RufusAtticus

SS,

Likewise, no biologist seriously disputes evolution. Biologists shouldn't base their standards on what lay people think. Part of the problem with fundies is that they expect "educated" people to teach what the (sub) average person in the pew thinks. Although most of their pastors and seminaries have kowtowed to this expectation, biologists will not.

This isn't an atheist versus fundy issue or an evolutionists versus creationists issue, it's about science versus pseudoscience. I would no more recommend a creationist to a biological graduate program, than I would expect an astronomer to recommend a geocentricist to a astronomy or physics program.

~~RvFvS~~

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Like I said earlier, I think the kid just wanted to leave Texas Tech and used Dini's webpage as an excuse to get into LCU.

Albion

Yes, that's what I said. The fact that Christians are relating to the natural world as God's creation is their personal outlook. They're still using natural science to study the natural world, whether they think it's God's creation or not. This is most of the problem between ID and real science - IDists try to say that methodological naturalism implies philosophical naturalism, whereas genuine scientists who are philosophical supernaturalists are as comfortable as atheists in limiting science to methodological naturalism. They still, from what I can gather, treat their science as a study of God's creation. Which is fair enough, as long as they're content to use the scientific method to do it.

Doubting Didymus

Okay, I think I now have enough information to revise my previous veiw.

Professor Dini is not, as I originally suspected, requiring a 'statement of belief', or anything even close to it. All he requires is a well known answer to a scientific question.

To deny evolution is very similar or worse than denying gravity, so it is really the students scientific competence that is being measured by that question.

It would be less nice of Dini to write a letter that makes specific note of the students inability or unwillingness to draw scientific conclusions from evidence, than it would be to simply refuse said letter, given both the negative content that would be within it and the time constraints on the professor.

If the student is a good biology student, then they will surely be able to get a letter from someone or other, and it would only be fair for them to expect that a scientist would note on that letter certain limitations present in the students scientific understanding.

However, I still have one or two particular reservations. I do not think it is wise to publicise the professors particular criterion, for a couple of reasons.

First, I suspect that it would be possible to complete a biomedical course without ever studying evolution. If that is the case, then can the student really be blamed for falling for the creationist ploy, which is notoriously convincing to laypeople? Is it fair to refuse a letter based on a subject the student never even studied?

Second, I think that the professor probably publicised his criteria simply to save himself the bother of turning students away. Obviously, his decision has done more harm than good to the evolutionary 'debate'. He is unintentionally throwing a serious petrol bomb on the creationist bonfire. This may become another one of those annoying creationist arguments that take a couple of seconds to say, and 60 posts worth of II bandwidth to uncover the truth.

It makes a strong potential weapon in the wrong hands, witness the original article. A slight modification to include the word 'belief', and the issue looks like something far more serious than it is. Picture the exchange: the creationist makes the well dusted argument that creationism is a minority in biology because of institutionalised discrimination. He then backs this up with information about this Texas professor who requires his students to sign statements of belief in evolution before he will even teach them! He then links to the newspaper article to prove it.

It would take a good deal of time and effort to discover the truth behind this case, and even longer to explain it. I can see this becoming standard creationist debate fodder in the near future. I think the professor should have his criteria, but keep it to himself. I don't think the students even have to be told why their letters were refused.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

Xixax

He never states they have to affirm evolution. He only asks for a scientific answer. I think those on the ID side would try and claim they fit that description, so where is the 'beef'?

sciteach

Oh come on now, Albion. Since when has the evolutionists assured statement about the appearance of the first bacterial cell relied on the Scientific Method!!!
Have experiments been done? Was anyone there when it happened? What a joke!!!

scigirl

Right back atcha, about any biblical or religious claims that you have ever made. Were you THERE? What a joke!!!

Incidentally there are many different types of experiments that show that life could have spontaneously organized, without any magical influence. No it doesn't prove that it happened, but it does prove that it's possible.

scigirl

RufusAtticus

Sciteach, if you are going to teach biology the first thing you should know is that evolution involves the origin of the diversity of life. Abiogenesis involves the origin of life. They are two different topics in different fields: biology and organic chemistry.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

scigirl

Yes, let's see it. I haven't seen any thing that ID predicted that evolution did not also simultaneously predict.

Darwin was a christian too by the way. He almost became a priest!

Please show me examples of where Bacon used the actual Bible in his scientific studies.

Yes he was a Christian - but despite that fact, he was placed under house arrest for proving that the Bible is wrong in some areas.
Please show me direct examples of how they used a literal interpretation of the Bible, or a literal description of a deity, in their scientific experiments.

scigirl

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

sciteach

Miller-Urey's environment was minus O2 (There must have been more O2 from volcanic emission) and they tampered with it by extracting undesired chemicals that might break them down. Does that prove that some intelligent agent reached into the primordial soup and removed these same chemicals 4 bn years ago?? How scientific is that?