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.

[atlaw]

Oh, and by the way, your link to the article still doesn't answer my question in the least.

[Saturnalia]

I would like to state this thread and the discussions within has made this board more stupider.

[balrog666]

1) My original question wasn't to you. As usual you insert yourself where you're not welcome.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!! I could say the same thing about you and this thread. Perhaps, all threads!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It's nice to see things back to normal on FR.

Any 3 billion-year-old human fossils turn up yet?

[Heartlander]

Do you believe in God? And why? (where is the proof)
p.s. I sure never have seen any.

What are you looking for?

I believe in God and 'one' of the reasons is “The Absurdity of Life Without God”

I hope you can take a few minutes and listen.

[PatrickHenry]

Any 3 billion-year-old human fossils turn up yet?

Not yet, but they're bound to show up. Right now we're still sifting through the debris of Noah's Flood. Looks really promising. Scientists are abandoning evolution in droves -- well, at least one, a toilet-design engineer who runs the venerable Institute for Creation Research. The comic books are selling well. And we wucked up some eeevil-ooou-shunist professor so much that he had to change a few words on his website. Yes, I'd say things are looking good! We'll be back in the Tenth Century before you know it.
</creationoid mode>

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

[AndyJackson]

Got Lithium?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

I think you scared him. You're going to need the VLA to pick up an answer.

[PatrickHenry]

I sure never have seen any.

SETI's secret password?

[longshadow]

Any 3 billion-year-old human fossils turn up yet?

Haven't you heard; all the 3 x 10⁹ year old human fossils have been dug up and are being hidden in the basement laboratories of the evil evolutionist scientists. It's a conspiracy, doncha know......

</lunatic anti-evo conspiracy mode>

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!!

They keep it with the 6000 year-old dinosaur fossils.

[f.Christian]

To: whattajoke

waj ...

It is my strong contention that science, and all its tenets, is an important part of conservatism. We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are) and this is all part of that. The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left.


ph ...


Well stated. That is also my position.


112 posted on 04/29/2003 3:00 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)


fC ...


Overlordism ...

I'm only surprised that you publicly admit it (( you 're not joshing // tricking me ? ? )) !

"We consider ourselves more knowledgable and educated (well, we are)" ---


fC ...


Is that only what your worried about ... what leftist think ---

"The minority of YEC's in our world do us an injustice, and make for easy ridicule from the left."

What's the difference between your village and hillary clinton's ?

[Dimensio]

I believe in God and 'one' of the reasons is “The Absurdity of Life Without God”

I had a listen. Appeals to false dichotomy and appeal to the consequences. Throws in a nice little strawman, too.

It's a string of logical fallacies in an attempt to handwave a 'necessity' of a God to give our lives meaning by appealing to what he wants to be real (rather than what is demonstratably real), without actually demonstrating that a god of any sort exists. Bulds a story of gloom and doom regarding the eventual 'death' of the universe and then asserts that a god exists simply because we need hope.

Guess what. Wanting there to be a god does not mean that a god exists. It will take more than weak logical fallacies to convince me.

[Doctor Stochastic]

How do you feel that admission to medical school should be determined? I disagree completely with your assertions that one can ignore basic biology and be a good doctor.

[Dark Knight]

In some ways I feel bad about these continued threads about Dr. Dini. He is in no position to change the scientific community. Heck, I know people without BA's that have more grants under their belts (they're on his website).

I get emotionally charged when I think about the "student" that sat in on his class (non student in reality) and made a complaint. A poseur in the real sense.

But the most amusement I get, is the lack of standards I see, when a person can ask "What clinical medical practice or technique requires a belief in evolution?" Required belief is key. If there is not a clear case for the belief, and I do mean noncontroversial type clear, it is wrong. Many competant physicians are not evolutionists.

There are better tests for physician compentency. If you do not use them, your claim of scientist is in question.

DK
These threads are always strange.

[Ichneumon]

Nor can you authoritatively say that live evolved... for the same reasons. Dini seems to have granted himself that authority.

Oh, puh-leaze.

That's a mighty big straw man you've got there:

As you well know from the countless prior threads on this topic -- but are desperately trying to pretend you don't -- is that insisting that science students accept current scientific views in order to get a letter of recommendation attesting to their fitness to practice science is in no way an exercise in "dogma" or declaring oneself to have "authoritative" answers. It is, quite simply, the proper way to accredit someone (or not) for the field they profess an interest in.

And no amount of your scornful one-liners (most of which do not even address the point being made, except to emptily reject it) will change that.

If a student wants a science degree, they're going to have to accept the fundamentals of science. If they want to reject the basic foundations, they need to find another career.

Similarly, divinity schools are well within their rights and the bounds of common sense to reject giving letters of recommendation to atheists who openly reject what the school was formed to teach.

Get over it, and stop making mountains out of molehills, or pretending that you don't grasp what has already been explained to you countless times. If you're playing dumb, you're not helping your case any. And if you're not playing at it, go find something more your level to discuss and stop wasting our time.

[Ichneumon]

Your question has too many incorrect assumptions. If it were only discretionary, there would be no legal challenge. Dini would just be the typical arrogant evolutionist that loved throwing his weight around.

As opposed to what -- the typical arrogant self-righteous condescending creationist?

[Ichneumon]

[Don't duck the question. Where's your list?]

1) My original question wasn't to you. As usual you insert yourself where you're not welcome.

Lame dodge #1... (Hint: It's a public forum, son. I don't recall anyone specifically inviting *you* to join this thread and add your opinions, either.)

2) It's a stupid question. There must be some other forum where you can ask them.

Lame dodge #2... (Hint: Actually, it's a very relevant question. Either you can't see that, which doesn't speak well for your insight, or you can see it, and your dodging doesn't speak well for your intellectual honesty.)

3) If it is possible for you to carry on in intelligent conversation regarding Dini's bigotry, please begin now. Otherwise...

Lame dodge #3... (Hint: Son, *you* were the one who raised the issue of why one might or might not believe in god, and the moment someone engages you in a discussion of that point that doesn't go your way, you frantically try to whine that all you want to talk about is the original topic...)

Three intellectually dishonest attempts to divert attention from your refusal to answer the quest -- your credibility is *out*. Thanks for playing.

Do you *really* think you're doing your side any credit with these sorts of transparent antics?

[Heartlander]

Craig has not stated any ‘ultimate’ logical fallacy.
Thus (as you should agree), we have no ‘ultimate’ disagreement.
Since you temporally disagree (with me), apparently Nature has made this subject (to you) impurely subjective and without consequence. We are now left with the ‘ultimate’ - - - “So What?”

Now to Dini… Objectively speaking:

Anyone who doubts (but understands) the ‘theory of common descent’ is not competent for a job as a physician.
Is this statement true?