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.
We are here and so is the afore mentioned…
By the way, I never waved my hands…
Claiming it as a fact doesnt make it a fact. No matter how many letters you can string after your name.
So what's your explanation then? God created things in countless "waves" a few million years apart over a billion or so years? After letting dinosaurs run around for a long time, he decided to wave his hands and throw birds into the mix out of nowhwere? Funny, Genesis doesn't describe anything like that.
You'll also have to explain why He chose to "specially create" birds at a time when there were already reptiles which had an awful lot of birdlike traits on the scene (which were themselves preceded by reptiles with fewer birdlike traits, which were themselves... etc. etc.)
I'm not a YEC.
Good.
I agree that descent with change is a fact.
Then you're 98% of the way there.
But. Gradualism, which makes use of the millions of years of life, is refuted by the fossil record.
You are mistaken. There are countless examples of clasic "gradualism" in the fossil record. But just to make sure, please define "gradualism" as you mean it. Something taking place in "only" a few million years is practically instantaneously with respect to most parts of the geological record, yet it would still be immensely "gradual" by any human standard of speed.
Punctuated equilibrium doesn't describe a process, it seems more a "kluge" than anything else.
Then you don't understand it well. P.E. most certainly does "describe a process", and it's the same process as the rest of evolution. It's just a recognition of what should have been an obvious fact but that no one gave much thought to until Gould et al made an issue of it: Evolution does not proceed at the same speed at all times. Few natural processes do.
Just as erosion can take place at quite different speeds (very slowly if accomplished by wind, much faster if running water is present, extremely fast when flash-floods occur, etc.), evolution likewise can slow almost to a standstill when conditions are right (e.g., large populations that are already well suited to their environment and no heavy competition is present), or proceed very fast indeed (relatively speaking) when other conditions are present (e.g. small populations, heavy selective pressure/competition, a "breakthrough" mutation, etc.)
That's all the P.E. is -- the recognition that the forces which drive evolution change in "strength" based on current conditions, and thus the speed of change will necessarily vary and not always proceed at the same speed either.
This has been verified time and time again both mathematically, and experimentally. A good example of the latter is contained in the February 2003 issue of Scientific American. While harnessing evolution to meet requirements in electronic circuits, the authors found that they got results considerably faster when the evolving "populations" of circuits were often split off into smaller isolated subpopulations -- just as is predicted by punctuated equilibrium.
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.
Only if you misstate the actual fossil record by calling the observed changes "radically different". Sure, if for example a modern bird appeared out of nowhere, then yeah, you'd have a case for "fossil creation". But that's not what happens. Feel free to present an example of what you believe is the sudden appearance of something "radically different", if you think you can. And make sure your example is from a period where we actually have a decent number of fossil finds -- no fair pointing to "jumps" which are caused by the extreme rarity of fossil finds of any sort.
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.
Yeah, heaven forbid science should refine its knowledge... *cough*
As for "doesn't really account for how that much change occurs that quickly", actually, it does. Analyses of population dynamics show quite easily that some of the more "rapid" (again, that term is only relative, it's still a slow process by human standards) species changes are well within what's to be expected given the conditions that were likely present.
but, scientifically, I weary of naturalists and atheists overstating the weak science. There's not enough "there" yet.
As is the case for a lot of skeptics, your assertions about the "lack of evidence" appears to be more an artifact of your own lack of familiarity with the field than with any actual absence of evidence.
I agree that identifying all of the creationist straw-man arguments takes a great deal of time, because they make them so often, and that it would indeed save me a great deal of time to simply ignore them, but unfortunately I think it's a necessary public service.
Better yet, why don't you guys stop making straw-man arguments and save *everyone* a lot of time?
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
This sure sounds like the theory of survival of the fittest.
-PJ
You haven't contributed squat to this discussion except to "disqualify" others from the discussion. Well, if ya ain't got squat, you don't want people listening to those what do ...
Nice tautology, but by definition that doesn't add anything to the argument.
nothing does nothing
Rigorously prove this. We'll wait.
therefore nothing can come from nothing.
Depending on your approach to step #2, this is either another useless tautology, or simply false. Please fill in your middle step with something more than just your own personal premise.
Don't forget that something coming from nothing is no less than a miracle and materialists don't believe in miracles.
Why exactly would it be a miracle? Counterintuitive, perhaps, but you have yet to establish that something might not actually be able to come from nothing after all. There hasn't been a whole lot of study of "nothing", so perhaps it has qualities we're not as yet familiar with, but which are hardly supernatural.
Furthermore, your firm declaration that "nothing can come from nothing" also poses a major problem for the "God" hypothesis. If "nothing can come from nothing", then neither can He, since he's "something". He was *always* here, you say? Well then, if you cede that something can "always" exist without a beginning, then maybe our "something" did and thus there's no need to invoke God to create it -- hoist on your own petard.
I don't think you'd make it very far in a career as a philosopher.
This roadblock for evolution is also proof for the existence of God.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!! By the same (il)logic, it would also be "proof" for the existence of, say, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra the sun god, *and* Osiris.
Moses wrote 3500 years ago that the universe was created from nothing.
And what evidence do you have that he was correct in his surmise?
This is (another) weak spot in your thesis. All your talk about the properties of "nothing" become moot if our "something" in fact came from earlier "somethings", and not "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.
You have a very poor understanding of what constitutes "the burden of proof". By your *cough* reasoning *cough*, the Hindus "said it first" before even Moses, so *you* then have the burden of proof concerning your young Moses upstart.
I repeat -- never try to make a living as a philosopher.
Where do you find this in my post?
As he made perfectly clear to everyone who was paying attention, he "found" this in your post where you declared that "fully formed" (your phrase) species appear in the fossil record. This begs the question of how exactly you have defined "fully formed", and thus he asks what a *not* "fully formed" species might look like.
It wasn't that hard to make the connection, so sorry you couldn't keep up.
Nevermind.
In other words, "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
Sorry, too late, we already noticed you dodging a request for you to demonstrate that you even understand your own claims.
Definition of creationism placemarker.
OK, I'll play.
Rather than "playing", as you so often do on these discussions, wouldn't it be more productive for you to be serious?
Kindly define "Evolution". But please avoid "change over time", which is utterly bereft of content.
Just how many times are you going to ask this question before you understand the answers you've received dozens of times on earlier threads?
Evolution is the study of how species change across generations, and why. That's the "definition". A definition of the process itself is quite similar: "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."
If you want to know more about the theories active in that field, you're going to have to ask more specific questions. Currently, your question is akin to "define physics". Um, okay...
Would you agree that science has its own set of standards that have nothing to do with "Creationism"?
No. If the evidence supported "Creationism", then science would arrive at the conclusion that "*poof*" Creationism was the best theory for how modern life came about. Science has no a priori presumption that things (not just biology, but all the fields of study) are due to entirely natural causes. It *does*, however, work from the presumption that our universe (which includes perhaps God himself) does not play tricks, and that evidence can be relied upon to be a fair representation of reality, and not "faked" by a cosmic practical joker to make things look like what they are not.
Thus, dinosaur bones are taken as evidence that dinosaurs once lived on the Earth, and not presumed to be "planted" by a capricious God who actually made the world last Tuesday.
If you don't, you have no understanding of science.
On the contrary, you're the one who seems pretty fuzzy on these concepts.
If you do, why do you mention Creationism?
I mention creationism because creationists keep bringing it up and I respond to them.
How do you reconcile 250,000-to-millions of species with virtually no transitional forms in the fossil record?
They're *all* "transitional forms". Life is always in flux. The form of your question reveals a gross misunderstanding. But contrary to your claim that there are "virtually no" transitional forms, in fact even as a creationist understands the term, there are thousands already found and more found virtually every day.
Why has no one demonstrated Evolution in the lab, despite countless years of trying?
They have, actually, both with living species and with genetic algorithms on various types of non-biological entities (electronic circuits, etc.)
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.
They have, actually (and also here) -- you obviously have an incorrect notion of what constitutes a "new species".
What is the mechanism of evolution?
Mutation and non-mutational genetic variation, coupled with reproduction and natural (and other kinds of) selection. This is Biology 101, were you sleeping?
Mutation? If so, it remains to be demonstrated.
Wrong, it has been demonstrated time and time again.
Mutation destroys genetic information.
Sometimes, yes, not always. Again, were you sleeping through biology class? Selection strongly tends to weed out the harmful mutations while preserving and propagating the beneficial mutations. Genetic drift of neutral mutations also provides additional variation.
You might as well say "magic".
You might as well lay off answering your own questions, since you're giving incorrect answers.
There is no evidence, from the fossil record or from the lab, that mutation drives Evolution.
There is, actually. Your ignorance of the evidence does not count as lack of evidence.
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.
Actually, I remain distinctly unimpressed. You're fond of flinging it, but that doesn't constitute actual skill.
How is it that species appear fully formed in the fossil record
Define "appear", and "fully formed", please. Your sloppy terminology leaves holes big enough to drive trucks through. What was that you were saying about being adept at "rhetoric"? I'm not impressed with your sloppy, imprecise questions.
and remain virtually unchanged for millions of years,
Millions of years is a short time in the history of life on Earth. And define "virtually", while you're at it -- how much change are you going to try to write off as "well, that's *virtually* unchanged"?
then disappear?
Yes, some species do go extinct -- or evolve into something else. No surprise there, even Darwin acknowledged that his theory predicted such things.
But to answer the (sloppily formulated) apparent thrust of your question, species do not appear "fully formed" with no expected precursors. For example, fully ocean-going whales "appear" after semi-aquatic species which share features with whales and with no other living beings, and before them in the fossil record are shore-adapted mammals which share unmistakable characteristic features with the semi-aquatic species, and so on.
No species appears unexpectedly out of "nowhere" in the fossil record, they are always preceded by very plausible precursors (often which are separated from the "new" species by a single altered feature). The fossil record is an amazingly compelling "roadmap" of evolutionary change and common descent -- at least for those who bother to look at it.
Explain the Cambrian Explosion.
*snicker*. Actually, I'd love to see the *creationists* take a stab at explaining it. It poses immense, apparently insurmountable problems for their hypothesis.
It's true that there are still some open questions regarding it under an evolutionary view, but none undermine the theory itself. In fact, the only debate is over which of several competing evolutionary scenarios turns out to be right, since there are *several* ways that the Cambrian Explosion makes sense under evolution. It's just the shortage of evidence that makes resolving the issue a problem, since Cambrian and pre-Cambrian fossils are in short supply, given their enormous age, and the fact that the older a geologic layer, the more deeply buried it's likely to be, on the whole.
If you thought that the Cambrian Explosion was some sort of insurmountable problem for evolution, you're quite simply wrong. And if you think that an unresolved issue or two destroys a field of science, you're grossly mistaken. All fields of science have open questions, for the obvious reasons.
Now please don't give us Punk Eek, which says it happens when/because we don't see it.
That's not what punctuated equilibrium says -- are you sure you understand evolution as well as you like to think you do?
Tell us about that mysterious force, Natural Selection which, boiled down to facts, is nothing more than the passive environment.
Again, this is Biology 101 -- you'd save us a lot of time if you'd crack a book once in a while before you come to us asking for explanations of the basics.
There's nothing "mysterious" about it. Natural selection is just the obvious (and unarguable, unless one is in idiot) fact that not all individuals in a population will be able to reproduce at the same rate -- some will produce more offspring in the next generation than others (and some will produce no offspring at all). And that those which are better "equipped", genetically, to successfully survive and reproduce in "the environment" will (statistically) more often tend to be the ones to actually do so compared to their lesser-adapted brothers and sisters.
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.
Because all are effective reproductive strategies. A better question would be, "why would God create so damned many species of sharks? (There are thousands.) Wouldn't a few suffice?"
Which came first and which is dominant on the Evolutionary scale?
Laying eggs came first.
As for being "dominant on the Evolution scale", that's a completely nonsensical question. There is no "Evolutionary scale", except in the minds of those who have a very poor grasp of evolution.
Yeh, I know. Tough questions.
Not at all. Mostly misguided questions, actually, but none rise to the level of "tough".
They have yet to be answered with anything other than empty rhetoric by the Darwinists.
Translation: You didn't understand the answers because they clashed with your misconceptions about what evolution actually is.
Darwin was a Master Sophist, as are his acolytes.
No, actually, he was an amazingly intelligent person who managed to work out almost all the ramifications of a complex field long before there was much direct evidence to lead the way. In the 150 years since, his conclusions have been incredibly well supported by the evidence. Seldom in the field of science is an entire branch of study laid out in such detail by a single man (except perhaps for Einstein's single-handed discovery of Relativity).
It's the facts they have trouble with.
No trouble at all -- it's the creationists who get bogged down trying to explain away all of the facts which are inconvenient to their hypothesis.
Now I ask you, where has it been necessary in all the foregoing that there be any appeal to God or Creationism?
Nowhere -- do you have some sort of point to make here, or are you just being rhetorical again?
Darwinism is Bunk,
You have yet to establish firm ground for your thesis.
Gould was a Sophist
Wrong again.
and Dawkins is an Atheist.
True enough, but how does that prove anything?
Conclusion: Evolutionism ain't science.
Odd, your conclusion fails to follow even from your own arguments. Even if there were as many unanswered questions in evolution as you (falsely) assert, that would in no way prove it "ain't" science. Something is science if it meets certain rigorous criteria for how it goes about formulating and testing its hypotheses, and *not* whether it has some as yet unresolved issues.
Before you again attempt to opine on whether something is "science" or not, please go off and learn more about both science in general, and the specific topic itself.
Rhetoric is a poor substitute for logical argument.
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.