On Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:11:01 -0600, Michael Smith wrote: > > Feeling a bit verbose, a few notes about what Mike P wrote.
This was posted after I hit my 3 post limit yesterday, so I had to wait until today to provide a response. I was curious about what kind of responses Prof. Smith's comments would elicit and I remain curious. I had planned on making one of my verbose responses to Prof. Smith's points but I now think that there would be little point is doing so. Via con Dios folks. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu >[Mike P. had written} >>"In the U.S. it is possible to run a college >> along religious line (i.e., secterian) and there can be an uneasy >> tension between the religious orientation maintained by the administration >> and the individuals working there, especially the secular faculty and >> faculty with different beliefs." > > I think if a person works in a Christian college then the person has > to agree with the faith precepts of the institution. > So I doubt there would be any "secular" faculty at such institutions, > and if there are, they are clearly being unethical > under such circumstances. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "secular beliefs". If it is true that > Ari is 1.2 million years older than Lucy (and I would imagine > that this is the case given the amount of remains which were found and > the diversity of scholars who worked on it) then it is not a "secular" > or a "religious" belief, it would simply be a fairly well established > fact for those that work in Christian colleges and those that do not. > > The tone of your post suggested, at least to me, that from the > reference you provided I expected to see a problem where a "secular > minded or secular faculty member" in a Christian institutions may have > problems which conflict with that institutions administration (which > should not occurr on any serious level since to work there, the person > should be in principled agreement with the institutions world-view > requirements). > > ">An example of the type of problem >> one encounters is provided in the following article which appeared >> in the AAUP publication "Academe": >> http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2006/JF/Feat/hill.htm"; > > However, the author of the article is actually bemoaning the > discrimination by a secular organization against a religious one > solely because the institution is a religious one (something one is > not supposed to do to individuals). > >> But many times these facts conflict with religious beliefs and dogma >> and "creation stories" (I believe that the terms "creation myths" is >> now politically incorrect because various groups object to having >> their stories about their origins treated as myths -- why should science >> have the final say on how the world was created, eh?). > > This aspect of your post and the other about colleges with a literal > interpretation of the bible and a 6,000 year old universe. > Are these colleges not in the minority (compared with Christian > institutions who hold a more complex view of life, the Bible, God, and > the Universe)?----[If not, then perhaps you should move to Canada, > eh!] > >>"why should science have the final say on how the world was created, eh?). > I doubt science will ever have the final say on that. God can never be > ruled out of the picture. Science may be able to elucidate the various > mechanisms of how this planet came to be, but such explanations still > woulndn't address "how the world came to be" in the more fundamental > sense that God nevertheless still created it, and so religion will > always have the final say. > >> Do we have any obligation in evaluating the evidence for Ardi and Lucy >> and, if we find it to have sufficient validity, work to counter those that >> might >> claim that it is a fraud, especially if the claim is made on religious rather >> than scientific grounds? > > I doubt whether any psychologist could assess the validity of the > evidence for Ardi, we would simply be trusting the authority of the > people working on it. > > I doubt the "6000 year old universe people" would claim it's a fraud. > Probably, that the dating etc., is mistaken. > > Shouldn't scientists "work to counter" claims of fraud from any group? > (And I would say just by doing good scientific work.) > Why focus on "religious" grounds for claims of fraudulance? > > --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
