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.

Aric, you're still not getting it.

You really are a good example of a person who thinks that if they disprove evolution, that creationism will win.

It is not a matter of "disproving" evolution, for evolution is not held to be even a valid theory anymore by many scientists. Of those many, quite a few could be said to be no friend of Christianity. Your error is in assuming that evolution has any legs to begin with. Until those in the evo-camp are willing to get serious and admit that there are incredible gaps and unknowns that must be accounted for, there is nothing to discuss.

Sorry, one is science, the other is religion.

Wrong. That is simply your own self-serving mis-characterization. Evolution rests on faith every bit as much (if not a great deal more so) than Biblical Creation. Evolution has not been remotely proven anywhere by anyone. The facts do not support evolution. It is sustained only by the religious fervor of people like yourself.

ID, Intelligent Designer, is religion, why? It is NOT falsifiable. Can you prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent designer "SCIENTIFICALLY" ? The answer is NO, therefore it is unscientific.

Alas, Houdini wannabe, this is just another verbal sleight of hand on your part. ID is suggested by the evidence. True science follows the evidence where ever it leads. Honest inquiry demands that we allow for the possibility of the supernatural - a higher intelligence than our own - because our own biological discoveries tell us, rather loudly, that none of this grand complexity could possibly have generated itself through an unsupervised, random process. It takes more faith to believe that than to believe in a Creator.

Can you prove the existence or nonexistence of god "SCIENTIFICALLY", NO, therefore anything that has a supernatural cause or explanation, is NOT scientific.

Any concern with the invisible--that is, religion, ethical values, metaphysics--is not within the province of science, whose business extends no further than the observation and collation of data.

Speculations and statements about ultimate reality in meanings behind the universe are not proper to science because science studies observable and repeatable phenomena piecemeal and from the outside.

Evolution is a worldview which proposes that all things arose by chance, starting with eternal matter and aeons of time, without a creator. And yes, it does come down to that, no matter how many times you sputter that evolution really only means 'change over time'. Therefore evolution is a theory of origins. As such, it is not scientific at all. It is not within the province of science. It is properly a religion, and must take its place accordingly, and compete in the marketplace of ideas just as other religions do.

Religion is NOT science, and Science is NOT religion.

This statement is irrelevant to our discussion.

Give me ONE, scientifically verifiable piece of evidence that disproves evolution. JUST ONE....

As I said before, it is not a matter of 'disproving evolution', for evolution is not even a valid theory. The real question is, "Does the evidence of nature, fairly considered, point to the reality of a Creator, an intelligent source for the immense information content of every living cell?"

And of course, the reason you don't want that question on the table is that, indeed, the evidence does point to the reality of an intelligent designer if one is allowed to consider it.

I should add that upon examination it quickly becomes apparent that there are many big problems with evolution. The lack of transitional fossil forms (which should be present in huge numbers if evolution is true), irreducible complexity of the cell structures, mathematical impossibilities events occurring as evolution requires, the fact that mutations to an organism are invariably either fatal to that organism or detrimental in some way, (deleterious mutation rate so high that it would have resulted in the extinction of the species), the second law of thermodynamics being violated, etc., etc.

Creationism is NOT science, therefore it CANNOT replace a scientific theory.

Creation is beyond the realm of science. However, that does not mean that true science cannot imply creation.

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.