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.

Thanks for the solid post.

So what's your explanation then? God created things in countless "waves" a few million years apart over a billion or so years? ... Funny, Genesis doesn't describe anything like that.

Its a possibility. Unlike the YEC position, it does not rely on overturning geology. And Genesis does imply it. It uses two different words for created... one means made from nothing, the other means fashioned from something else. Guess which one is used for the making of the diffent animals? Yep, fashioned. Sounds like He used existing animals as a starting point for other animals.

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.)

Fashioning.

There are countless examples of clasic "gradualism" in the fossil record. But just to make sure, please define "gradualism" as you mean it.

I could go look it up and say that's what I mean, but I'll be fair, and say that what I mean is a steady progression of accumulated changes. That getting from a dinosaur to a bird happened slowly and steadily. That, if every dead animal had left a fossil, it would show each generation in succession changing towards whatever it became.

Remember, this view was dominant for a long time, it seemed plausible. That the gaps between species were accounted for by the rarity of fossils.

The difficulty is that the fossils show that most animals remain (largely) unchanged over many many generations. In some cases, (like coelecanth) an astounding amount of time.

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.

So, PE says that there periods of super-rapid gradualism. How rapid? Instant? Ok, take Darwin's finches - is that an example of PE? Or regular, slow-scale gradualism?

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.

That's fascinating. So, there might be some sort of universal laws governing this thing, probability, quantum theory, something like that, that contols it. Of course, rigorously speaking, demonstrations in electronics don't necessarily apply to the life sciences.

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.

Protoavis texensis. Predates Archaeopteryx by about 75 million years. It's considerable more like a modern bird than Archaeopterx. Not sure if it meets the right number of specimens for you, though, only two individuals, and 31 other fossils of various parts.

But, lets look at the whole bird thing. Feathers are an amazing structure, and a lot of scientists think they are unlikely to have evolved twice independently. So, if Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx both have feathers, then they have to be descendants of the first feathered creature. So, are they feathered dinosaurs that resemble birds, or large flightless birds that resemble dinosaurs? Descent with change doesn't imply a single direction.

Even choosing to ignore Protoavis (after all, it is rather inconvenient), Archaeopteryx is Late Jurassic. So the first bird must have been sometime before that - Middle to early Late Jurassic. So its dinosaur ancestor must have existed by the Middle Jurassic. But, dinosaurs with many avian characteristics don't appears before Late Jurassic, and the most birdlike don't appear until much later.

Because it *is* a fact (*and* a theory).

I've read just about the whole talk origins site. Lots of good info. This particular page is underwhelming. Sure, its a Theory... because it is accepted. Because there is nothing scientific (ie, natural) that fits the evidence (facts) better. "Facts are the world's data...Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." Good so far. "Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world." So, we don't know anything for sure. And a fact is something we don't know for sure. Funny, I had a different definition in mind. Hmm, they just gave one themselves a few sentences earlier. "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." " So, what he's really saying is "agree with my interpretation or you're a stupid-head." Got it. Very convincing, that.

It's only the creationists who claim to have the final answers.

Some. You meant to same some. I don't claim to have the final answer.

I'll end with a quote from Storrs Olson in his November 1, 1999 letter to the most prominent scientist at the National Geographic Society:

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties of their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age – the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.

At least when we debate, we talk about issues most of the time. I'll parse a little talkorigins again for you later. I'm away for the weekend. They are very subtle liars, but liars they are.

I do want to make one comment now, though.

Mutation is common; hence antibiotic-resistant bacteria; hence pesticide-resistant insects; hence a new strain of cancer-resistant mouse.

Mutation is indeed common but it is uniformly destructive of genetic information. Useful new information, which I assume you would agree is absolutely necessary, is not created. Reference Not By Chance by Lee Spetner. He shows that bacterial resistance occurs as a result of the destruction of genetic information that reduces the overall hardiness of the bacteria. In the techinical sense, I suppose, this is new information in that it changes the old but we're hardly talking about the extremely lengthy and self-consistent code required to create a new organ. And there is no evidence that the recent cancer-resistant mouse developed its resistance via mutation. The point is that the variation could have been resident in the mouse's genetic code all along. There is much such seemingly useless code in all species, as I'm sure you're aware.

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.