Tuesday, October 08, 2002

Bob writes, referring to the prof who only writes letters of recommendation for evolutionists: "The problem here is your refusal to distinguish a scientific question from an ideological question. The professor is asking a scientific question and is entitled to require a scientific answer."

He is not asking a scientific question. A scientific question might be: What is the evidence that human descended from other primates? Or: What causes antibiotic resistance? Instead he asks: "How do you think the human species originated?"

He is just baiting the student to mention religion. If the student mentions God, he can't goto medical school.

There is currently a lot of discussion of this issue on the usenet group talk.origins under the subjects, "Prof only recommends evolutionists for med school" and "Prof Won't Write Letter for Creationists". That group is dominated by dogmatic Darwinians who think that they are on some sort of mission to stamp out Creationism. The big majority of them thought that the prof was completely right to blackball the student from medical school! Anyone who is even suspected of Creationism is unfit for anything, in their view. Some of them are even college profs, and they imply that they do the same, but don't admit it on the web page.

As an evolutionist there said, this only confirms that the creationists are right about so many adherents of evolution, that so many are dogmatic and intolerant of belief. Prof. Michael Dini's Texas Tech web page is a smoking gun.

A curious thing about Dini is that he once joined a Catholic order, and years later dropped out. So it appears that either he harbors some sort of grudge against Christianity, or he has a Catholic theological disagreement with the Protestant Fundamentalists. Whether or not Dini is still a Catholic, he was a devout Catholic when he was in college. I wonder how he would have like some college prof calling him into his office, and being quizzed by some prof who controls your career and thinks that Catholic dogma is unacceptably unscientific.

No comments: