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.
Wow, what a masterful rebuttal, which properly deals with all the points being made and explains the evidence in a new light.
Oh, wait, no it isn't.
Do you really think this sort of thing helps your case?
But allow me to respond in kind:
"...when a great genius appears in the world the dunces are all in confederacy against him" -- Jonathan SwiftNote the wide confederacy against Darwin, and the quality of their "contributions" to the subject, such as the illustrious "ALS".
I'm one of those strange rangers whose faith was strengthened by my work in science. My degree is physics but I work in bio-tech.
My concern is that an anti-science movement could unravel our civilization in a very short time. We are very dependent on our technology, which disappears without science.
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
Then you're both quite wrong.
Disagree with its conclusions, if you wish, but it's ludicrous to try to hold the position that it's not science.
The above is a personal snipe which fails to actually address the point(s) being made. Ten-yard penalty.
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.
The above is a personal snipe which fails to actually address the point(s) being made. Ten-yard penalty.
I'm beginning to think that either these thugs are wired wrong or they are machavelian to the core.
The above is a personal snipe which fails to actually address the point(s) being made. Ten-yard penalty.
Still wasting your time. Are you between jobs?
The above is a personal snipe which fails to actually address the point(s) being made. Ten-yard penalty.
As one great Freeper put it, the creationists provide the substance and the evolutionists provide the entertainment.
The above is a personal snipe which fails to actually address the point(s) being made. Ten-yard penalty.
You're wasting your time again. I thought you wanted to stop that.
I do -- thus my decision to use cut-and-paste to respond to your monotonous no-content ad hominems, which are your transparent attempts to dodge actually addressing the several issues being raised by your perceived opponents. Thus:
The above is a personal snipe which fails to actually address the point(s) being made. Ten-yard penalty.
Improve the quality of your "contributions", if you can -- it's a sad commentary that the same cut-and-paste phrase is a perfectly appropriate response to each of your several recent posts.
Poorly, and with heavy use of straw man misstatements and outright falsehoods.
Evolution is the best scientific guess. So far.
So is quantum physics and relativity, etc.
As such, scientifically speaking, it's weak. That's being kind.
And you base this fringe opinion on what, exactly?
It survives only because no one has come up with a better scientific explanation.
This is true of all scientific theories. They are always open to revision or replacement if something better is found.
Until then, why are we calling this stinking pile of conjecture, which is contradicted by its own evidence, a "fact"?
Because it *is* a fact (*and* a theory). If you think you have something that counts as it being "contradicted by its own evidence", I'd love to see it. So far, all who have made such a claim and then actually tried to support it are either a) overstating their own case, or b) making the mistake of repeating falsehoods from creationist websites or books.
Go for it.
Are we afraid to admit we don't know everything, and are still working on it?
Not at all. Every serious discussion of evolution I've ever seen admits that freely (as do discussions of other fields of science).
It's only the creationists who claim to have the final answers.
Why exactly would it be a miracle? Counterintuitive, perhaps
Of course it would be a miracle and materialism cannot explain. Materialism proposes the rearrangement of matter as the source of all things. You cannot rearrange what does not exist and 1000 pages of rhetorical nonsense cannot change that.
So, we have a snotty wordsmith. Welcome to the "debate", Ich. Species exhibit stability, stasis, not change. This is a fact. They are fully formed and strive mightily to remain that way, virtually unchanged, sometimes for millions of years. Did you read my post? Sorry yourself -- wordplay does not substitute for facts.
Ich: Yes indeed, it is. (link)
Links are fine to support a point. But they are also used by those also who can't think, write, summarize or make cogent arguments, as well as by those who wish to mislead and/or waste others time. You have linked to talkorigins.org, just possibly the most dishonest site on the web. I know this because I've deconstructed their stuff before. All further links in your reply to me will therefore be ignored. Kindly remember this. The Link Chase Game is an infamous Evol tactic, misleading and a vast time-waster, but nothing more.
As an aside, if Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, why is the site address "talkorigins"?
Ich: Rather than "playing", as you so often do on these discussions, wouldn't it be more productive for you to be serious?
This is just gratis snottiness, so typical of you Evolutionists. It is No-substance Nastiness. Grow up, Ich.
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?
More snottiness. The "answers" are obviously non-answers, as I will show yours to be here.
Evolution is the study of how species change across generations, and why.
OK, we will stay with this definition, no matter how ardently you may try to amend it later in this post or on this thread.
Here's the refutation. First, species have not been shown to change, they have been shown to remain stable, in many instances over millions of years. This is the evidence, shown by study. Second, neither has there ever been any credible mechanism of change demonstrated. Mutation as a change agent is widely speculated about by the Evols, but has never been shown. Ergo, Evolution is not a theory, it is a failed hypothesis, and Evolutionism is thus not science.
Phaedrus: Would you agree that science has its own set of standards that have nothing to do with "Creationism"?
Ich: No ...
Then we have established that you do not understand science. End of subject.
I mention creationism because creationists keep bringing it up and I respond to them.
I didn't, so forget about it in your responses to my posts.
Phaedrus: How do you reconcile 250,000-to-millions of species with virtually no transitional forms in the fossil record?
Ich: They're *all* "transitional forms". Life is always in flux. The form of your question reveals ... yadda yadda.
This is a classic non-answer. No, they're not (all transitional forms). They've been shown not to be in transition but stable. You are practicing rhetoric.
... genetic algorithms on various types of non-biological entities (electronic circuits, etc.)
Algorithms are Intelligently Designed by human beings. And do a little research on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. And note well that my links are there to educate, not mislead. You are not wasting your time when you follow them.
Phaedrus: 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.
Ich: They have, actually (and also here) ...
More talkorigins links. Sorry. Rejected.
Phaedrus: What is the mechanism of evolution?
Ich: Mutation and non-mutational genetic variation, coupled with reproduction and natural (and other kinds of) selection ...
Mutation has been discredited. It's a non-starter. The rest is speculation and nonsense, not evidence.
This is Biology 101, were you sleeping?
More gratis nastiness. You are wasting my time, Ich. I have patiently, faithfully, gone through your response to my post to this point and have discredited it, item by item, without exception. You are practicing sophistry. There is no substance. I've heard it all before and I've discredited it all before.
Come back when you have something substantive to say.
So, Junior, I know you're a bright guy. Why is your problem with Creationism not separable from Darwinism as science? The question really is why would anything the Creationists say bother you if this is about science? The physicists (i.e. most physicists) don't get upset when anyone, Creationists included, questions their work. They just do the science in accord with the standards of science and let it speak for itself, more-or-less. That garners my respect. And would you agree that this a fair question?
If it's a matter of hating lies, then we are of like mind. But why then don't you equally go after the liars on your side of the debate? If it's a matter of hidden agendas, well, everyone's got an agenda, hidden or otherwise. It's called being human. But the beauty of science is that facts can (usually) be separated from agendas.
Gosh, it's so out-of-character for Phaedrus to indulge in pointless name-calling, vicious bile-spewing, and determinedly ignoring the all-too-obvious questions from her own ill-considered arguments.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
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.