Posted on 04/29/2003 10:43:39 AM PDT by 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.
Do you somehow imagine that Dini's bigotry can be justified on the basis of my "contention?"
No, son, he "somehow imagines" that you might want to clarify your assertion, since on its face it sounds like you've gone off the tracks somewhere.
Judging from your non sequitur response, perhaps he has a point.
What Dini did was wrong. Why do you evos think that it was right only because he held your evolutionist beliefs?
You *can't* be this dense... (Nor can you possibly believe we'd fall for it if you're being disingenuous.)
Far from anyone thinking "it was right only because he held your evolutionist beliefs", you can't *POSSIBLY* have missed the *countless* times in the many Dini threads (*including* this one) where someone has pointed out to you that they would *similarly* have *no* problem with a religious institution withholding a letter of recommendation from a student in a religious class if that student rejected the religious teachings.
So how on *earth* could you be so incredibly obtuse as to come to the conclusion that we "only" approve of it when evolution is on the table?
I really want an answer to this question: Is your boneheadedly false accusation above based on your a) stupidity or b) dishonesty?
Or perhaps c) a tragic form of amnesia that makes you unable to recall any posts more than a page or so ago?
Why not admit it was wrong and bigoted?
Because it isn't, for reasons that have been explained to you a ridiculous number of times now, which you have yet to properly grasp or rebut.
His bigotry does not prove charlie darwin wrong so why are you guys so lathered up?
We're not -- it's the *creationists* who have gone ballistic on this issue. Try to keep the players straight, please.
Then I sincerely hope that you're not a doctor either.
You mean like that animal that we know is 1 million years old because it was found in a hunk of rock that we decided was 1 million years old?
I listened to it to, and the rebuttal I was formulating in my head as I listened to it was pretty much exactly what I see you've already written. So just put me down for a "seconded".
Wishful thinking is a poor substitute for uncovering the facts, whatever they may be.
There is indeed "a clear case" for belief in evolution. In fact, the case is so clear that I would not want to put my life into the hands of someone who knew the case but rejected it, because there's no telling what other well-founded knowledge they might reject out of hand because it doesn't fit their preferred beliefs, or what practices they might follow as a result of it (e.g., Christian Scientists who reject the process of life-saving blood transfusions).
I would no more want a physician who rejected evolution for fundamentalist grounds than a physician who rejected other parts of modern medicine out of a belief that acupuncture and its effects on the "chi" flow of the body was the "real" root cause of health and disease.
Many competant physicians are not evolutionists.
I require more than mere "competence", thank you very much.
And frankly, from the anti-evolutionists I've met through the years and had long discussions with, I can't say that I have much confidence that most of them could even rise to the level of "competent" when it comes to complex technical issues. I sure as hell wouldn't want any of them doing surgery on me.
The only thing bones and fossils prove is that something lived, then died. The rest is assumptions about those bones and fossils.
Hogwash. You can learn a great deal about life in the past without having to go as far as "assumptions". Unless, of course, you're going to pull the dishonest creationist trick of naming every observation you find uncomfortable as "mere assumption", no matter how obvious and unarguable it may be.
Here, for example, is one of the things we can indisputably observe about the fossil record:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Oh, my. Evolution is science? In bold? OK, I'll play.
Kindly define "Evolution". But please avoid "change over time", which is utterly bereft of content. You will be laughed out of town.
Would you agree that science has its own set of standards that have nothing to do with "Creationism"? If you don't, you have no understanding of science. If you do, why do you mention Creationism?
How do you reconcile 250,000-to-millions of species with virtually no transitional forms in the fossil record? Please take careful note that this is a question of fact, not opinion or rhetoric.
Why has no one demonstrated Evolution in the lab, despite countless years of trying? Fruit flies have been bred into monster fruit flies that rapidly revert to the norm when subsequently left to their own devices. They have never been selectively bred into anything but fruit flies. No new species has ever been created in the lab.
What is the mechanism of evolution? Mutation? If so, it remains to be demonstrated. Mutation destroys genetic information. You might as well say "magic". There is no evidence, from the fossil record or from the lab, that mutation drives Evolution. Well, help yourself to this one. You may wish to note, however, that I am quite good at parsing rhetoric, if I do say so myself.
How is it that species appear fully formed in the fossil record and remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then disappear? Lots of species.
Explain the Cambrian Explosion. Now please don't give us Punk Eek, which says it happens when/because we don't see it. Still no evidence.
Tell us about that mysterious force, Natural Selection which, boiled down to facts, is nothing more than the passive environment. Then explain why there are 3 species of sharks alive today in the worlds waters that 1) lay eggs, 2) give live birth and 3)something in-between. Which came first and which is dominant on the Evolutionary scale?
Yeh, I know. Tough questions. Science is like that. They have yet to be answered with anything other than empty rhetoric by the Darwinists. Darwin was a Master Sophist, as are his acolytes. It's the facts they have trouble with. Now I ask you, where has it been necessary in all the foregoing that there be any appeal to God or Creationism?
Darwinism is Bunk, Gould was a Sophist and Dawkins is an Atheist. Conclusion: Evolutionism ain't science.
Oh! I'm sorry! There was no "poof" in the case of the human, only billions of years.
Thank you for identifying your own straw man, so we don't have to.
There's a whole lot of "c" going around. And you forgot to mention d) SARS -- Severe Anti-Rationality Syndrome.
That is s substantial topic in and of itself. The first stumbling block for materialists/evolutionists is that something exists. It had a beginning. What exists did not come from nothing (without God) since
nothing is nothing
nothing does nothing
therefore nothing can come from nothing.
Don't forget that something coming from nothing is no less than a miracle and materialists don't believe in miracles.
This roadblock for evolution is also proof for the existence of God. Moses wrote 3500 years ago that the universe was created from nothing. Evolutionists and secular cosmologists invent their own anemic versions of how something came from nothing but Moses said it first so the burden of proof in on the evos.
Explain, please, what "Creo" has to do with science. And re-read my post.
Please define what a "non-fully formed specie" would look like.
Where do you find this in my post? Nevermind. You supposed scientists are answering the questions, not me, since your position is that Darwinism is science.
You should. Your side practices it by enforcing a materialistic world view on the public.
And your apparently new-found faith in the power of the government to coerce speech and "re-educate" this professor is disturbing.
Does it bother you that the power of the government to coerce speech and re-educate by prohibiting criticism of your precious fairy tale bother you? I thought not.
You should be very careful in this. Next time, it will be a "re-education" that you don't care for.
Well then, we ought not support the government in curbing any crime, because next time they may come after us. Makes realllllll good sense.
If you don't want to waste your time, stop referring to creationist arguments as straw men. As one great Freeper put it, the creationists provide the substance and the evolutionists provide the entertainment.
You're wasting your time again. I thought you wanted to stop that.
Still wasting your time. Are you between jobs?
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.