How to keep the ToE alive - 101

[Man of Faith]

Well class what you do is you disqualify any Christian scientists from advancing up the ranks. Any qualified scientist that doesn't accept the ToE you make sure they don't get promoted too far. You only want those that accept Darwinian evolution to be a fact to get promoted. Those that point out the significant scientific problems and atheistic assumptions of evolution are to be labeled religulous and demoted.

That’s all for today class. Just remember this question will be on the test. “Which scientists are most qualified for new positions?” And the answer is, those that accept the ToE and are non-religious.

“An astronomer argues that his Christian faith and his peers' belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.” "There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position," U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester wrote in the ruling.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/17/scientist-alleges-religious-discrimination-ky/?test=latestnews

 

[Revoltingest]

Darwinism does just fine without anyone plotting to enshrine it.
But it does appear that one astronomy dept has an overly exclusionary hiring policy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your sources are failing you, MoF. To "keep" the ToE alive all that is needed is intelectual honesty and any decent amount of research.

 

[Breathe]

Perhaps when there is some substantial support for a view contrary to evolution--or hell, even one that has its own hypothesis on the mechanics behind how life developed [besides "God did it"], there would actually be something to go against evolution [although it would be rather... slight.] Evolution has a lot on its side--including direct observation.

You can believe in God--even the Abrahamic God/gods--and accept evolution just fine. I believe in God and accept evolution. I haven't exploded into a million Godless pieces or anything.


May I ask you this? Why do you seem to be so opposed, almost fearful of evolution, MoF? I am genuinely curious as to why you oppose it so much, and what you think makes it go against the Biblical God.

 

[tumbleweed41]

• "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" Evolutionary Biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian
• Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, Roman Catholic Priest and Astrophysicist. Originator of the "Hypothesis of the primeval atom", or the Big Bang Theory.
• Francis Collins, Evangelical Christian and Biologist. Lead Biologist in the Human Genome Project and director of the NIH. Will defend the existence of God in a debate with Dawkins, but calls ID "just ludicrous".
• "I'm an evolutionary biologist and a Christian," Stanford professor Joan Roughgarden.
• Kenneth Raymond Miller, biology professor at Brown University, Roman Catholic and Author of the book, 'Finding Darwin's God', in which he argues that Evolutionary Biology is perfectly compatible with a belief in God. Frequent critic of ID and YEC.

Need I go on?

 

[Renji]

I studied in a Catholic school back when I was in high school. And yeah they teach about ToE. I can remember my professor telling us that "Evolution theory does not necessarily contradict our belief in God. In fact, the theory does not even state something about God (because it is intended to study the 'created' and not the 'Creator') ."

 

[Man of Faith]

Darwinism does just fine without anyone plotting to enshrine it.
But it does appear that one astronomy dept has an overly exclusionary hiring policy.

Maybe you missed this part of the article where it cites the debate is at more than one college. This is more than just one astronomy dept., I suspect that this debate and the ToE life support actions are in a lot of colleges and growing as people realize the hoax that is being perpetuated and start asking the hard questions.

"Gaskell's lawsuit is indicative of an increasingly tense debate between religion and science on college campuses and elsewhere, said Steven K. Green, a law professor and director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy at Willamette University in Salem, Ore."

 

[Man of Faith]

Perhaps when there is some substantial support for a view contrary to evolution--or hell, even one that has its own hypothesis on the mechanics behind how life developed [besides "God did it"], there would actually be something to go against evolution [although it would be rather... slight.] Evolution has a lot on its side--including direct observation.

You can believe in God--even the Abrahamic God/gods--and accept evolution just fine. I believe in God and accept evolution. I haven't exploded into a million Godless pieces or anything.


May I ask you this? Why do you seem to be so opposed, almost fearful of evolution, MoF? I am genuinely curious as to why you oppose it so much, and what you think makes it go against the Biblical God.

You are equivocation on the meaning of the ToE which by definition is a naturalistic common descent of all life forms. What you are arguing for is micro-evolution which creationists accept. I’m not fearful of micro-evolution but that does not equate to macro-evolution “just because” we thrown in millions of years. The science doesn’t support it, that is philosophy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You are equivocation on the meaning of the ToE which by definition is a naturalistic common descent of all life forms. What you are arguing for is micro-evolution which creationists accept. I’m not fearful of micro-evolution but that does not equate to macro-evolution “just because” we thrown in millions of years. The science doesn’t support it, that is philosophy.

Hiring a creationist to teach science is like having an art professor teaching advanced physics.

Creationism and science are two very different fields.

 

[Man of Faith]

I studied in a Catholic school back when I was in high school. And yeah they teach about ToE. I can remember my professor telling us that "Evolution theory does not necessarily contradict our belief in God. In fact, the theory does not even state something about God (because it is intended to study the 'created' and not the 'Creator') ."

The ToE contradicts the Bible. What we see in life is what the Bible reports. There is no macro-evoluton being observed and the Bible tells why.

 

[Tristesse]

The ToE contradicts the Bible. What we see in life is what the Bible reports. There is no macro-evoluton being observed and the Bible tells why.

I don't recall seeing any talking serpents.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The ToE contradicts the Bible. What we see in life is what the Bible reports. There is no macro-evoluton being observed and the Bible tells why.

Can you use the bible as a blueprint to create new medicines to combat ambiodic-resistent viruses?

 

[waitasec]

“Which scientists are most qualified for new positions?” And the answer is, those that accept the ToE and are non-religious.

how embarrassing...

 

[Renji]

The ToE contradicts the Bible. What we see in life is what the Bible reports. There is no macro-evoluton being observed and the Bible tells why.

No it doesn't. Do you really think that the Story of Creation is a 'historical' event?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Of course there is a good point to be made here.
Rejection of objective empirical evidence in your chosen field of study will severely restrict your chances of advancement in academia.
And justifiably so.
However, as has been repeatedly pointed out, personal religious beliefs in God can be perfectly compatible with acceptance of the objective evidence of science.

We do not need flat earthers teaching geography, nor do we need YEC Creationists teaching biology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well class what you do is you disqualify any Christian scientists from advancing up the ranks. Any qualified scientist that doesn't accept the ToE you make sure they don't get promoted too far. You only want those that accept Darwinian evolution to be a fact to get promoted. Those that point out the significant scientific problems and atheistic assumptions of evolution are to be labeled religulous and demoted.

Wait - how far is too far? Even before applying to this professorship, Martin Gaskell had already obtained his PhD in astronomy and was a research associate at a major university. According to his web page, he's credited with 16 papers this year.

If the scientific community was really opposed to him being successful, how did he get as far as he already has?

That’s all for today class. Just remember this question will be on the test. “Which scientists are most qualified for new positions?” And the answer is, those that accept the ToE and are non-religious.

“An astronomer argues that his Christian faith and his peers' belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.” "There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position," U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester wrote in the ruling.”

Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky. - FoxNews.com

Your quote isn't complete. You left out a chunk in the middle without noting that you did so.

The bit I've highlighted below is especially relevant:

Gaskell has sued the university, claiming lost income and emotional distress. Last month a judge rejected a motion from the university and allowed it to go to trial Feb. 8.

"There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position," U.S. District Judge Karl S. Forester wrote in the ruling.

IOW, the judge hasn't ruled that Gaskell was unfairly discriminated agaist; the judge ruled in his favour on a pre-trial motion to have the case dismissed without trial.

Another telling quote from the article:

Gaskell said he is not a "creationist" and his views on evolution are in line with other biological scientists. In his lecture notes, Gaskell also distances himself from Christians who believe the earth is a few thousand years old, saying their assertions are based on "mostly very poor science."

So... your position is that to "protect evolution" over creationism, universities unfairly reject applicants for professorship who... support evolution and reject creationism?

This makes no sense.

 

[Meow Mix]

Not much to see here folks, just some Fox News and a revival of that horrific Ben Stein movie.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The ToE contradicts the Bible. What we see in life is what the Bible reports. There is no macro-evoluton being observed and the Bible tells why.

The bible contradicts itself. What's your point? You've been told and shown over and over ad nauseam that there is no difference in micro/macro evolution. You wonder why we don't take you serious. You wonder why the scientific community rejects people like you bringing in your religion into the equation...Evolution is not abiogenesis....

No one is saying a person can't be religious and a scientist. It would be ludicrous to suggest such a thing but one can not interject said religion into their scientific field of study unless they can test their hypothesis and have it scrutinized by his or her peers and even if they could they must be ready for it to be falsified at any given point.

 

[Breathe]

You are equivocation on the meaning of the ToE which by definition is a naturalistic common descent of all life forms.

Yep, I know what it means. I believe in a naturalistic form of common descent. I am, however, still a believer in God. I don't see any problem with that. Some theistic evolutionists believe God guided us to this form. I personally do not believe that though.

What you are arguing for is micro-evolution

Nope, not at all. If you misunderstand something, please ask for clarification as opposed to telling me what I believe in or am speaking of, because you risk making a mistake in what I believe. In this case, you are incorrect. "Micro-evolution" is not what I am arguing for. There is no line dividing evolution into "macro-" and "micro-".

which creationists accept.

Some, but not all.

I’m not fearful of micro-evolution but that does not equate to macro-evolution “just because” we thrown in millions of years.

I see.

So when does, in your opinion, micro-evolution become macro-evolution? Is there some line?


If it goes by "kinds" as I have heard before: what are the "kinds" of animals? Is it the subspecies, species, genus, family, order, class, phylum or kingdom? Do you believe dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingos, and jackals share a common ancestor, or something else?

 

[Man of Faith]

No it doesn't. Do you really think that the Story of Creation is a 'historical' event?

The creation story is written as a narrative so there is no reason to take it as anything else.