Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Dini-gration of Darwinism
AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creatins; creation; crevo; crevolist; darwin; evoloonists; evolunacy; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,961-1,975 next last
To: martianagent
Sorry, that should have been posted to patrickhenry.
281 posted on 05/01/2003 10:58:54 AM PDT by martianagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: martianagent; PatrickHenry
He won't know it unless you call his attention to it, though ;)
282 posted on 05/01/2003 11:10:14 AM PDT by general_re (Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: All
Comment #271 Removed by Moderator

In case anyone is wondering, #271 was a post of mine, addressed to Junior. I think it was a comment about his #266. (I assume that providing this minimal information doesn't violate the rules of this website.)

283 posted on 05/01/2003 11:22:39 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: martianagent
By your lights, we could also teach them numerology in math class. Oh, I forgot, numerology is verboten according to the Bible and is therefore a pseudoscience. We can't be teaching our kids pseudoscience now, can we?
284 posted on 05/01/2003 11:24:05 AM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: martianagent
You're saying that with all the drugs, sex, and violence which kids have to deal with on a daily basis, the main thing you worry about is kids being exposed to creationism?

No. I didn't say anything evem remotely close to that. But what I did say (in post 271) was found to be so horribly offensive that it's been deleted.

285 posted on 05/01/2003 11:26:19 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Looks like you just did that. This things sounds like something from the Music Man: We got TROUBLE, yes trouble, with a capital T and that rhymes with C and that stands for creationism.
286 posted on 05/01/2003 11:26:54 AM PDT by martianagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Junior
There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be. If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.

Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter? Logic tells me he doesn't want to be responsible to a Creator who is personal so he doesn't feel guilty for going against the will of a personal creator. It is not science to believe you had a non-personal origin out of some goofy explosion of stuff and kaboom here you are as a person out of non-personal stuff? WHy believe this because it is not science and there is no evidence for it. There is evidence for devolution - creatures becoming LESS than what they once were but there is no evidence for creatures becoming better than they once were through mutations. Mutations observed by science are ALWAYS harmful to creatures and never helpful. Yet evolutionist keep on believing that there must have been some great and good mutations in the past we just haven't observed.
287 posted on 05/01/2003 11:39:35 AM PDT by kkindt (knightforhire.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
That's weird. There's nothing in post 271 that would warrant being pulled. I've still got a copy in MY COMMENTS, and I've gone over it a couple of times to see if there are any hidden code words. There are no insults, no profanity or personal attacks against anyone on the thread.
288 posted on 05/01/2003 11:41:21 AM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Junior
There are no insults, no profanity or personal attacks against anyone on the thread.

I know. That's how it is around here. Whatcha gonna do?

289 posted on 05/01/2003 11:46:20 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: kkindt
There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be. If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.

Huh? The Big Bang (origin of the universe) is perfectly acceptable science. It makes predictions that can be tested (and have been verified) and so it stands up pretty well. As for the coming into existence of the first life, we must first define life. Is it a self-replicating molecule (there are plenty of those). Is it a self-replicating molecule in a particular environment such as a lipid-like bubble as are found in interstellar dust clouds? Are virii living? Or do you consider bacteria to be the simplest living things. As you can see, non-life can shade gradually into that which we consider life; there doesn't seem to be some magic cut-off point with everything on one side being living and everything on the other being non-living.

290 posted on 05/01/2003 11:49:06 AM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Junior; PatrickHenry
It's awful quiet out there...(sound of crickets)

A little too quiet...

291 posted on 05/01/2003 11:49:54 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: kkindt
Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter?

Why does it matter? Are you offended that you may have come from some non-human ancestor and ultimately from some self-replicating molecule? That's almost like the noveau riche who will have nothing to do with their more vulgar relatives as they are embarrassed by them.

292 posted on 05/01/2003 11:51:00 AM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Junior; martianagent
To: Ichneumon

inm ...


The first is that Cadillacs and spaceships are extremely poor and therefore conceptually prejudicial examples of what sort of things might be possible by "natural" processes of any kind.

ma ...


The complexity of a single-celled organism is not comparable to an automobile, or even an automobile factory, but roughly to a city with all of its factories or a nation with all of its cities. A self-aware organism would be vastly more complex than that.


102 posted on 04/28/2003 8:01 AM PDT by martianagent

293 posted on 05/01/2003 11:53:25 AM PDT by f.Christian (( The separation of state and religion means ... ideology // whacks --- NOT God ! ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: kkindt
There is no point of view with regard to origin of life that is scientific. Can't be.

The theory of evolution deals with how life developed after it began reproducing, not with the origin of life.

If you assume matter and the universe are self-existent - never had a beginning - that is not science but a religion called materialism or naturalism. It is just as much an ism as theism.

The origins of matter and the universe are yet a third question, unrelated to either the origin of life or the theory of evolution.

Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter? Logic tells me he doesn't want to be responsible to a Creator who is personal so he doesn't feel guilty for going against the will of a personal creator.

Why do you assume all people who believe in evolution are atheists?

It is not science to believe you had a non-personal origin out of some goofy explosion of stuff and kaboom here you are as a person out of non-personal stuff? WHy believe this because it is not science and there is no evidence for it.

Again, that's not what the theory of evolution is about.

There is evidence for devolution - creatures becoming LESS than what they once were but there is no evidence for creatures becoming better than they once were through mutations.

Not so. See the links in post #240.

Mutations observed by science are ALWAYS harmful to creatures and never helpful.

Ever hear of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics?

294 posted on 05/01/2003 11:59:02 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: kkindt
Question is why would a person want to to think he originated from non-personal matter?

This question shows the essential identity between the Creationists and the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists: projection of one's wants onto scientific questions. In scientific inquiry, one takes what one gets, not what one wants. Asking whether one originated from non-personal matter is a biochemical question (not part of evolutionary theory however). Asking if one wants to think he originated from non-personal matter is question about feelings. The main objection of scientists to the Creationist-Post-Modern-Deconstructionist view of scientific inquiry is that CPMD's place feelings above evidence.

295 posted on 05/01/2003 12:10:41 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
It's awful quiet out there...(sound of crickets) A little too quiet...

Careful. Best to lie low. The mods are restless ...

296 posted on 05/01/2003 12:40:57 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Ah, yes, crickets. A fine example of speciation via evolution. God must have been feeling especially creative that day to make each speicies have a distinctly different leg rub chirp (if only discernable to their ear-like structures). Or maybe sexual selection and environmental pressures and natural selection played a part?
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/wilczynskilab/evolution_of_communicatio.htm
297 posted on 05/01/2003 12:50:50 PM PDT by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Comment #271 Removed by Moderator

That is, to all appearances, irrational. Isn't it quoted in it's entirety in #275?

298 posted on 05/01/2003 1:15:56 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Isn't it quoted in it's entirety in #275?

That's the operative part, and presumably the "offensive" part. But the post contained another paragraph before that. If you want to see it, lemme know. But trust me, it's no big deal.

299 posted on 05/01/2003 1:26:17 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
The athiestic scientist wants us to think that he has no vested interest in their NOT being a personal God to whom he is obligated. But he does. It is not good pretending that science proves there is no personal God - how could it? The evidence for thought behind what we see in the bees, the flowers is so obvious that to NOT believe there is thought behind what we see reveals a prejudice that is NOT scientific but arises from a rebel's heart. Yes, you can "Say" you have come to your "feelings" about their "NOT being a Creator" but those feelings are there because you DO NOT WANT to be responsible to a Creator. IN SCIENCE ONE TAKES WHAT ONE GETS???? SO you think you have come to NOT BELIEVING in a personal Creator through scientific cold pure logic do you? FEELINGS above evidence? I'll say you do. What sins of thought word and deed are you trying to not feel guilty for?
300 posted on 05/01/2003 1:45:17 PM PDT by kkindt (knightforhire.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,961-1,975 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson