Is there a reason why religiously affiliated universities are opening up DO schools?

[guylewis]

Serenade, you are my hero. you have beautifully responded to each of the argumentys. don't stop PLEASE!
only in the US and Turkey is there such a strong denial of basic science. to say evolution is not real and that the world is only 6,000 years old, you not only have to refute that the stone age existed, but you have to also say you don't believe in physics, astrophysics, geology, chemistry, genomics, linguistics, paleontology, dendrochronology, nuclear decay, the Doppler effect, etc. etc. you have to say all of these things are hoaxes made to trick us into believing the earth and the universe were only recently created.

ps. tomorrow, Bill Nye the Science Guy is debating Ken Ham on evolution vs. creationism. it will be webcast live.

I've never met mean Mormons either. I mean aside from the whole funding prop 8 fiasco they seem relatively... Chill.

But anywho this thread has gone off track. I think it's time a mod shut it down.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Skeeks]

Essentially osteopathic medicine right now is pushing towards becoming similar to the Psy.D for psychology students. Unless COCA begins to push professional schools the degree will degrade in value and our prospects come residency will be awful.

http://www.osteopathic.org/inside-aoa/accreditation/predoctoral accreditation/Documents/new-and-developing-colleges-of-osteopathic-medicine-and-campuses.pdf

I mean seriously look at some of the applicants.

Wisconson and SUU are the only two I would seriously want. Some others look alright, but lots look pretty sketchy.

 

[Isha2018]

Everything that is currently taught in evolution has been proven up to this point regardless of whether or not you think its false. The only reason people complain about evolution is because it conflicts with their personal beliefs and respective religions. By denying some proven scientific theories and accepting others you are simply having your cake and eating it too. Sure your god may be employing evolution, but if you honestly believe that you must also accept that he is responsible for dead babies, cancer, rape, murder, etc. I just hope in the future you use your amazing compartmentalization skills to put your dubious beliefs into a nice little box and toss it into the ocean to avoid thrusting them upon your patients and potentially harming them.

You are seriously rude! You don't know the extent of my beliefs, and you probably don't know I DID bury my first child. God is amazing and I do not blame him for anything.

I never will thrust my beliefs upon my patients. That would be unethical.

Are you trying to flame people of faith????

 

[ninjaman22]

Wisconson and SUU are the only two I would seriously want. Some others look alright, but lots look pretty sketchy.

Yeap: Center for Allied Health Nursing Education...seriously?

 

[Mad Jack]

Yup, he's gone full potato.
End this thread.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Serenade, you are my hero. Having taught evolutionary biology at a university, and having a masters degree in the subject, I feel you have beautifully responded to each of the arguments. don't stop PLEASE!
only in the US and Turkey is there such a strong denial of basic science. to say evolution is not real and that the world is only 6,000 years old, you not only have to refute that the stone age existed, but you have to also say you don't believe in physics, astrophysics, geology, chemistry, genomics, linguistics, paleontology, dendrochronology, nuclear decay, the Doppler effect, etc. etc. you have to say all of these things are hoaxes made to trick us into believing the earth and the universe were only recently created.

ps. tomorrow, Bill Nye the Science Guy is debating Ken Ham on evolution vs. creationism. it will be webcast live.

Bill has already lost by acknowledging that such a position is humorable by attracting life to a dying asylum of ignorance.

The US educational system is enormously broken and there is denial of just about every fact. Issac Asimov has a pretty good quote on it actually.
I mean honestly we don't prepare these kids for anything these days let alone the basic capacity to even observe and understand the world they find themselves in. I mean we really need to rectify the curriculum and expect more from our children. I mean we need to completely recalibrate the entire society honestly.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Yeap: Center for Allied Health Nursing Education...seriously?

tbh, the fact that they even felt capable of applying should be recognized as damaging.

 

[stlrams22]

The intermediate species angle. Stlrams22, have you ever taken an evolution course? Did you go to a religion-affiliated undergrad?

All my courses have been at public universities. I took bio ii and that was all evolution. I spoke with my biology professor indepth about the apparent holes in the theory. I asked many questions trying to get a better understanding. I got to know the professor quite well. Towards the end of the semester i asked him about some of the things mentioned previously in addition to the development of the brain and humans advanced ability to think and reason. My professor acknowledged there are serious flaws in the theory and said his own personal belief was the process of evolution with an intelligent designer. He said something can't be explained. This man had a Ph.D so when i hear others on here who won't acknowledgment there are general problems with the theory it shows how closed minded people can be.

 

[guylewis]

also, for the person trying to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to disprove evolution...if you know the law well you would know that it is applicable for closed systems only (no outside energy input). earth is NOT a closed system.

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-second-law

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You are seriously rude! You don't know the extent of my beliefs, and you probably don't know I DID bury my first child. God is amazing and I do not blame him for anything.

I never will thrust my beliefs upon my patients. That would be unethical.

Are you trying to flame people of faith????

I think we're all getting a bit riled up. Lets all sit down, drink some tea, and talk about how amazing I am.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

All my courses have been at public universities. I took bio ii and that was all evolution. I spoke with my biology professor indepth about the apparent holes in the theory. I asked many questions trying to get a better understanding. I got to know the professor quite well. Towards the end of the semester i asked him about some of the things mentioned previously in addition to the development of the brain and humans advanced ability to think and reason. My professor acknowledged there are serious flaws in the theory and said his own personal belief was the process of evolution with an intelligent designer. He said something can't be explained. This man had a Ph.D so when i hear others on here who won't acknowledgment there are general problems with the theory it shows how closed minded people can be.

I'm not denying that it's a perfect theory, it's always being perfected. But the reality is that it happened, there's no avoiding that truth.

Personally again, my issue with avoiding evolution is that life, physiology, anatomy, and even behavior becomes arbitrary once you consider things religiously. I mean why develop an anti-echo mechanism in some bugs, why develop very effective and functional eyes if bats don't use them? Why have 5 toes when a single one would work fine and avoid infection? Why maintain the vestigal appendix when it is prone to bursting, and so on.

Personally my issue with this whole thing is that we will never know. But to sit down and agree that literature, bedtime stories, folklore that is likely driven at least in part by a limited understanding of the world is all we need or infallible. Well that's when I get up and leave. When someone asks you to stop asking questions and believe, I take issue with that.

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't get all this "universe created in seven days, earth is only 10k years old" nonsense. Even if you are religious, look at it this way. Perhaps God's time is not our time. Seven days to him could be billions of years to us, and the bible could very well just speaking in metaphors and allegory so that the primitive people that were initially given its words to interpret could understand it better. God could very well have used evolution to guide things along, or perhaps he simply knew we would arise by the initial creation of life upon this earth, and no further intervention was needed. Because such concepts were far beyond the understanding of our ancestors, it was basically related to them that we had been created from nothing. Which is essentially what happened, just in a very roundabout way. Even in the bible, man was created last, a relatively recent invention compared to the creatures that came before him. And god created things in kind, that seem to be based upon their initial forms- "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Evolution can work perfectly within the framework of the bible, so long as you understand that everything is not literal and that, perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, thought us clever enough to understand one day that it was not all meant to be taken word for word, for the plainly worded truth was far too complicated (and honestly would have sounded too crazy) for our ancient relatives to understand.

But whatever, to each their own. I just don't see how religion and evolution are all that incompatible.

 

[Skeeks]

"Everything that is currently taught in evolution has been proven up to this point regardless of whether or not you think its false. The only reason people complain about evolution is because it conflicts with their personal beliefs and respective religions. By denying some proven scientific theories and accepting others you are simply having your cake and eating it too. Sure your god may be employing evolution, but if you honestly believe that you must also accept that he is responsible for dead babies, cancer, rape, murder, etc. I just hope in the future you use your amazing compartmentalization skills to put your dubious beliefs into a nice little box and toss it into the ocean to avoid thrusting them upon your patients and potentially harming them." - CoolBreeze

You are seriously rude! You don't know the extent of my beliefs, and you probably don't know I DID bury my first child. God is amazing and I do not blame him for anything.

I never will thrust my beliefs upon my patients. That would be unethical.

Are you trying to flame people of faith????

Agreed. CoolBreeze I think you are out of line. It's fine to wonder why people of faith beleive the way they do while also believing modern science (or not believing, whichever) but your comment crosses the line a bit. Not trying to inflame the arguement, but I do think you should take another look at what you just said.

 

[Roxas]

Indeed it is the beauty of science and the bane of all religion. Faith requires one to accept something without evidence in its very definition. This is why physicians should be taught in an environment which discourages such thought.

But you're talking as if the acceptance of faith in religion MUST be applied to science/medicine as well. My belief in deity does not affect what I learn in the classroom. The two ideologies can, do, and will continue to coexist. I was told by a religious biology professor here at my undergrad that to him science is the "how" and religion is the "why."

 

[stlrams22]

You are seriously rude! You don't know the extent of my beliefs, and you probably don't know I DID bury my first child. God is amazing and I do not blame him for anything.

I never will thrust my beliefs upon my patients. That would be unethical.

Are you trying to flame people of faith????

Agree completely. Often people like this will be the loudest. It certainly does make anyone comment the validity of their statements. That's why some atheists cry so loudly at Christmas or make other comments about religion.

Sorry about your loss. I couldn't imagine going through that, but you're correct. There is a God.

 

[CooIBreeze]

You are seriously rude! You don't know the extent of my beliefs, and you probably don't know I DID bury my first child. God is amazing and I do not blame him for anything.

I never will thrust my beliefs upon my patients. That would be unethical.

Are you trying to flame people of faith????

I have no issue with anyone's personal beliefs until they start vocalizing them and follow an inconsistent progression of logic. If you want your beliefs that's fine, but don't attempt to muddle the facts and science these people dedicated their lives to discover for future generations. If you are going to make these claims at least stay consistent (which is the reason I fear for your patients not your religious beliefs); you can't pick and choose what you want to be fact and discredit the rest because you think its false. I'm not quite sure why you are playing the victim in response to my "flame" of your faith when you are doing the same thing, except to information that holds infinitely more weight that any religion. I am sorry for your loss and however you deal with it is your business. I would be an arrogant **** to even suggest I know how it feels to lose a child and what you went through.

 

[Mad Jack]

Stepping away from the arguments for a second... What if life is just some experiment, and God doesn't have much of a hand in anything. He's just sort of a guy that is watching what is happening as it unfolds and recording our deeds and results. It would certainly explain the haphazard nature of life and the general lack of divine intervention. I mean, this could all be a petri dish or computer simulation, and we could just be a grad school project for all we know.

 

[DoctorKrieger]

This thread, no good will come of it.

Stlrams, I hope you realize that the central unifying theory of all biology doesn't have to conflict with any personal belief system and can, in fact, even support it. All the arguments you have presented in this thread have been addressed ad nauseam by many others and are addressed in, if I may suggest, The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean Carroll. It's a pretty interesting read, although the author does come off sounding like a d*** at times. The evidence supporting evolution and debunking all the creationist arguments found in this thread is based in sound scientific evidence without agenda.

I'm done posting in this thread. /dropsmic

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I don't get all this "universe created in seven days, earth is only 10k years old" nonsense. Even if you are religious, look at it this way. Perhaps God's time is not our time. Seven days to him could be billions of years to us, and the bible could very well just speaking in metaphors and allegory so that the primitive people that were initially given its words to interpret could understand it better. God could very well have used evolution to guide things along, or perhaps he simply knew we would arise by the initial creation of life upon this earth, and no further intervention was needed. Because such concepts were far beyond the understanding of our ancestors, it was basically related to them that we had been created from nothing. Which is essentially what happened, just in a very roundabout way. Even in the bible, man was created last, a relatively recent invention compared to the creatures that came before him. And god created things in kind, that seem to be based upon their initial forms- "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Evolution can work perfectly within the framework of the bible, so long as you understand that everything is not literal and that, perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, thought us clever enough to understand one day that it was not all meant to be taken word for word, for the plainly worded truth was far too complicated (and honestly would have sounded too crazy) for our ancient relatives to understand.

But whatever, to each their own. I just don't see how religion and evolution are all that incompatible.

Hence why faith is important in religion. There are simply too many ifs, hows, whys, etc. I don't begin to claim to understand the universe and even the world in its fullness. But i'll take my chances with the mind I have.

 

[Roxas]

I don't get all this "universe created in seven days, earth is only 10k years old" nonsense. Even if you are religious, look at it this way. Perhaps God's time is not our time. Seven days to him could be billions of years to us, and the bible could very well just speaking in metaphors and allegory so that the primitive people that were initially given its words to interpret could understand it better. God could very well have used evolution to guide things along, or perhaps he simply knew we would arise by the initial creation of life upon this earth, and no further intervention was needed. Because such concepts were far beyond the understanding of our ancestors, it was basically related to them that we had been created from nothing. Which is essentially what happened, just in a very roundabout way. Even in the bible, man was created last, a relatively recent invention compared to the creatures that came before him. And god created things in kind, that seem to be based upon their initial forms- "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Evolution can work perfectly within the framework of the bible, so long as you understand that everything is not literal and that, perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, thought us clever enough to understand one day that it was not all meant to be taken word for word, for the plainly worded truth was far too complicated (and honestly would have sounded too crazy) for our ancient relatives to understand.

But whatever, to each their own. I just don't see how religion and evolution are all that incompatible.

This is precisely how I understand it

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Stepping away from the arguments for a second... What if life is just some experiment, and God doesn't have much of a hand in anything. He's just sort of a guy that is watching what is happening as it unfolds and recording our deeds and results. It would certainly explain the haphazard nature of life and the general lack of divine intervention. I mean, this could all be a petri dish or computer simulation, and we could just be a grad school project for all we know.

Ironically enough before the Matrix came out you'd probably be sent to an asylum for saying that.

In either way, like I said before. There are a lot of ifs and a lot of chances that we're all in some fundamentally awful way flawed in our explanation of the world.

But I'm pretty sure that's why wine was invented.

 

[Mad Jack]

Hence why faith is important in religion. There are simply too many ifs, hows, whys, etc. I don't begin to claim to understand the universe and even the world in its fullness. But i'll take my chances with the mind I have.

Yeah. I don't really argue for or against religion, personally. I think it's just a belief some people have. It's been useful as a socially unifying force in the past, and might very well prove useful in the future as well, real or not. I just wish erryone would get along.

 

[Roxas]

Soooo....how bout them Broncos?

 

[guylewis]

intelligent design has been thoroughly debunked and has not a single bit of scientific proof. it's only conjecture backed with faith. the evolution of the eye (once held as the great proof of an "intelligent designer") has been shown as reducibly complex, starting with a simpler structure that slowly evolves more complexity throughout different species (even demonstrable in extant species of mollusks). if god was really such a wonderful architect why does he love an octopus more than humans? they have much better eyes adapted with no blind spot unlike us unfortunate humans who have our retina behind blood vessels and nerve fibers creating a blind spot. our eyes are backwards and cephalopods got it right since their eyes evolved separately from vertebrates. their eyes were evolved from the skin, whereas our vertebrate eyes were evolved out of the brain and embryologically we can't invert the retina.

reducible complexity of eye evolution demonstration:

All my courses have been at public universities. I took bio ii and that was all evolution. I spoke with my biology professor indepth about the apparent holes in the theory. I asked many questions trying to get a better understanding. I got to know the professor quite well. Towards the end of the semester i asked him about some of the things mentioned previously in addition to the development of the brain and humans advanced ability to think and reason. My professor acknowledged there are serious flaws in the theory and said his own personal belief was the process of evolution with an intelligent designer. He said something can't be explained. This man had a Ph.D so when i hear others on here who won't acknowledgment there are general problems with the theory it shows how closed minded people can be.

 

[soitgoes32]

But you're talking as if the acceptance of faith in religion MUST be applied to science/medicine as well. My belief in deity does not affect what I learn in the classroom. The two ideologies can, do, and will continue to coexist. I was told by a religious biology professor here at my undergrad that to him science is the "how" and religion is the "why."

If you are willing to approach your medical education in a way that completely separates your irrational belief in a deity then that's fine. My concern is that there are schools teaching medicine and educating entire classes of new physicians, which will be encouraging them to accept the idea that scientific thought and faith are compatible. This is the case with Liberty (the one with the creation "museum"). Not all of these students may approach their education like yours.

 

[Mad Jack]

Ironically enough before the Matrix came out you'd probably be sent to an asylum for saying that.

In either way, like I said before. There are a lot of ifs and a lot of chances that we're all in some fundamentally awful way flawed in our explanation of the world.

But I'm pretty sure that's why wine was invented.

The roots of the universe as a simulation existed long before the matrix. The holographic principle of string theory pretty much states that everything we see could actually be projected from a single, distant point in the universe, basically. Combine that with the simulation hypothesis, and it is an entirely plausible theory that everything is in fact a simulation. It isn't really all that crazy. Even if everything were, it doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. A fake reality is still every bit real to us, and the only reality we will ever know, so who cares if it is a simulation or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ieve-they-may-have-answered-the-question.html

 

[soitgoes32]

The roots of the universe as a simulation existed long before the matrix. The holographic principle of string theory pretty much states that everything we see could actually be projected from a single, distant point in the universe, basically. Combine that with the simulation hypothesis, and it is an entirely plausible theory that everything is in fact a simulation. It isn't really all that crazy. Even if everything were, it doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot. A fake reality is still every bit real to us, and the only reality we will ever know, so who cares if it is a simulation or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ieve-they-may-have-answered-the-question.html

you might like this...

 

[medickdb]

I, myself, am not religious. But, I find beauty in science much as many find beauty in religion. Nothing is known for certain, everything can change tomorrow, especially in medicine. I don't view science as a cold, calculated "entity" rather I view it as a frontier to be explored, reflected upon, and incorporated into our understanding ourselves. At the end of the day, we do our best with what we know and understand at any given time.

I'm sure everyone has heard of evidence based medicine. Well, that evidence can change tomorrow, in a year, in ten years, or never. All of it must be taken with a grain of salt until it can be analyzed and utilized appropriately. It's easy to forget that there exists bad research just as there exists good research.

I would hope as a physician one could think for oneself while being open minded to input from others because it's impossible to know it all. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.

 

[Roxas]

If you are willing to approach your medical education in a way that completely separates your irrational belief in a deity then that's fine. My concern is that there are schools teaching medicine and educating entire classes of new physicians, which will be encouraging them to accept the idea that scientific thought and faith are compatible. This is the case with Liberty (the one with the creation "museum"). Not all of these students may approach their education like yours.

Irrational? No need to be rude man. I'm giving you the same respect for your beliefs that I would like for mine. As far is the students, that's in their hands. By this point in our lives we all have had various influences put on us, and I sure hope that medical students' conviction is strong enough to withstand a little wiff they may or may not get from the program's undergrad institution. If you're concerned about influences on students, you could scrutinize the general attitude towards abuse of drugs and alcohol among college/medical students more heavily than any religion. As the joke in med school goes, the only ones you'll find in a bar at 3 PM are alcoholics and med students post-exam.

 

[coolingglasses]

I'm not strongly religious myself, but I hope people remember that your patient base is going to be composed of people from many different faiths and that you'll want to show some respect to those belief systems if you expect to maintain a healthy interaction.

 

[medickdb]

Irrational? No need to be rude man. I'm giving you the same respect for your beliefs that I would like for mine. As far is the students, that's in their hands. By this point in our lives we all have had various influences put on us, and I sure hope that medical students' conviction is strong enough to withstand a little wiff they may or may not get from the program's undergrad institution. If you're concerned about influences on students, you could scrutinize the general attitude towards abuse of drugs and alcohol among college/medical students more heavily than any religion. As the joke in med school goes, the only ones you'll find in a bar at 3 PM are alcoholics and med students post-exam.

That's why I think Goro put it best. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but if I recall correctly, he said something about how Liberty itself has colorful beliefs and while the medical school has a standard it must uphold, who can predict how the colors will bleed over? It's enough to make many of us nervous to say the least.

 

[NurWollen]

You are seriously rude! You don't know the extent of my beliefs, and you probably don't know I DID bury my first child. God is amazing and I do not blame him for anything.

I never will thrust my beliefs upon my patients. That would be unethical.

Are you trying to flame people of faith????

CoolBreeze is just demonstrated his ignorance of religion. Sometimes non-religious people sound as ignorant talking about religion as MLM essential oil salesmen do about medicine.

I don't mean to offend any non-religious people, but do they really think that religious people haven't considered complex theological issues like suffering, he existence if evil, and so on?

 

[Mad Jack]

you might like this...

I'll check it out when I'm done with my biochem for the day, thanks!

 

[Roxas]

That's why I think Goro put it best. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but if I recall correctly, he said something about how Liberty itself has colorful beliefs and while the medical school has a standard it must uphold, who can predict how the colors will bleed over? It's enough to make many of us nervous to say the least.

You're right, and just to be clear I'm not pro-LUCOM. I feel like this thread quickly evolved (see what I did there ) into at attack against religious physicians as well, which is why I even said anything.

 

[TreadLightly]

To your first point:

Science provides reproducible results, and then medicine applies those results to healing. At a very basic level, medicine is a series of reproducible techniques. However, human beings choose when and how those techniques are morally acceptable. Each of the examples you give could probably have its own thread to discuss the morality of these issues (When is abortion morally acceptable? Necessary? Practical? If someone doesn't practice it then do they still need to learn how to do it?), but that's just the point: each person's view on these issues will differ greatly. Religious schools can teach the same series of techniques that make up what we call medicine just as competently as secular schools. But in our pluralistic society with religious freedom, it is not the government's or the school's place to say when and how these techniques are morally acceptable.

Regarding evolutionary medicine:

I read the page and appreciate you educating me on the topic. With that said, let's get more specific. The evolution of pathogens over time is a documented and probably universally accepted occurrence. The most evolution-bashing person I know admitted to believing in micro evolution as a documented fact. Evidences of macro evolution such as sickle cell anemia to resist malaria have no bearing on how much metoprolol I am going to titrate into my atrial fib patient. They do not affect the practice of medicine.

I'll be honest: even after getting a bio degree, I still can't see any real distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." They are both based on the same principles and I don't see how you can "believe" in one and not the other. "Microevolution" eventually leads to "macroevolution". I'm putting them in quotes because I'm not even sure if there is a real point in distinguishing between them.

I don't think it's right to bring religion into a discussion of morality. Religions define "right" and "wrong" by interpreting scripture and religious leaders. If there was a religion that defined right and wrong in a way that you didn't like, I will bet money that you'd dismiss the religion as silly and wrong. If a physician that practiced a certain religion was morally opposed to blood transfusions (actual example), do they have the right to refuse a patient blood if they're dying in the ER? Absolutely not. In that case, society has a different version of morality that's different from that religion's definition of morality. Our laws (like it or not) are written to satisfy that definition of morality and the blood transfusion will happen.

Therefore, a certain med school's moral code (based on the beliefs of a school) can very much oppose the moral code that we have as a society. An alumnus of a particular med school can therefore be considered incompetent (for practical purposes) if they're not practicing modern medicine in accordance with the moral code set forth by a society which does not oppose transfusion.

 

[stlrams22]

Irrational? No need to be rude man. I'm giving you the same respect for your beliefs that I would like for mine. As far is the students, that's in their hands. By this point in our lives we all have had various influences put on us, and I sure hope that medical students' conviction is strong enough to withstand a little wiff they may or may not get from the program's undergrad institution. If you're concerned about influences on students, you could scrutinize the general attitude towards abuse of drugs and alcohol among college/medical students more heavily than any religion. As the joke in med school goes, the only ones you'll find in a bar at 3 PM are alcoholics and med students post-exam.

I have noticed several people on here reply to what i said in derogatory terms. Far too many people feel being loud and name calling makes them correct. I respect those who belief only on evolution, those who believe on God and evolution together, and those who do not believe in evolution at all.

 

[medickdb]

CoolBreeze is just demonstrated his ignorance of religion. Sometimes non-religious people sound as ignorant talking about religion as MLM essential oil salesmen do about medicine.

I don't mean to offend any non-religious people, but do they really think that religious people haven't considered complex theological issues like suffering, he existence if evil, and so on?

Well, I actually typed out a response to that, but I deleted it.

His words lacked merit. He grossly generalized religious people while basically stating one had to have a black and white, all or none response. "If you believe X, you must also believe Y." There were also a lot of blind assumptions being made which were kind of hypocritical to the point his argument. The logic didn't follow.

 

[soitgoes32]

Irrational? No need to be rude man. I'm giving you the same respect for your beliefs that I would like for mine. As far is the students, that's in their hands. By this point in our lives we all have had various influences put on us, and I sure hope that medical students' conviction is strong enough to withstand a little wiff they may or may not get from the program's undergrad institution. If you're concerned about influences on students, you could scrutinize the general attitude towards abuse of drugs and alcohol among college/medical students more heavily than any religion. As the joke in med school goes, the only ones you'll find in a bar at 3 PM are alcoholics and med students post-exam.

Not trying to personally attack you man, but I don't see how calling a religious belief irrational is rude. Any position one might have on a particular topic, especially in the political realm, is open game for scrutiny, but somehow people are so sensitive about their religious belief that they can never be called out on their irrationality.

"That's why I think Goro put it best. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but if I recall correctly, he said something about how Liberty itself has colorful beliefs and while the medical school has a standard it must uphold, who can predict how the colors will bleed over? It's enough to make many of us nervous to say the least."

This is exactly my concern with these new schools.

 

[stlrams22]

Not trying to personally attack you man, but I don't see how calling a religious belief irrational is rude. Any position one might have on a particular topic, especially in the political realm, is open game for scrutiny, but somehow people are so sensitive about their religious belief that they can never be called out on their irrationality.

"That's why I think Goro put it best. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but if I recall correctly, he said something about how Liberty itself has colorful beliefs and while the medical school has a standard it must uphold, who can predict how the colors will bleed over? It's enough to make many of us nervous to say the least."

This is exactly my concern with these new schools.

Calling someone's religion irrational is imposing your viewpoints on them. Irrational is your opinion.

 

[touchpause13]

Because the COCA cares more about money than anything else, and if there is anything evangelicals have done right, it's fundraising. They have the income so it's no surprise that they are going this route.
Side note I don't care about incarnate word, Catholicism has always been mixed with higher education and I have no concerns there

 

[coolingglasses]

Not trying to personally attack you man, but I don't see how calling a religious belief irrational is rude. Any position one might have on a particular topic, especially in the political realm, is open game for scrutiny, but somehow people are so sensitive about their religious belief that they can never be called out on their irrationality.

"That's why I think Goro put it best. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but if I recall correctly, he said something about how Liberty itself has colorful beliefs and while the medical school has a standard it must uphold, who can predict how the colors will bleed over? It's enough to make many of us nervous to say the least."

This is exactly my concern with these new schools.

It wasn't one specific belief you went after, it was the whole thing.

Taking something that someone might hold near and dear and opening with calling it "irrational" may not be the best way to carry your argument. It's perfectly acceptable to put political, religious, or whatever beliefs up to scrutiny but tact is everything.

 

[mnsman]

 

[bionerd89]

Not trying to personally attack you man, but I don't see how calling a religious belief irrational is rude. Any position one might have on a particular topic, especially in the political realm, is open game for scrutiny, but somehow people are so sensitive about their religious belief that they can never be called out on their irrationality.

"That's why I think Goro put it best. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but if I recall correctly, he said something about how Liberty itself has colorful beliefs and while the medical school has a standard it must uphold, who can predict how the colors will bleed over? It's enough to make many of us nervous to say the least."

This is exactly my concern with these new schools.

Exactly...my concern with these new schools is that they might have their own agenda. I just hope the students that attend these schools will think for themselves and not be easily persuaded. I know this is all speculation since Liberty's first class hasn't started yet so hopefully in a year from now we can get some insight from a first year student.

 

[soitgoes32]

Calling someone's religion irrational is imposing your viewpoints on them. Irrational is your opinion.

Calling it irrational is not imposing anything on them, making them refute their religion or forcing a student to learn something like creationism would.

 

[soitgoes32]

It wasn't one specific belief you went after, it was the whole thing.

Taking something that someone might hold near and dear and opening with calling it "irrational" may not be the best way to carry your argument. It's perfectly acceptable to put political, religious, or whatever beliefs up to scrutiny but tact is everything.

If my post was offensive I do apologize that was not my intention. I believe the specific belief I called irrational was that in a deity.

 

[stlrams22]

It wasn't one specific belief you went after, it was the whole thing.

Taking something that someone might hold near and dear and opening with calling it "irrational" may not be the best way to carry your argument. It's perfectly acceptable to put political, religious, or whatever beliefs up to scrutiny but tact is everything.

Far to many don't understand that. All you said was to be respectful of peoples belief. I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with that.

 

[CooIBreeze]

Well, I actually typed out a response to that, but I deleted it.

His words lacked merit. He grossly generalized religious people while basically stating one had to have a black and white, all or none response. "If you believe X, you must also believe Y." There were also a lot of blind assumptions being made which were kind of hypocritical to the point his argument. The logic didn't follow.

Missed the point completely.

CoolBreeze is just demonstrated his ignorance of religion. Sometimes non-religious people sound as ignorant talking about religion as MLM essential oil salesmen do about medicine.

I don't mean to offend any non-religious people, but do they really think that religious people haven't considered complex theological issues like suffering, he existence if evil, and so on?

Not once did I ever suggest they haven't considered those things. I was simply asking for consistency in thinking. If that is ignorance then I fear for the future.

Honestly what this boils down to is that I hurt someone's feelings with the truth. Sorry I guess?

 

[touchpause13]

Your religion is complicated and yet your missionaries are hot.....
I desire solace, yet deserve none.


But anywho, that's a fair doctrine.

So I'm not the only one who finds missionaries homoerotic?

Good to know

 

[stlrams22]

Calling it irrational is not imposing anything on them, making them refute their religion or forcing a student to learn something like creationism would.

Calling it irrational is implying that your viewpoint is better. It is like those subtle jabs some people make continuously. Be respectful.

 

[touchpause13]

Everything proven, really???? What about all those gaps in the fossil record? All the missing pieces that have not and will never be found because they don't exist. Is there proof that organisms/animals actually become new species? If i remember correctly from my holy course, part of the theory is that mutations can cause a new species. Strange since mutations are normally lethal or best case scenario a disadvantage.