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.
The problem actually lies in the researchers. It seems that, as creation-believing researchers actually start doing the work, their views change.
From Who are the Creation "Scientists"
During this time, a new creationist organization appeared, one which became much more influential than the oft-ignored DGS. This was the American Scientific Affiliation, which was formed in 1941 to explain how science supported the Bible. Unlike the RSA and DGS, which were more concerned with theology than science, the ASA required all of its members to have legitimate scientific credentials. It also required all members to sign an oath of membership, swearing:
"I believe the whole Bible, as originally given, to be the inspired Word of God, the only unerring guide of faith and conduct. Since God is the Author of this Book, as well as the Creator and Sustainer of the physical world about us, I cannot conceive of discrepancies between statements in the Bible and the real facts of science." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 159)
This tactic of limiting membership to scientists who already agreed to the literal truth of Genesis would later be repeated. In effect, by using scientific knowledge as an apologetic for Biblical truth, the ASA became the first "creation science" organization.
Although the ASA had no connections to the Deluge Geology Society when it was formed, it was quickly approached by the DGS, which wanted to publish a joint anti-evolution periodical. The ASA leadership, distrustful of the "strong Seventh-Day Adventist flavor" of the Deluge Society (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 161), turned them down.
In the end, however, it was the ASA's insistence on a semblance of scientific respectability which proved to be its undoing. Once again, Flood geology was at the center of the dispute. Dr. J. Laurence Kulp, a chemist and geologist, flatly rejected Flood geology and pointed out that it was demonstrably untrue, and to insist upon it as Biblically-inspired would make a laughingstock out of creationism. "This unscientific theory of Flood geology," Kulp wrote, "has done and will do considerable harm to the strong propagation of the Gospel among educated people." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 167) Kulp was soon joined by biologist J. Frank Cassell, who presented a paper to the ASA in 1951 bluntly stating, "Evolution has been defined as 'the gradual or sudden change in animals and plants through successive generations' . . . Such changes are demonstrable. Therefore, evolution is a fact." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 174-175) Cassell argued that ASA's entire attitude on evolution had to change if it was to maintain any scientific respectability, and urged ASA to adopt an attitude of theistic evolution. (This effort was partially successful. Today, the ASA takes no official position on the question of creation "science", and most of its members are theistic evolutionists--although the group did publish a booklet entitled Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, which defended old- earth creationism.)
[...]
One of the ICR's favorite pamphlets is entitled "Twenty-One Scientists Who Believe in Creation", which lists a number of holders of doctorates and masters degrees in various scientific disciplines who assert the literal correctness of Genesis. Of the 21 listed by ICR, though, only a tiny number hold a degree in any of the life sciences. Three of the 21 hold doctorates in education, two are theologians, five are engineers. The remainder include a physicist, a chemist, a psycho-linguist, and a "food scientist".
Some creation "scientists", however, have been less luminary in their academic achievements, and some have been downright dishonest. Of those claiming to have degrees in biology or geology (areas which are relevant in assessing the scientific evidence for the evolution model), at least some seem to have degrees that are at best questionable and are at worst deliberate distortions or frauds. "Dr." Harold Slusher, one of the co-founders of the CRS, got a doctorate degree in geophysics from something called the Columbia Pacific University in California. Mr. Slusher was forced by the CRS itself to drop the "Dr." title from his name when it was discovered that this "university" is nothing more than a non- accredited correspondence school, the kind that advertise on the back of matchbooks. (Numbers, 1992, p. 288) Similarly, "Dr." Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society flunked out of two separate programs before obtaining a doctorate in geology from the "Arizona University of Physical Sciences", which consists solely of a post office box at a non-accredited diploma mill. (Numbers, 1992, pp. 262-263)
The creationist movement also does not like to talk about the scientists who leave after being given the opportunity to do real field research. In 1957, the Geoscience Research Institute was formed in order to search for evidence of Noah's Flood in the geological record. The project fell apart when both of the creationists involved with the project, P. Edgar Hare and Richard Ritland, completed their field research with the conclusion that fossils were much older than allowed under the creationist assertions, and that no geological or paleontological evidence of any sort could be found to indicate the occurrence of a world-wide flood. (Numbers, 1992, pp 291-293) Hare concluded, "We have been taught for years that almost everything in the geological record is the result of the Flood. I've seen enough in the field to realize that quite substantial portions of the geologic record are not the direct result of the Flood. We have also been led to believe . . . that the evidence for the extreme age of the earth is extremely tenuous and really not worthy of any credence at all. I have tried to make a rather careful study of this evidence over the past several years, and I feel that the evidence is not ambiguous but that it is just as clear as the evidence that the earth is round." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland, for his part, pointed out that Morris's book The Genesis Flood contained "flagrant errors which the uninitiated person is scarcely able to detect". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland concluded that further attempts to justify Flood geology would "only bring embarrassment and discredit to the cause of God". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 293)
Bold emphasis mine.
A few years later, creationist biologists Carl Krekeler and William Bloom, who taught creationist biology at the Lutheran Church's Valparaiso University in Indiana, left after concluding that a literal interpretation of Genesis was not supported by any of the available scientific evidence. Krekeler concluded, "The documentation, not only of changes within a lineage such as horses, but of transitions between the classes of vertebrates-- particularly the details of the transition between reptiles and mammals--forced me to abandon thinking of evolution as occurring only within 'kinds'. " (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 302) Krekeler also criticized the creationist movement for the "dozens of places where half-truths are spoken, where quotations supporting the authors' views are taken from the context of books representing contrary views, and where there is misrepresentation." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 303) The two became theistic evolutionists, and later wrote a biology textbook which accepted evolutionary theory.
Perhaps as a result of these defections, the creationist movement no longer finances or carries out any field research of any sort. Its sole method of "scientific research" consists of combing through the published works of evolutionary mechanism theorists to look for quotations which can be pulled out of context and used to bolster creationist beliefs.
I wonder if the creationists will lump these guys into the atheist category, too?
An interesting point, but on what basis would someone be required to give a recommendation? Grades? Test scores?
If there is some objective standard by which a recommendation should be compelled, why isn't it the responsibility of the graduate school to accept the objective standard and disregard the subjective standard?
This could be applied to many excesses that have been excused in the name of religion. Creationism is only the biological version.
I sometimes discuss religious ideas, and I don't hesitate to label some clergymen as charlatans and others as fools; but I don't discuss my personal religious beliefs, because: (a) they're no one's business; (b) they're still a work in progress; and (c) I don't think religion is relevent in a science discussion. I rarely hesitate, however, to point out that a religious objection to a scientific theory is nonsensical; and the Jack Chick comic book view of evolution is moronic (but that is probably an insult to morons). I'm confident that God is not a whimsical tyrant, nor does God need or want the worship of idiots, nor is heaven likely to be loaded with mindless, intolerant dolts. I don't know if I'll ever get to heaven, but I doubt that I'll be kept out because I've tried to use my mind. On the political side, I persevere in the crevo threads so that lurkers will know that not all conservatives are creationists.
All recommendations are subjective. by their ver nature, they imply a personal relationship between two people, a meeting of the minds. If there is no meeting of the minds, there can be no honest recommendation, other than acknowledgement that objective standards have been met.
‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.’ (Luke 20:17)
"The most familiar, and the best-loved images of Jesus, are those that picture to us, his gentle, compassionate spirit. "Whoever comes to me, I will in no wise cast out"; "Come to me, all you who are weary"; "Let the little children come to me."
"But there are other images of Jesus in the Gospels, which show another aspect of his personality. They emphasize the steel in him. Sometimes Jesus was awesome; formidable."
"In the parable, Jesus presents himself as the landlord's Son; the rejected stone, that eventually becomes the most important stone in the superstructure of the kingdom of God. Jesus plainly thought that those who opposed him were in collision with God. He was warning nation's leaders: "It is unwise and unsafe to be against me." Tough talk from Jesus! He was signaling what was taken up by Peter at Pentecost, where, full of resurrection joy and authority, he preached saying: "This Jesus, you put him to death. . . . but God raised him from the dead. God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:31-36).
"In the parable of the wicked tenants, Jesus teaches that those who discard him, will not thereby have gotten rid of him. Jesus was not, and is not now, a passing phenomenon. So truly does Jesus represent reality; so deeply entrenched in the ultimate truth of existence, is his life and teaching, that He, and not his opponents, will prevail. If the universe is a moral place (and Christ himself is the most convincing evidence that it is), then his prediction that he would triumph, even over those who killed him, must come true. Therefore let us treasure the august aspects of his personality, as much as his gentle features, for they signal a world order in which 'goodness', as Jesus taught it, will... reign---unopposed. The stone that was rejected, will become the capstone."
Good News For The Day
‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.’ (Luke 20:17)
"There is a certain inevitability about Christ. He is the fulfillment of Herod's worst nightmare. Herod killed John the Baptist, and when Christ followed, the ruler thought John had risen from the dead. In a sense, it was true. Jesus' first appeals to the corrupt king were made through the Baptist."
"Christ is uncompromising; inexorable. He is unpreventable, unstoppable, unavoidable. An outline of the creation's future is discernible in the personality of Jesus. The new world order will bear the stamp of his character."
"The invincibility of Jesus is good news. It confirms our deepest hope-that the highest values known to humankind, will overcome, and reign. It is good strengthening to believe that... Spirit---is higher than matter. No one really wants to inhabit a world where material values rule. The incarnation of such values are exampled by Adolf Hitler, or Idi Amin."
"It is good news to know that we are loved by a 'tough love'; a love that is not willing to give up, or let go, and hence, a love that suffers long. In short we are loved by a love that will triumph. "Love never fails."
Good News For The Day
‘He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whom it falls will be crushed.’ (Matthew 21:44)
"In his parable of the tenants, Jesus looks across the years of Israel's covenant privilege, and gives his interpretation of them. He sees that Israel's history can be stated in terms of its refusal to recognize Him-the rejected stone. Through the prophetic ministry, Christ had made many pre-incarnational appeals to his people. "How often would I have gathered you together, even as a hen gathers her chickens."
"Thus did Jesus claim deep involvement in his nation's history. The Jews had stumbled over the Christ of the Old Testament. Many times the people had been humbled and broken through its rejection of his claims. So it may be with us. Our life story can be understood as the tale of a person engaged in a quest to make terms with the Stone-with Christ."
"From the beginning, Christ has been present to us. Our first meeting with him was through the warmth and love of our mother; then our father, and later, teachers and mentors. Christ has been there in providence; in good and ill. We have bumped into him time and again, in our attempts to be free of his claims. We have fought tooth and nail for our freedom from God. We have been burned and bruised repeatedly. These seasons of brokenness have been gracious. They have been... signs to us---that life will not work any other way but Christ's way."
"God enable me to discern the ministry of Jesus, the Stone, in my life."
I've been following these threads for a couple years (I lurked for over a year before I signed up) although others here have been at this a lot longer. The threads usually start with some news about a school system trying to address Creationist/ID'ers objections to evolution or some rebuttal to Creationists. Or in this thread's case, a professor trying to set clear criteria for getting him to endorse a student's continuing career.
The threads quickly turn into a free-for-all where it is unusual to stay on topic, and we see the participants post opinions. The Creationist/ID'ers post some specific objections they have and the science guys attempt to inform them. It turns out that we don't share a common language because scientists want to talk about the science and the Creationist/ID'ers are trying to speak from a Biblical point of view without a basic understanding of science.
There's usually a lot of name-calling and hurt feelings, but generally no give on either side, except for the lurkers passing through. What their impressions are is hard to say.
The typical anti-evolution position is that evolution is wrong for one reason or another, but they usually avoid presenting their analysis of the current observations. The few that do, tend to the notion that a Creator put all the species on the earth at once or that the Designer periodically creates species.
The first case is what inspires my question. If all species were created at once, it should be possible to find human and dinosaur fossils of the same age. This would be very clear scientific evidence for their position. So I pose the question.
The second case is more interesting, but starts to sound just like evolution after a while, except for the cause. But there aren't too many folks arguing this case. Interest is centered more on trying to find areas of biology that aren't well understood and saying that since these areas aren't well understood, it proves evolution is wrong.
I haven't quite figured out what your dog is in this hunt, but you're clearly not a biologist and probably not a scientist. But I don't think there are any pre-requisites to these threads other than your FR account. Good luck to you.
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.