re: Bush Signs Tech Censorship Bill page 3

Sorry. If you believe the earth is flat, geography isn't a career choice.

Which has nothing to do with the subject.

If you believe you can flap your arms and fly to France, aeronautical engineering may not be your career path.

Or believe that, given enough time, pure chance can produce life.

You're entitled to believe you're a faith healer, if you like. But I don't want you for an EMT if I need to call an ambulance.

And if you want science you don't want to call a "true believer" evolutionist either.

The science of biology *is* evolution.

No it's not. Evolution attempts to explain what science discovers. It's a belief system.
If evolution could explain (not guess), for example, how the radically different lung system in birds "developed" that would be step toward science.

Unless you believe saber-tooth poodles were scampering around to avoid being stomped upon by brontosauruses, evolution is a fact, not ... was try to explain evolution. Both scientists did a pretty good job but both scientists' observations and deductions were flawed.

So the true believing evolutionists say. Those who believe in God say he is a "Fact" also. Of course the evolution dogma has get to get pretty evasive when it comes to difficulties, like the almost total lack of intermediates in the fossil record.

"A body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at rest tends to stay at rest." That's ... orbits a sun that migrates through a galaxy that wafts through an ever-expanding universe. Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution.

But he is the "Great Prophet" of Evolution.

As for the Texas Tech (thanks for the correction) case. It's probably logical as a class requirement to"explain the theory," rather than affirm a belief. But if the student tried and failed to disprove the truth of evolution, sounds like the kid failed the course.

Sure he did. Why? Because the teacher said he failed. But if he really was scientist he would realize it was his job to disprove the theory not affirm believe in the "fact" of evolution while arguing about the varying theories of evolution that try to explain away its difficulties.

Joe Myers "And, of course, fundamentalist Christian students are always smarter than biology professors."

So biology professors have, somehow, become the intellectual elite in today's world? Trying to force students to accept a dogmatic belief is an obvious sign of "enlightenment?"
Why am I not convinced?

RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

As for the Texas Tech (thanks for the correction) case. It's probably logical as a class requirement to"explain the theory," rather than affirm a belief. But if the student tried and failed to disprove the truth of evolution, sounds like the kid failed the course.

You'll have to re-read the Department of Justice press release. According to Professor Michael Dini's criteria #3, he wouldn't recommend a student if that student didn't pass the litmus test of an "honest" belief in evolution.
It had nothing to do with a student's attempt to disprove evolution, or even if he passed or failed the class (according to the third criteria).

In fact if you read the Department of Justice press release you'll see that the case was dropped when Professor Din changed his requirement to "an understanding of the theory of evolution" rather than affirmation that evolution is true.
In a nutshell this is the story.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=2504

"Micah Spradling was a student at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. He was enrolled in the university’s pre-med program because he wanted to follow in the footsteps of his father, a physician, and apply for entrance to Southwestern University’s medical school. But in order to do that, Micah needed a letter of recommendation from a specific faculty member. That letter should have come from Michael Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech.
Imagine poor Micah’s surprise when he discovered that Dr. Dini espoused the view that, in order to receive a letter of recommendation with his signature, a student was required to “truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer” to the question: ‘How do you think the human species originated?’ ” (see Kitchen, 2002). In fact, Dini’s Web site clearly detailed the requirements for students seeking a letter of recommendation (see Dini, 2002). After listing the specific academic requirements, and insisting on more than merely a “classroom relationship,” Dini then listed a third criterion—based entirely on whether or not the student accepted evolution as a fact!"
A little melodramatic and it came from a pro-Christian web site. (You can find plenty more from pro-Evolution web sites if you prefer.) But I think it pretty much states the facts of the case. (Which the Department of Justice press release backs up.)
At least I think we agree that a public school shouldn't be allowed to force a student to abandon his religious beliefs (or lie about abandoning his religious beliefs) in order to progress.

Paulo Joe Jingy
Sometimes some things just ain't right.
www.PauloJoeJingyIsWithoutADoubtTheOneAndOnlyDivineScreenwritingGod.com

Isn't Professor Dini's original policy the same kind of tyranny that people like to accuse Christians of? "Do you believe brother, I mean do you really believe in evolution because if you don't believe me, brother, you ain't gettin' no recommendation from me."

No - because evolution isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of science.*
Would you object if he said, "Do you believe that if I drop this ball, it'll fall to the ground?" and anybody who said, "No, I don't think that will happen" was refused a recommendation isn't a psychics grad program?

To not believe in evolution is to reject a certain aspect of the scientific method, and it strikes me as reasonable to say that people who reject some aspects of the scientific method are not qualified to be doctors.
Now, I'm open to the argument that there are some areas of medicine where belief in evolution is not relevant - although in fact evolution is creating a major problem that doctors at all levels have to deal with frequently - in the form of drug resistance. In fact, what most doctors do every day when they see patients look at a collection of symptoms and figure out what ties them together is exactly the same process that resulted in the discovery and subsequent refinements of evolution-by-natural-selection. It's not a stretch to say that someone who looks for a supernatural explanation despite the evidence in the later case is someone of suspect capabilities to do it in the former case.
Religious beliefs can disqualify you from certain professions, and it's not discrimination if your beliefs contradict your ability to do your job in some ways; if I don't believe that I should have contact with any women save my wife (as some Orthodox Jews, for example, believe) I'm not qualified to be a doctor in a clinic which treats them and it's not discrimination.
-Ron
*I'm not going to debate this point, as no medical school would.

As for the Texas Tech (thanks for the correction) case. ... truth of evolution, sounds like the kid failed the course.

You'll have to re-read the Department of Justice press release. According to Professor Michael Dini's criteria #3, he wouldn't recommend ... to force a student to abandon his religious beliefs (or lie about abandoning his religious beliefs) in order to progress.

I have a religious belief that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of angels who can dance on a pin.
That doesn't mean I get an A in geometry.
Joe Myers
"Pythagoras only had a 'theory.'"

The science of biology *is* evolution.

No it's not. Evolution attempts to explain what science discovers. It's a belief system. If evolution could explain (not guess), for example, how the radically different lung system in birds "developed" that would be step toward science.

Science keeps looking for answers, based systematic questioning. Creationists think they have the answers, based on mythology.

Sorry. But a story of a talking snake and a nekked lady is not science.

Unless you believe saber-tooth poodles were scampering around to avoid ... good job but both scientists' observations and deductions were flawed.

So the true believing evolutionists say. Those who believe in God say he is a "Fact" also. Of course the evolution dogma has get to get pretty evasive when it comes to difficulties, like the almost total lack of intermediates in the fossil record.

Paleontologists have been discovering fossils for about 200 years.

Fossils have been around for mumblty million years. Fossils had a head start.
Further, not all geological conditions are/were conducive to fossil formation.

"A body in motion tends to stay in motion and ... through an ever-expanding universe. Darwinism is not synonymous with evolution.

But he is the "Great Prophet" of Evolution.

He's one. Wallace was another. There are many.

As for the Texas Tech (thanks for the correction) case. ... truth of evolution, sounds like the kid failed the course.

Sure he did. Why? Because the teacher said he failed. But if he really was scientist he would realize it ... in the "fact" of evolution while arguing about the varying theories of evolution that try to explain away its difficulties.

I think there should be faith healer ambulances, to respond to accidents involving cars with fish plaques on the trunk.

Joe Myers "And, of course, fundamentalist Christian students are always smarter than biology professors."

So biology professors have, somehow, become the intellectual elite in today's world?

They, not students, are the intellectual elite in biology classrooms. Or should be.

Trying to force students to accept a dogmatic belief is an obvious sign of "enlightenment?"

Scientists believing in science. What bigots!

Why am I not convinced?

You prefer mythology.
Joe Myers
"Pray for good health. It's all you've got."

Isn't Professor Dini's original policy the same kind of tyranny ... believe me, brother, you ain't gettin' no recommendation from me."

No - because evolution isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of science.* Would you object if he said, ... and anybody who said, "No, I don't think that will happen" was refused a recommendation isn't a psychics grad program?

Why do the believers of evolution always take an example from a proven science in an attempt to validate their points, instead of taking an example from the quackery of the "so-called" science of evolution?

Impress me, take a proven example from evolution and make your point. Or are having trouble finding a proven fact from evolution?

To not believe in evolution is to reject a certain aspect of the scientific method, and it strikes me as reasonable to say that people who reject some aspects of the scientific method are not qualified to be doctors.

The problem is evolution is not a scientific method. It makes assumptions and twists and turns to try to prove those assumptions. True science makes an assumption and tries to disprove it.

Prove me wrong give me one proven example of so-called macro evolution. (Which is essentially what the evolutionary theory is supposed to be.)

Now, I'm open to the argument that there are some areas of medicine where belief in evolution is not relevant ... explanation despite the evidence in the later case is someone of suspect capabilities to do it in the former case.

Evolution has zero influence on the day to day life of every or almost every medical doctor. This is a red herring and I think you know it.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with Professor Michael Dini's anti-religious bigotry.

Religious beliefs can disqualify you from certain professions, and it's not discrimination if your beliefs contradict your ability to do ... for example, believe) I'm not qualified to be a doctor in a clinic which treats them and it's not discrimination.

This is the question:
In your opinion, should a pre-med student be disqualified from receiving a recommendation from a biology professor based solely on the fact that the pre-med student will not affirm that evolution is true?

That what it boils down to. This what this is all about. That's the issue here. Let's advoid the wild-goose chase.

Paulo Joe Jingy

No it's not. Evolution attempts to explain what science discovers. ... system in birds "developed" that would be step toward science.

Science keeps looking for answers, based systematic questioning. Creationists think they have the answers, based on mythology. Sorry. But a story of a talking snake and a nekked lady is not science.

And neither is that quack-science called evolution.

Like you all evolutionists base their theory on a statement of faith. "I BELIEVE!!!" Then they attempt to twist the facts to prove that their belief is valid.
They call this "science". Pardon me if I'm not impressed.

But blow me away give me proof shut me up. You could do that if evolution was "science" couldn't you?
For example: If I said the earth was flat, you can prove it isn't.

Basically it gets down to this, Joe, put up or shut up. I'm betting your not going to put up.
Well your not going to put up facts to prove evolution anyway. You'll put up a smokescreen with layers and layers of ***. You'll insinuate that people who don't believe in the gobbledygook-science called evolution also don't believe in real science.

You'll make snide remarks about religion and how "DUH!" it isn't science, which "DUH!" I already know.
But you'll definitely not put up any hard facts that support evolution, will you? You know you won't, Joe, because there aren't any.

If gradual evolution were true, it would be obvious, just as obvious as the fact that the world is a sphere.
But it's not obvious and it's not provable is it? Oh, it is provable? Then prove it.
(Or just go ahead and make more snide remarks about religion. That's what evolutionists do best. It's a hell of lot easier than trying to prove their quack theory.)

Paulo Joe Jingy

Prove me wrong give me one proven example of so-called macro evolution. (Which is essentially what the evolutionary theory is supposed to be.)

The macro/micro evolutionary divide is the sort of thing only of interest to creationists. It's used as a wedge to try to explain why the proven stuff doesn't support the can't-be-observed-in-a-lab stuff.

It's basically of zero interest to evolutionary biologists. It's not a distinction they find useful or meaningful. Speciation ("macro" evolution) is a settled question to biologists; it has been both observed and created in the laboratory.

Evolution has zero influence on the day to day life of every or almost every medical doctor. This is a red herring and I think you know it.

I disagree. If somebody can look at the evidence for evolution and say they find it inconclusive, I'm not sure why I should trust their ability to look at, say, a collection of symptoms and diagnose pneumothorax.

You look at the evidence and you go with the theory that best supports that. Creationists are people who are unwilling to do that, unable to do that, or haven't been given the opportunity to do that when it comes to speciation and the biological record.
The question is if their lack of willingness/ability/opportunity is something that will spill over into other areas of scientific inquiry or not. If so, in areas relevant to the person's potential work as a doctor, then they should pick another career.

Religious beliefs can disqualify you from certain professions, and it's ... in a clinic which treats them and it's not discrimination.

This is the question: In your opinion, should a pre-med student be disqualified from receiving a recommendation from a biology professor based solely on the fact that the pre-med student will not affirm that evolution is true?

A biology profession is only specially capable of recommending a student on the basis (or lack thereof) of the student's aptitude for the biological sciences.
If a student's religious beliefs prevent him from approaching the biological sciences objectively, then the biology professor has not only a right, but an OBLIGATION to either deny him a recommendation, or qualify his recommendation in such a way as to make the concerns raised by the student's religious beliefs clear.
To do otherwise is a violation of the professors ethical duty to the people to whom he's recommending the student.
If there's any reasonable chance that a person will think: "Hmm... I could look at all the evidence and draw the logical conclusions, or I could look at a 2000-year-old medical text and see what they thought. Let's go with the old book." then a person should be kept out of medical school.
-Ron

At least I think we agree that a public school ... lie about abandoning his religious beliefs) in order to progress.

I have a religious belief that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of angels who can dance on a pin. That doesn't mean I get an A in geometry.

Congratulations. What do you call your religion?
Now can we get back to the subject, oh slippery one?

The student in this case the one we were writing about you know, the student who didn't believe in evolution and couldn't get a recommendation because of his professor's anti-religious bigotry. Remember? (If not, you can back in the thread and find it.) Keeping that in mind:
"At least I think we agree that a public school shouldn't be allowed to force a student to abandon his religious beliefs (or lie about abandoning his religious beliefs) in order to progress."

C'mon, Joe, can we agree on that much? (Try a yes or no, oh slippery one.)

Paulo Joe Jingy