Jump to content

Talk:Francisco J. Ayala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Francisco J. Ayala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Francisco J. Ayala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not tell is one-sided

[edit]

@Yaakovaryeh: While verifiable, the claim you have introduced is one-sided, see e.g.

Often students in Ayala’s introductory biology class tell him that they will answer test questions as he wishes, but in truth they reject evolution because of their Christian beliefs. Then, a couple of years later, when they have learned more science, they decide to abandon their religion. The two, students seem to think, are incompatible. That saddens him, Ayala says. Instead he would like believers to reconcile their faith with science. Drawing on five years of study in preparation for ordination as a Dominican priest, Ayala uses evolution to help answer a central paradox of Christianity—namely, how can a loving, all-knowing God allow evil and suffering?

— Sally Lehrman, The Christian Man's Evolution: How Darwinism and Faith Can Coexist, Scientific American

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implications: he does not say if he is still a believer, but he is clearly a theologian and he is saddened by Christians who lose their faith. These being said, theology is a realm of scholarship like any other and it is not written in the stars that theologians are believers. Also, he might be saddened because he considers petty to lose one's faith over evolution theory (he argues that science and religion are fully compatible). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: My source is not just an opinionated claim, it's quoting the person himself, so I'm not sure how it can be one sided. The article either lied or it didn't, and being that it's a verifiable source without any other contradicting it we can assume it quoted him accurately.
As you say, what you sited says nothing about his beliefs, so it's not really relevant to my edit. Furthermore, what your source does indicate is already reflected in that paragraph in the 2nd and 3rd sentences prior.
I'm not sure why you're bringing in the term "theologian", that term was not mentioned/implied by what I removed or added.
(I too originally thought he was religious and included him in the theistic evolutionists category. When my edit was reverted, I looked into it more carefully and realized he does not identify one way or the other.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs)
Well, I do not have an issue with what you wrote above, but I think it should be stressed that he is also theologian. On the internet there is an article lambasting him for he called heretic an Intelligent Design proponent, while he does not disclose whether he is Christian. While I am not a Christian, I also stated about an editor who introduced Sola Scriptura WP:OR in rowiki articles that what he does is heresy in the Eastern Orthodox Church (he claimed to be Eastern Orthodox). So, calling somebody heretic in respect to Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy/mainline Protestantism could be a statement of fact, which can be stated regardless of the religious beliefs of the speaker. That's why I agree that we don't know if he is a believer, but he is certainly a theologian and he is advancing a constructive dialogue between science and religion (he got a Templeton Prize for it). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yaakovaryeh: Further, the quality of being a Catholic priest cannot be retracted/resigned, so technically he still is a Catholic priest. Once a Catholic priest means priest forever. A Catholic priest could convert to Atheism, Satanism or Adventism, but in this case he would be an Atheist Catholic priest, a Satanist Catholic priest or an Adventist Catholic priest—being a Catholic priest cannot be undone, in the Bible it is written "you are priest forever" and the Catholic Church means it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: None of this pertains directly to what I added.
Anyway, that he was a priest is mentioned not only in the lead, but also in the sentence immediately preceding the one I added/edited. Also, I doubt the verse in the bible speaks of modern priests which probably didn't exist at the time, but rather Levite priests. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the Sexual Harassment Charges

[edit]

No detail has been released about the charges against Ayala. We know he was found guilty, but we don't know WHAT he was found guilty of or what the evidence was. I think this was worth noting so I added the sentence "Details of the charges were never made public, and a number of scholars have expressed skepticism regarding the fairness of the investigation." This is supported by the New York Times article I linked. The sentence added by CPMenroute was way too strong IMO. My edit was accurate and correct supported by newspaper links - the facts speak for themselves - how can the truth be too strong!? TarenJean (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Beliefs

[edit]

Is he still a catholic now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.2.250 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He does not tell. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AAAS Fellow

[edit]

He is still listed as a fellow of the AAAS in their member directory. I believe the assertion that AAAS removed his fellow status is false. Mvitulli (talk)

Mvitulli, I'm not sure about the AAAS. However, the NAS appears to have rescinded his membership [1] as of 2021. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theistic evolutionists

[edit]

Should Ayala be added to the category "Theistic evolutionists"? YTKJ (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francisco_J._Ayala&oldid=1256903239"