The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[Remedy]

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:

In the beginning there was the unholy trinity of the particles, the unthinking and unfeeling laws of physics, and chance. Together they accidentally made the amino acids which later began to live and to breathe. Then the living, breathing entities began to imagine. And they imagined God. But then they discovered science and then science produced Darwin. Later Darwin discovered evolution and the scientists discarded God.

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.

Recently, I asked Dr. Dini for that proof. He didn’t respond.

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.

At least that seems to be the way things have evolved.

[PatrickHenry]

Revised:
Polly the creationoid parrot says (over and over):
[Squaawk] No transitionals. No transitionals.
Second law of [squaawk] thermodynamics!
I'm not a fanatic. *You're* a fanatic! [screeech]
Law of biogenesis. Law of biogenesis. [squaawk]
[Screeech] Science is satanic. Science is satanic.
[Squaawk] Irreducable complexity. Irreducable complexity.
Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager. [screeech]
[Squaawk] Tornado in a junkyard. 1⁷²⁰.
Young earth. Young earth. [screeech]
[Squaawk] Hitler. [Squaawk] Stalin. [Squaawk] Pol Pot.

SQUAAAWK! SCREEEECH!

[Stultis]

Polly the creationoid parrot

For no particular reason, here's a parrot joke:

This guy had this parrot that could talk. I mean not like a parrot "talks," but really talk.

Only problem was it swore like a sailor. They guy has a date over for dinner, and the parrot is making all kinds of (prematurely) lewd suggestions. The Pastor is over for Sunday supper, and the parrot is taking the Lord's name in vain.

So one day the guy gets fed up. He yanks the parrot off his perch, carries him out to the garage, shoves him into the freezer and slams it shut.

For a while the parrot is cussing up a storm. After a longer while he begins to quiet down and then fall silent. Finally the guy opens up the freezer and the well chilled parrot crawls out.

"O.K.," says the parrot, "I get the point. No more cussing ever again. But first I gotta ask you one question. What the ___ did the chicken say?!

[Right Wing Professor]

1001

...cleans a big big carpet, for less than half a crown.

Goddamn it, I could with the Nobel prize, if I could just free up the brain space taken up by obscure 40 year old advertising jingles.

[PatrickHenry]

Parrot Jokes.

[ALS]

[Aric2000]

LOL, They just keep getting better!!

I'm sorry everybody, but I sure hope he keeps this up, these are real original and they are actually pretty damn funny!!

[ALS]

[general_re]

...cleans a big big carpet, for less than half a crown.

Now that you've piqued my curiosity enough to google it...does it? Does it really clean a big, big carpet? ;)

[ALS]

[ALS]

[Last Visible Dog]

Mr. Alles seems to approach teaching non science majors from a very broad view. His lectures and syllabi try to tie in many different concepts, which can be pretty interesting. Then again, they can be used by the LVD's of the world to bolster his porous theories. Since LVD only linked an acrobat description, making it difficult to get the true gist and context of why a biology teacher would evoke cosmology in the first place. But I think a fair reading of his entire course outline will put it in better perspective. Here's his old course outlines and such.

Whattajoke – you are farily clueless on this topic. Cosmology is studied both by physics departments and philosophy departments (it is pretty much out of the scope of biology although biology is not out of the scope of cosmology). The physics department focuses on different concepts of cosmology than the philosophy department. Like I said from the beginning I approach this subject from the philosophy side – my initial point included that position “cosmology falls more in the realm of philosophy than science”. Whattajoke – it is clear you have never studied philosophy – cosmology is a school of thought in philosophy that deals in theories of the address every aspect of the universe in totality – soup-to-nuts (big bang, evolution, biological evolution, that nature and evolution of thought and reasoning) – philosophy focuses on thought process unlike the discipline of physics.

You are disparately trying to pretend cosmology has nothing to do with evolution (because you backed yourself into a corner by making the silly statement). The best you have done is prove cosmology is a broad subject that means different things to different people depending on how they approach the subject (physics, astronomy, philosophy). I have studied cosmology both from the philosophy side and the astronomy side – guess what: different topics were address from the astronomy-based classes and the philosophy-based classes. BTW: I also presented supporting evidence in the form of various cosmological theories from a various group of philosophers that incorporate evolution (including Darwinism)

If one dictionary definition exists that supports my position – you position is rendered fallacious – end of story (maybe that will teach you not to make broad brush statements – if you would have said from the perspective of the physics discipline of leaning – biological evolution is not addressed (of course cosmic evolution is addressed – that too renders your statement null and void)

All you are doing now is applying your own personal delimiters to the subject and trying to somehow argue that supports your broad-brush all-encompassing statement “evolution has nothing to do with cosmology

The existence of one dictionary definition that supports my position renders your position fallacious (no matter how much you whine, change the subject, type endless and meaningless messages, or spew insults)

You can’t talk your way out of this one – your statement was in error – you know it and I know it and you will never spin your way out.

BTW: evolution as a noun or verb was the silliest and most pathetic attempt at spin

[Last Visible Dog]

HINT: the word and concept of evolution existed before Darwinism

But it meant something different, then, now didn't it? Or maybe you aren't aware of this.

THE HELL IT DID.

Before Darwin and TODAY the word evolution has the same meaning.

Evolution - A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form

Darwin did not change the meaning of the word evolution - what a silly statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Darwinism is merely a form of evolution.

Are you people really this ignorant related to this topic or do you just like to argue?

[Last Visible Dog]

Now unless you can prove biological evolution has something to do with "space-time relationships of the universe" (which is absurd) - biological evolution *doesn't* have something to do with cosmology.

The existence of ONE definition that supports my statement supports my position and disproves your silly absolute statement - I only need one definition to prove my statement - the only way your statement is true is if ALL definitions support it (which is clearly not the case) - maybe that will teach you not to make absolute statements

[Last Visible Dog]

HINT: the word and concept of evolution existed before Darwinism

But it meant something different, then, now didn't it? Or maybe you aren't aware of this.

This is a great example of Orthodox Darwinism. Not only is this clown a know-it-all – he actually believes that Lord God Darwin changed the very meaning of the word “evolution” - like I said, Orthodox Darwinism is more dogma than science.

“In the beginning there was Darwin and his book was the truth (praise be to Darwin) – all hail Lord God Darwin

[Last Visible Dog]

Can you give some examples outside the realm of biology?

Cosmic evolution - the evolution of matter in the cosmos - the formation of stars, planets, galaxies.

Evolution is the main princple of science-based cosmological theories (dare I say "evolution as cosmology so nobody with think I mean only biological evolution) - things evolue - biological evolution (evolution of life on this planet) is merely ONE form or example of evolution. NOTE: the thinking process of man has evolued and that too has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Check out Tufts University webpages on Cosmic Evolution click here

[Last Visible Dog]

Then again, they can be used by the LVD's of the world to bolster his porous theories.

Please state (specifically) what you claim are my porous theories.

[Last Visible Dog]

At any rate, one guy's course outline from a small liberal arts school does not a coherent theory make

Who ever claimed it did, Joke-boy?

(to quote Snoop Doggy Doggy) Now back to the topic at hand- Joke-boy claims evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. The existence of ONE dictionary definition that states evolution is included in cosmology or the existence of one university that states evolution is part of cosmology proves my statement and Joke-boy's position is rendered bogus. I have presented three major forms of supporting evidence - all Joke-boy has done is prove that the word cosmology does not always have the same meaning depending on context (which is totally irrelevant in the context of Joke-boy's absolute statement)(all together everybody “duh!”)

BTW: whattajoke, you have not addressed my supporting evidence from the NASA website. I can't wait to see you try and shoot that down. “NASA is a two-bit operation that can’t even land the space shuttle safely” (to quote Mick Jagger “you guys are a gas”)

[Last Visible Dog]

although I have no idea why he no longer teaches there, or anywhere according to google among others.

So if a google search does not return his place of employment - Joke-boy assumes he must be unemployed

Do you actually believe innuendo is a valid debate tactic?

Joke-boy, you are such a clown.

[Last Visible Dog]

Since LVD only linked an acrobat description

Joke-boy, you can’t get anything correct – I linked to an HTML page

teehee

[Last Visible Dog]

But I think a fair reading of his entire course outline will put it in better perspective. Here's his old course outlines and such.

So? No matter how much you twist and distort - your position is false.

"evolution has nothing to do with cosmology" is a false statment. No amount of spin can change this