Posted by James on 8/1/2007, 9:19 am, in reply to "Re: Science and (or is it vs?) Religion" Even now, his views were revolutionary, but revolutionary ideas need not challenge the foundational theories of the chosen field. His did not. They merely expanded upon ideas that were already there, altered some views, created some new ones, and changed physics to a great degree. But even with all that, he did not challenge the foundational theories. He challenged the parts of theories that did not mesh with observational data. This is not what these students are doing. They are denying the foundational theory of their field. Were they to challenge parts of the theory that do not mesh with observations that would be a completely different story, and then they might have gotten the reference they sought. "If a prejudgment is made against a student, despite his having a four year record of competence, that does not benefit science, but simply serves as a warning to those who might reasonably challenge the status quo." Baloney. These students might have a four year record of competence, but in denying the foundational theory altogether, they are showing a lack of fundamental understanding that is required in post-graduate work. Were they to challenge parts of the theory where predictions do not match observations, I am certain things would be different for them. This is not warning students not to challenge the status quo. Rather, it is showing that there is an appropriate way to go about challenging the status quo, and that their way is not the correct manner. Behe accomplished getting through undergraduate and post-graduate studies not by denying the fundamental theory of his field, but rather by challenging the portions of the theory he felt did not mesh with his observations. His way, though his reasoning is flawed, is more correct than these students. "The potential harm in censorship is greater than the potential harm in hearing a student out. Until he states his specific position, you have no rational basis for plugging your ears." The students had ample time to make their case before this professor. I am done making the same points on this. I refuse to repeat myself ad nauseum. Quite frankly, this discussion has gone from decent to idiotic.
199.80.67.240
"In retrospect we now see that to be true. But in his time, his views were considered revolutionary, and had he been subjected to the whim of a closed-minded professor, his work might have suffered."
