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.

[Junior]

Placemarker Junior.

[FactQuest]

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.

Thanks for post. I am a newbie to this forum. I had one of my posts cross-posted to a number threads by another poster, which clued me into where this age-old discussion was going on.

Call me a junkie of the "crevo" debate. My dog is a mongrel... but tends towards the Old Earth creationist, while still considering theistic evolution as a possibility.

My right knee jerks when someone claims evolution to be a proven fact... particularly when they include abiogenesis in it.

My left knee jerks when the YECs use bad science, are question the faith of those who disagree.

Hopefully, it will help someone out there reading who is struggling in their faith (like I once was), who because they can't swallow YEC and are considering abandoning their faith... its not required, indeed, there are other solid Christian doctrines regarding creation. I also hope I can convince some YECs that they might serve our Lord better by focusing on something else.

You are correct, I'm not a scientist. I started in Chemistry, but wound up in computers. I'm 41, and fairly well-read on the subject.

And I know I won't be changing many poster's minds, I've been posting on boards long enough to know that.

[BMCDA]

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?

Which animal do you mean?

[VRWC_minion]

God need or want the worship of idiots, nor is heaven likely to be loaded with mindless, intolerant dolts.

Unfortunately, that is precisely who Jesus was sent to get.

[f.Christian]

There (( evolution )) ... but for the grace (( love // Truth )) of God --- go (( WAS )) I !

[whattajoke]

Thank you for your personal clarification. I will warn you, though, there are a few holy warriors on these threads who will pin the label "atheist" on you simply because of your inquisitive nature and educated outlook. Just ask Junior... a devoted life-long catholic who happens to accept evolution.

I have no religious beliefs, but I certainly respect (most) people who do... And I keep telling the holy warriors that judgemental infighting only gives credence to my (non) beliefs, but it doesn't seem to stop them.

Good luck, and though these threads can get malicious and tedious, they are usually pretty fun. (except when they turn blue)... you'll see what I mean.

[f.Christian]

Did you ever hear of a half vegetarian --- peta lite ?

[Dimensio]

What if someone used the 9/11 tragedy to argue that religion is the problem with our world?

That would depend upon how they supported their argument. Of course, even without hearing such an argument I suspect that it would be oversimplistic, likely ignore other possible causes and may well appeal to consequences.

Religion's misguided missiles - Richard Dawkins

Dawkins is making an overgeneralization, applying something that is true for fundamentalist fanatical Islam and attaching it to the whole of religion. It looks kind of like the composition fallacy: Islam is religion, therfore traits of Islam can be found in religion in general.

The audio was basically a chapter from one of his books

Well, I might check it out, but the excerpt that I've heard did not leave a favourable impression upon me, especially when he ended it by admitting that his entire speil, including his strawman arguments as to what it is to be an atheist, up until the end was not an argument in favour of anything but defending it by appealing to the tired old false dilemma fallacy known as Pascal's Wager. I would hope that his other chapters are less riddled with logical errors.

[f.Christian]

The separation of state and church // religion means ...

freaks -- liberals -- athiests (( anti christs // devils // aclu )) -- weirdos -- cults (( esotericism )) -- nazis // borgs --- Evolution

NOT God (( Christians // Truth // science )) ! !

[plusone]

True, evolution assumes that life was already here (however it began) and the evolutionary process created all living things from the original single celled creatures. It doesn't try to explain how the single celled organisms developed from non-life. Evolutionists just take it for granted that this process happened somehow. But the same question can be asked of Religionists. If God created everything, then where did he come from?

[Dimensio]

If God created everything, then where did he come from?

While not a universal answer amongst theists, the common response is that God was always there, the "uncaused cause". They argue that it is necessary for such an uncaused cause to exist when arguing for it, because everything needs a cause, except for this "uncaused cause". How this "uncaused cause" is exempt from the very rule for which it was invented to explain can be chalked up to the special pleading fallacy.

[f.Christian]

The GOD of the Old and New Testaments claims that HE inhabits eternity, and that there is no God before HIM.

HE also explains that HE created all that there is.

An Entity that is capable of creating the universe around us, and has the power to propel a galaxy 200,000 miles per hour, probably doesn't expect us to put HIM in a neat little box that we can completely understand.

For HIS clear and simple message relating to this, try the Book of Job. You will get HIS perspective on your question.

P.S. The Book of Job, thought by most theologians to be the oldest Book of the Bible, has been acknowledged by literary scholars as one of the finest pieces of literature to date.


256 posted on 04/28/2003 5:10 PM PDT by bondserv

[longshadow]

special pleading placemarker

[Dataman]

Can you provided any specific examples of this "enforcement"?

Hey atlaw, where ya been for the last 40 years? The mere fact that you had to ask that question disqualifies you from the debate.

[balrog666]

special pleading placemarker

Extra-special absurdity placemarker.

[ALS]

What a convincing argument. You've thorougly disproven evolution. Now we just need to find a proper scientific theory to explain the diversity of the species on earth.

Thanks Demensia! Now getta spellchecker....

[Phaedrus]

Darwinism doesn't get a free pass as science by bashing Creationism. Get unstuck, Junior.

[Dimensio]

Thanks Demensia! Now getta spellchecker....

A masterful rebutall, completely destroying my position. I don't know why we evolutionists try to compete with superior intellect such as yours.

[Dimensio]

Darwinism doesn't get a free pass as science by bashing Creationism. Get unstuck, Junior.

You owe me a new irony meter. It exploded upon exposure to this posting.

[Heartlander]

If God created everything, then where did he come from?

This is the “who created God?” question. It presupposes that a God creator is necessary which leads to the “who created God’s creator?” and, well – turtles all the way down…

What is the radius of a square? What do you add to powdered water?
A circle has a radius but we do not apply this to a square (or a square circle) and to my knowledge there is no such thing as powdered water.

“What created time, space and matter?” is a valid question.

“How long did it take to create time?”
“How much area do you need to create space?”
“How much did you weigh before matter was created?”
– These questions are not valid.

If a ‘spiritual being’ created time, space, and matter – “It” existed before any known physical quality that we know i.e. time, space, and matter. We cannot apply (or limit) physical qualities to something beyond the physical.