Extreme-Religious Doctors

2006-11-05 17:57:17

#1

stryyker: bad touch; +1,682|6992|California

I watched a movie today called "Darwin: The Deadly Secret"

I was made by a team of Christian phD's, It overlays the "dangers" of evolution to the normal "person".

It said many things I did not agree with, like saying "The facts of Evolution have been proven wrong almost all the time". And things of that nature.

Now, my question to you is, should Religious fanatics be allowed to obtain a phD with such standars? Should these scientists be allowed to turn 100,000,000 people worldwide against centuries old evidence?

-edit- rephrased question

Do you agree with what Christian phD's are teaching.

-editedit-

not medical doctors

Last edited by stryyker (2006-11-05 17:59:41)

2006-11-05 17:59:19

#2

Rellim83: Member; +7|6954|PA

If they can heal people then who cares what they think. The more doctors the better

2006-11-05 18:02:44

#3

kilgoretrout: Member; +53|6742|Little Rock, AR

if they can complete the required coursework from a proper college, then yes. just because you have a PhD doesn't mean people won't call you out when you say or publish something that is stupid. are you saying that a person who completes the required coursework for a degree should be denied that degree because of their ideology? why stop at PhDs? why not say that fanatics can't get high school diplomas?

edit: just saw your edit. and no, i think young earth creationists are stupid, but not all christians buy into that bullshit. in fact, most well educated christians laugh at young earth creationists the same way atheists do.

Last edited by kilgoretrout (2006-11-05 18:04:14)

2006-11-05 18:09:53

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6802|Global Command

Sure

2006-11-05 18:10:15

#5

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7038|Cambridge (UK)

Wow, I guess the 66%(4):33%(2) result at time of writing this means that only me kilgoretrout voted yes so far...

As he said - if they can qualify for a phD, then they should get a phD.

A phD doesn't make you any less of an idiot if you say idiotic things.

2006-11-05 18:11:39

#6

kilgoretrout: Member; +53|6742|Little Rock, AR

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Wow, I guess the 66%(4):33%(2) result at time of writing this means that only me kilgoretrout voted yes so far...

As he said - if they can qualify for a phD, then they should get a phD.

A phD doesn't make you any less of an idiot if you say idiotic things.

I actually didn't vote, for whatever that's worth. And I definitely agree with you.

2006-11-05 18:13:46

#7

Naughty_Om: Im Ron Burgundy?; +355|6905|USA

on another note, Kilgore. You read Slaughter house 5 right? cuz that is an amazing book. i dont think ive read one book so many times.

2006-11-05 18:36:58

#8

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,054|7044|PNW

As posted earlier, if a guy's good at doing what he's trained to do, then people should leave religious beliefs out of qualification criteria. Allowing such denial will only lead to bigotry, more attacks against religious people in school, and a greater schism in technical professions between folks religious and scientific.

2006-11-05 18:37:48

#9

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6718|The Land of Scott Walker

If one qualifies and completes the work, presto degree earned. Any other idea is just ridiculous. Restrict people from holding degrees because you disagree with them?

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-05 18:38:01)

2006-11-05 18:41:20

#10

jonsimon: Member; +224|6768

They have every right to their degrees providing they earned them, but we should still shun them.

2006-11-05 18:44:26

#11

dubbs: Member; +105|6904|Lexington, KY

Just because they say stuff that you do not agree with, does not mean that they are completely wrong. Look at Gallio (sp), he was told that his theory about the Earth not being the center of the universe, was considered wrong at the time.

Even though there may be a lot of information that supports evolution, it still has some things in the theory that have not been completely proven, if so there would not be new information about evolution in the news. For example, the theory on gravity has been proven, and you do not hear about new discoveries about gravity in the news.

2006-11-05 18:47:35

#12

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6718|The Land of Scott Walker

jonsimon wrote:
They have every right to their degrees providing they earned them, but we should still shun them.

How dare they challenge sacred evolutionary theory! T H E O R Y. We were not there, no one can prove the origins of the universe. Only form conclusions based on the evidence, thus, the word theory.

2006-11-05 18:50:11

#13

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6957|United States of America

Sure, it's a free country.

2006-11-05 18:50:16

#14

jonsimon: Member; +224|6768

Stingray24 wrote:
jonsimon wrote:
They have every right to their degrees providing they earned them, but we should still shun them.
How dare they challenge sacred evolutionary theory! T H E O R Y. We were not there, no one can prove the origins of the universe. Only form conclusions based on the evidence, thus, the word theory.

Evolution never comments on the formation of the universe or the beginnings of life, only on the evolution, or change, of biological systems. Sorry, stingray, you lose.

2006-11-05 18:58:43

#15

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,054|7044|PNW

jonsimon wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
jonsimon wrote:
They have every right to their degrees providing they earned them, but we should still shun them.
How dare they challenge sacred evolutionary theory! T H E O R Y. We were not there, no one can prove the origins of the universe. Only form conclusions based on the evidence, thus, the word theory.
Evolution never comments on the formation of the universe or the beginnings of life, only on the evolution, or change, of biological systems. Sorry, stingray, you lose.

Pretend for a moment that when people talk about the theory of evolution, they really mean 'theory.' At the same time, the theory itself fails to disprove the existence of a deity or any other sort of 'godlike' figure. Any creationist who claims to know exactly how 'god' made the world and the amount of time it took is a fool. If they want to prove me wrong, they can go and make a universe of their own.

2006-11-05 19:18:00

#16

Not Entirely Sane: Member; +6|6933|Just Outside Seattle

Whenever confronted by extremists with Ph D's I always like to try and check A) where they got their PhD (some Colleges just aren't very trustworthy) and B) If it does come from an academically reputable college what they got their degree in (it is possible to get Ph D's in things like History, but having a PhD in history doesn't make you an expert on Biology).

2006-11-05 19:20:08

#17

dubbs: Member; +105|6904|Lexington, KY

jonsimon wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
jonsimon wrote:
They have every right to their degrees providing they earned them, but we should still shun them.
How dare they challenge sacred evolutionary theory! T H E O R Y. We were not there, no one can prove the origins of the universe. Only form conclusions based on the evidence, thus, the word theory.
Evolution never comments on the formation of the universe or the beginnings of life, only on the evolution, or change, of biological systems. Sorry, stingray, you lose.

Lets me back Stingray up here. Evolution is a theory that tries to determine where the orgin of life began. Adaption is the theory that says that live changes because of it environment. I know that they sound the same but they are not. For example, if you take someone that was born in Maine, and live their most of their life, then move them to Kentucky. When most Kentuckians are saying that it is chilly when the temp is mid to high 50's, but the person from Maine would be getting the fans out to cool off. Why, because they have adapted to the tempature of their native region. The person from Maine has adapted to the cooler region. This adaption does not take long to change. If the person from Maine lives in Kentucky for an extended amount of time (say a year), they would have adapted to the change.

The reason I used the Maine to Kentucky example is because I have family that live in Maine, who say that Kentucky is hot when it is in the 50's when they visit. My dad was born in Maine, and lived there for most of his child hood, he now thinks that temps in the mid 50's are chilly, enough to get a windbreaker, or light jacket. Yet, his mother, who still lives in Maine, would be turning on the fans to keep cool.

2006-11-05 19:58:05

#18

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6854|SE London

dubbs wrote:
jonsimon wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:

How dare they challenge sacred evolutionary theory! T H E O R Y. We were not there, no one can prove the origins of the universe. Only form conclusions based on the evidence, thus, the word theory.
Evolution never comments on the formation of the universe or the beginnings of life, only on the evolution, or change, of biological systems. Sorry, stingray, you lose.
Lets me back Stingray up here. Evolution is a theory that tries to determine where the orgin of life began. Adaption is the theory that says that live changes because of it environment.

That's not what evolution is. A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping this, I can't see why.

wiki wrote:
Evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes.

2006-11-05 21:36:39

#19

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,054|7044|PNW

Not Entirely Sane wrote:
Whenever confronted by extremists with Ph D's I always like to try and check A) where they got their PhD (some Colleges just aren't very trustworthy) and B) If it does come from an academically reputable college what they got their degree in (it is possible to get Ph D's in things like History, but having a PhD in history doesn't make you an expert on Biology).

Everyone's favorite German, "Dr. Boll" is the only proof we need.

2006-11-05 21:56:04

#20

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6947|Canberra, AUS

Who cares about what they think? Once it's clear that they're wackos nobody will listen.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-11-05 23:00:05

#21

BVC: Member; +325|6968

Though I disagree with them, I don't see why they should be stopped from having a PhD...if they can complete the required work just like anybody else they should be allowed a PhD just like anybody else.

2006-11-05 23:07:57

#22

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6947|Canberra, AUS

Bertster7 wrote:
dubbs wrote:
jonsimon wrote:

Evolution never comments on the formation of the universe or the beginnings of life, only on the evolution, or change, of biological systems. Sorry, stingray, you lose.
Lets me back Stingray up here. Evolution is a theory that tries to determine where the orgin of life began. Adaption is the theory that says that live changes because of it environment.
That's not what evolution is. A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping this, I can't see why.

wiki wrote:
Evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes.

I thought this would have been pretty obvious. The word 'evolution' from the word EVOLVE. I hope we all know what that means.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-11-05 23:14:41

#23

..teddy..jimmy: Member; +1,393|6922

stryyker wrote:
I watched a movie today called "Darwin: The Deadly Secret"

I was made by a team of Christian phD's, It overlays the "dangers" of evolution to the normal "person".

It said many things I did not agree with, like saying "The facts of Evolution have been proven wrong almost all the time". And things of that nature.

Now, my question to you is, should Religious fanatics be allowed to obtain a phD with such standars? Should these scientists be allowed to turn 100,000,000 people worldwide against centuries old evidence?

-edit- rephrased question

Do you agree with what Christian phD's are teaching.

-editedit-

not medical doctors

Yes they should be allowed to do this because this is what they have been doing since the middle ages.

2006-11-06 00:37:43

#24

twiistaaa: Member; +87|6941|mexico

Stingray24 wrote:
Only form conclusions based on the evidence, thus, the word theory.

which is still one up on the bible

i dont think you can stop anyone from getting a phd, free country, free speech... they maybe wrong. but they are allowed to be. and the people that listen to them have the chance to ask questions and learn by themselves.

2006-11-06 04:10:13

#25

Sylvanis: ........; +13|6908|Toronto, Ontario

Absolutely everyone should be able to aspire to any level of education. If we start limiting peoples education based on their particular religious sect/beliefs we are taking a HUGE step backwards in our attempts to become an enlightened society.

EDIT
While I see where you're coming from Stryyker, this type of mis-information will be seen for what it is by anyone who wants to see it. As for those who don't care to see through the propaganda, not a thing you can say will change their minds.

Last edited by Sylvanis (2006-11-06 04:17:35)

Yes	53%	53% - 42
No	46%	46% - 36
Total: 78

BF2S Forums Extreme-Religious Doctors

Poll

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

dubbs wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

wiki wrote:

Not Entirely Sane wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

dubbs wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

wiki wrote:

stryyker wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Board footer