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.

[Dataman]

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

You're not lathered up but this is the 4th sequential wasting-your-time response.

[kkindt]

I've seen meaner statements but not often.

[Dataman]

Thank you for identifying your own straw man,

Ichy: Is there a time-wasters anonymous support group you can join? You seem to be addicted.

My apologies to you, Phaedrus. I just can't bring myself to take Ichy and is flailing tantrums seriously. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an intelligent response from him to your post.

I'm beginning to think that either these thugs are wired wrong or they are machavelian to the core.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Dataman is just mad because he realizes that as fewer and fewer YECs get into the good income pipeline by becoming doctors, etc., that the gravy train that continues to fund their lunacy will dry up and wither away.

[FactQuest]

Anyone may refuse to write a letter of recommendation to anyone, for any reason, or no reason. Granted, he's acting like a jerk; but he has the right to do so.

I have to disagree - its the any reason part. What if his reason was, because you're black. Or, because you're white. Or, because you're not gay like him (I'm not saying he's gay, just makin' a point).

Would that be within his rights? At a public university?

What if his reason was ... not if you're Jewish. Or not if you're Christian. Hmm... for some Christians, YECs, this is exactly what it seemed, to them.

Now, I agree, a LoR is a gift. A YEC would do well to not waste their time asking him. But, Dini was the one who laid out the specific criteria.

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

I think we're still waiting for the Creationist/ID'ers to post their evidence.

Your theories (there are many) predict that there should be 3 billion-year-old human fossils, or for the young-earthers, 6000 year-old dinosaur fossils. Post your evidence and we'll be proven wrong.

[longshadow]

smoldering blue flatulence-free placemaker

[FactQuest]

Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.

Claiming it as a fact doesnt make it a fact. No matter how many letters you can string after your name.

I'm not a YEC. I agree that descent with change is a fact. But. Gradualism, which makes use of the millions of years of life, is refuted by the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium doesn't describe a process, it seems more a "kluge" than anything else.

Like, gee, these fossils stay the same, then wham, some are gone, others, radically different appear. Okay, fossil creation is the exception, not the rule. Still, saying that somehow evolution happens in bursts and then goes into stasis doesn't really account for how that much change occurs that quickly, it merely amends the theory of gradualism to fit the facts, after the fact.

Now, there may be a good scientific explanation, my faith in God doesn't rest on him actually creating each species or each major "kind" of animal - but, scientifically, I weary of naturalists and atheists overstating the weak science. There's not enough "there" yet.

[FactQuest]

Evolutionism ain't science.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

[Hodar]

A letter or recommendation is a personal letter, in which you recommend a person to some station. Whether you are a college professor, or the fry cook at McDonalds; a letter of recommendation impacts both the bearer and the writer. If you issue letters of recommendation to every single person who demands it, your recommendation will soon mean less than nothing.

But, Dini was the one who laid out the specific criteria.

But as pointed out previously, he demanded you demonstrate scientific reasoning in this case; not that you believed it. I have a rough time with the Heinzenberg Principle (Quantum Physics priniciple which holds that a subatomic particle may exist in two places simultaneously, and pass between these two places without passing at any place between these two places). I used to be able to explain it (forgot the rationale years ago), but I didn't 'like' the explaination. Same thing. So, YEC's could certainly mouth off the steps of evolution using Scientific Reasoning; as faith by it's nature requires belief, not scientific proof. They didn't have to believe it, they just had to demonstrate they knew the material as it was presented.

[B. Rabbit]

"Previous discussion on Free Republic would seem to indicate that the Creationists believe that a letter of recommendation is an entitlement. They also claimed that such letters could not be refused on the basis of civil rights."

Very well said. This isn't even about evolution, this is about asking somebody for a favor and him denying it. This is every person's right. This is a liberal tactic trying to attack somebody for exercising individual rights.

He may be a jerk. Call him names and complain to the school if you want to. Stand outside the school gates with picket signs, too. But it is this teacher's right to deny anyone a letter of recommendation.

[FactQuest]

Your theories (there are many) predict that there should be 3 billion-year-old human fossils, or for the young-earthers, 6000 year-old dinosaur fossils. Post your evidence and we'll be proven wrong.

I don't see where Phaedrus posted a theory. And thus, you've missed the point. There aren't 3-bln-yr-old fossils, nor fresh dino bones. He's not claiming creationism is right. He's just pointing out that the T-of-E is faulty science. On scientific grounds.

Evolution is the best scientific guess. So far. As such, scientifically speaking, it's weak. That's being kind. It survives only because no one has come up with a better scientific explanation. There may be one. 6000 years from now, we'll probably have one. Until then, why are we calling this stinking pile of conjecture, which is contradicted by its own evidence, a "fact"? Are we afraid to admit we don't know everything, and are still working on it?

[FactQuest]

But as pointed out previously, he demanded you demonstrate scientific reasoning in this case; not that you believed it.

On the contrary, he did require that you believe it. If you could demonstrate both a thorough understanding of the material, far in advance of your peers, and could scientifically base your arguments against certain portions, using good science, according to the criteria, he would still not grant it. He required belief in it. And that was where he crossed the line.

I understand why he wouldn't want to give a L of E to a YEC - it would reflect on him. If he is that sure of himself, he could state that anyone who could give good solid scientific reasoning for not believing could still get a L of E, and rested on his faith that none would be forthcoming. And any YEC would recognize him as an unlikely source for a good L of E, and looked elsewhere.

[FactQuest]

But it is this teacher's right to deny anyone a letter of recommendation.

What if he denies letters to anyone who is black... is that ok? Is that within his rights?

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

And thus, you've missed the point.

I think you've missed the point. My question is a simple one and I can ask it just as he can ask his questions.

[Junior]

"Evolution" literally means "change." The opposite of "change" is stasis. "Devolution" therefore implies stasis. We see change in organisms from generation to generation (you don't look exactly like your parents, do you?). Therefore we see evolution.

[Junior]

Creationists provide nothing but carping at evolution. We've yet to see the first peice of evidence in support of creationism. When someone presents you with reams of evidence you claim they are wasting your time. Either show us what you have or admit you haven't got a dog in this hunt.

[Heartlander]

The audio was basically a chapter from one of his books - Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics .
(If you are still interested)
Existence of God
Debates

I do like how he invoked the Holocaust as though that would magically make the Argument from the Consequences less of a logical fallacy. Quite despicable of him.

What if someone used the 9/11 tragedy to argue that religion is the problem with our world?
Religion's misguided missiles - Richard Dawkins

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

No, the statement is false.

This is the entire Dini debate in a nutshell.
His question was, "How do you think the human species originated?"
The audio was basically a chapter from one of his books - Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics .
(If you are still interested)
Existence of God
Debates

I do like how he invoked the Holocaust as though that would magically make the Argument from the Consequences less of a logical fallacy. Quite despicable of him.

What if someone used the 9/11 tragedy to argue that religion is the problem with our world?
Religion's misguided missiles - Richard Dawkins

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

No, the statement is false.

This is the entire Dini debate in a nutshell.
His question was, "How do you think the human species originated?"
Letters of Recommendation

[whattajoke]

Exactly, Junior. I liken creationists to hack literary critics. Their entire basis is picking apart what they feel (whether honestly or not) are "problems" with evolution.

Meanwhile, back at the lab, actual scientists continue to put out studies and reports with actual facts.

The day a creationist does this, he will receive a huge grant, and obtain fame and fortune and Time's man of the year.

So why have we yet to see anything? Hmm...

[B. Rabbit]

In my eyes... yes.

Don't get all burnt up. I would be the first to call the hypothetical professor a racist jerk. But I don't believe that anybody can be "forced" to write a RECOMMENDATION for anybody else. How can that be enforced?