Posted by James on 7/28/2007, 6:19 am, in reply to "Re: Science and (or is it vs?) Religion" I don't see this as the issue at all. I see it as a group of people who want to reject the cornerstone of the field they wish to study and at the same time attempt to learn the advanced studies of that field, which are almost entirely based on that cornerstone. It doesn't make sense in the least. If a student were to deny the foundational theories of basic physics, we would not expect a professor to endorse that student's attempts at studying advanced quantum mechanics. "The mere fact of dissidence alone is not grounds for outright dismissal." Dissidence is different from denial of the cornerstone theory of the field. How can a student deny evolutionary theory and still understand modern biochemistry, genetics, or a score of other more advanced biology subfields that all stem from that base theory? "By some standards, even Einstein would not be admitted to post-graduate programs in physics, because he challenged, but could not prove his case against, pure randomness in quantum events." Incorrect. To even reach the conclusions and rejections Einstein did, one would have to already have an intimate understanding and acceptance of the fundamental theories of physics, without which an informed disagreement about quantum mechanics couldn't even take place. Quite frankly, this is an idiotic conversation.
199.80.67.240
"He does, but the issue here is whether science will permit in the laboratory a dissident who challenges fundamental tenets of biology."
