The Dini-gration of Darwinism

Texas Tech University biology professor Michael Dini recently came under fire for refusing to write letters of recommendation for students unable to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the following question: "How do you think the human species originated?"

For asking this question, Professor Dini was accused of engaging in overt religious discrimination. As a result, a legal complaint was filed against Dini by the Liberty Legal Institute. Supporters of the complaint feared that consequences of the widespread adoption of Dini’s requirement would include a virtual ban of Christians from the practice of medicine and other related fields.

In an effort to defend his criteria for recommendation, Dini claimed that medicine was first rooted in the practice of magic. Dini said that religion then became the basis of medicine until it was replaced by science. After positing biology as the science most important to the study of medicine, he also posited evolution as the "central, unifying principle of biology" which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, which applies to all species.

In addition to claiming that someone who rejects the most important theory in biology cannot properly practice medicine, Dini suggested that physicians who ignore or neglect Darwinism are prone to making bad clinical decisions. He cautioned that a physician who ignores data concerning the scientific origins of the species cannot expect to remain a physician for long. He then rhetorically asked the following question: "If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?"

In an apparent preemptive strike against those who would expose the weaknesses of macro-evolution, Dini claimed that "one can validly refer to the ‘fact’ of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known." Finally, he cautioned that a good scientist "would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs."

The legal aspect of this controversy ended this week with Dini finally deciding to change his recommendation requirements. But that does not mean it is time for Christians to declare victory and move on. In fact, Christians should be demanding that Dini’s question be asked more often in the court of public opinion. If it is, the scientific community will eventually be indicted for its persistent failure to address this very question in scientific terms.

Christians reading this article are already familiar with the creation stories found in the initial chapters of Genesis and the Gospel of John. But the story proffered by evolutionists to explain the origin of the species receives too little attention and scrutiny. In his two most recent books on evolution, Phillip Johnson gives an account of evolutionists’ story of the origin of the human species which is similar to the one below:

Darwinists, who proclaim themselves to be scientists, are certainly entitled to hold this view of the origin of the species. But that doesn’t mean that their view is, therefore, scientific. They must be held to scientific standards requiring proof as long as they insist on asking students to recite these verses as a rite of passage into their "scientific" discipline.

It, therefore, follows that the appropriate way to handle professors like Michael Dini is not to sue them but, instead, to demand that they provide specific proof of their assertion that the origin of all species can be traced to primordial soup. In other words, we should pose Dr. Dini’s question to all evolutionists. And we should do so in an open public forum whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Dini’s silence as well as the silence of other evolutionists speaks volumes about the current status of the discipline of biology. It is worth asking ourselves whether the study of biology has been hampered by the widespread and uncritical acceptance of Darwinian principles. To some observers, its study has largely become a hollow exercise whereby atheists teach other atheists to blindly follow Darwin without asking any difficult questions.

You defend that it is THE ipso facto scientific explanation.

Because it is. There's some legitimate disagreement over the various forces and events which might drive evolution, and how much each contributes (since all are probably at work at various times), but there's quite simply no alternative scientific explanation for the available evidence other than the established view that modern life developed via the change of species over time from at most a very limited number of primitive common ancestors several hundred million years ago.

And you do it with a RELIGIOUS FERVOR, for it doesn't warrant it.

Okay, I'll bite -- what distinguishes a "RELIGIOUS FERVOR" from other kinds of motivated behavior?

It is, after all, just a theory.

In that sense, so is religion. It's "just a theory" about how and why we exist.

I skimmed your response and I must say this: It makes a point with which I think there is plenty of argument for and against.

Too bad we'll never be able to judge the quality of the argument against it.

The problem is that there is just too much to refute in your post. I just don't have the time nor inclination to do so in this forum. You've ratcheted up the time commitment too high. You take the pot, not because you have a winning hand, but because I didn't bring enough money (time) to call your last raise.

Not my intent, I assure you. It contains but a single point, really. I just wanted to fully explain it and its implications, examples, possible counterarguments, etc. It's just an expanded form of the point I had already made to you in post 722:

Of course, many of the dissimilar cars made by GM have common parts under the skin. They're all MADE by the same company. It's not evolution, allthough it may appear to be by some.
No, actually, even a cursory examination would make clear that the very nature of the differences and similarities between different lines of cars would *preclude* an evolutionary explanation, even leaving aside the clear lack of transitional forms and a reproductive mechanism by which those objects could have come about via an evolutionary process.
For example, the electronic ignition on the 1999 model would be found to be an entirely de novo structure which shared no similarities (other than function) with the 1998 model. This would preclude an evolutionary transition.
There would, in fact, be *hundreds* of such "deal breakers" if you took a look at any two similar car models, even those made by the same manufacturer. And yet, biological systems do *not* show any such "would violate evolution" features, in either their structural makeup or at their molecular DNA level.
In other words, all known biological systems and DNA sequences are so far consistent with an evolutionary origin.

In a single sentence: A designer would frequently do things which would stand out quite clearly as being non-evolutionary in nature, just because he can, and evolutionary-type solutions would be too limiting for a designer free to build things to his own requirements.

It was fun!

Thanks, I enjoyed it too. There are a lot of "evolutionary skeptics" on these threads, but you're one of the most civil and least combative. I appreciate it.

BTW, you're putting God in a box. He's bigger than that, and I'm not talking about the origin of species

I don't know. I often feel it's the creationists who put him in a box, making too many presumptions about what he might do or want and why. My point here, in fact, is that I don't think it's defendable to put him in the "box" of *only* designing things which are consistent with evolution. Surely if he were doing the design, he'd be much more innovative than that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.