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 Dinis 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 Dinis 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 doesnt 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. Dinis 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 didnt respond.
Dinis 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.
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.)
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.
I know. That's how it is around here. Whatcha gonna do?
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.
A little too quiet...
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.
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?
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.
Careful. Best to lie low. The mods are restless ...
That is, to all appearances, irrational. 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.
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.