliged by certain unscientific expectations to use a different genetic code for different species.
You have elevated the observation of certain vitamin 'deficiencies' to the level of a successful prediction. But is there any doubt that if the observation had turned out to be the opposite, evolution would also have been touted as the basis for the successful prediction of the opposite outcome? The price of such flexibility, though, is lack of confirmation.
If evolution is supposed to be a fact, then arguments for its mere plausibility, or arguments against divine creation will not suffice to furnish its proof.
Cordially,
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.