The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[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.

[balrog666]

Blue idiocy and rampant ignorance (you know who) skipping placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

Why I No Longer Debate Idiots .

[whattajoke]

For example a quick Google search can provide many links such as the following saying that Evolution is Bunk . Is that proof that evolution is bunk? Hey I have a citation!

By the tone of your post, can I assume you realize that your google search bore little fruit? Or at least in this case, very bad tasting fruit?
Can't you, a grown man, see the difference between Ich's links and the usual anti-evolution link? (of course not, because like Phaedrus, you simply don't click on them). See the scientific links we post have actual citations. Most citations have citations. They have reams of hardcopy research to back them up. Yours? Nothing. Ever.

In fact, the one you blithely posted is so silly it barely warrants a discussion. It consists of a creationist parsing statements from others. It's embarrassingly bereft of content, citations, study, and proof. It does, however, give both sides of this issue clear insight into what creationists constantly do OVER and OVER... which is to simply pull quotes out of context, deceive, and once again give us nothing more than some fancy-dan missives.

Poor Colin Patterson is mentioned AGAIN, despite the fact that it has been shown/proven countless times to be, in the words of Gore's site, "bunk." Good old "Sir Fred Hoyle" again I see. If the mods weren't jumpy, I could post a list of I'd say 5000 "prominent astronomers" who would dismiss Hoyle's Hooey. But you've got ONE, right? You win, right?

Wickramashinghe again? Same old same old. Refutations to him are plentiful here on FR.

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen... ah yes, The infamous chapters 7, 8, and 9 that one of your buddies posts over and over and over here. I believe it was thoroughly debunked on the last big Cre/Evo thread. Debunked, that is, with facts, numbers, proof, and citations.

Once in your life, try not to under whelm me.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Whoa! Must have missed that one!

It goes back a year or so to some silly comment I made about TV's that g3 took issue with. By the time he was done he was arguing that Faraday was working with cathode ray tubes. It was pretty funny.

[PatrickHenry]

Research center for generating the raw material in the blue postings:

[Lurking Libertarian]

Friday morning placemarker.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...I just skip those posts..."

You're right, that's the best approach. I'm learning.

[longshadow]

By the time he was done he was arguing that Faraday was working with cathode ray tubes. It was pretty funny.

Ah..... now I recall it!

He is so prolific at making science bloopers that I can't keep track of all of them.

[Dimensio]

All that the evolutionists have done is attack Christianity, demonize their self-made strawman 'creationism' and call opponents fools and

Yet another irony meter lost to a horrendous explosion. Why don't you point out where evolutionists have tried to 'support' the theory by attacking Christianity and demonizing creationism?

However, no evidence in support of evolution has been given.

Except for the fossil record and genetics, which some Creationists lie about and claim refutes evolution by either misrepresenting the implications of the findings or just lying about the findings themselves.

In addition, even though this thread is about Dini's discrimination against Christians no evidence has been given by him, or by evolutionists here to show that a Christian cannot be a scientist.

Where has anyone made such a claim? Now you're lying about what scientists claim and then 'proving' your superiority by pointing out that no one has provided evidence of a claim that they never made.

[kkindt]

To whatajoke?
I am sorry about your sinal column and knees and nipples and appendix being not what you want them to be. It is possible of course that they are just right for you and you don't know it. Or it is possible they were good back sometime ago but you have devolved into the deplorable creature you are. Devolution is no joke. WHat we were once we are not now. Evolutionist believe this but they error in thinking that what we have are poor results of evolution instead of the remnants of something that made a lot of sense when it was what it was like it was suppose to be.

Ouch - you hurt my feelings when you say my neurons might be overloaded - yikes. Please don't hurt me.

[kkindt]

Golly you sure know how to misunderstand what someone has said. First "fossil record" HMMMM? A "record" is suppose to be a recording of facts. What in the world facts are in the fossils that prove we evolved from tiny little microscopic creatures and how in the world do irreducibly complex biomachines come about when they are purposeless for a creature if one tiny part is not there???

Oh I think devolution of the brain is in great evidence not just for me but for you too.

[kkindt]

I read this - but it doesn't prove a thing because the so called "mutations" are simply a manifestation of what was already in the DNA of the creatures and in the population but now is given over to expression because the antibiotics kill off the creatures without that genetic make up.

I want a mutation that clearly takes place and is NOT in the DNA of the creature and that helps that creature.

Mutations are the busting of the code. Your view is like saying that here is a computer program that runs great now we will break it to see if it will run better?

[Lurking Libertarian]

The link I posted included several studies showing observed mutations.

[Dimensio]

He probably ignored the links because it allows him to continue making his assertions without actually lying. As long as he avoids any evidence that contradicts his assertions, he can continue to believe what he says and therefore he's not technically lying.

[general_re]

Yet another irony meter lost to a horrendous explosion.

I find that it's useful to hunt for vendors that offer bulk discounts on those, especially if you're going to play with the blue goon....

[whattajoke]

Kindly remind us all where you got your molecular biology or genetics degree I again. I forget...

[FactQuest]

Huh? The Big Bang (origin of the universe) is perfectly acceptable science.

Fully agreed. Yet is still does not answer the question, where did that speck of incredibly dense stuff come from, and what caused it to explode.

"It just was" is naturalism. "God did it" is theism. Both are faith constructs.

[FactQuest]

You cannot rearrange what does not exist

Oh? Prove it.

That which does not exist... cannot be manipulated. If it could be manipulated, you would be manipulating something that exists. If you could arrange it, it would be you could move it from here to there. But, to do that, an extant "it" is presumed.

Are you just trying to be perverse? Or do you truly think that math or science will someday be able to rearrange anything that doesn't exist?

Definitionally, it is self-evident.

Rearrange implies structure or placement. Anything with structure or placement already exists.

[FactQuest]

If you cannot give a clinical example,

I have.

Techinically, you have not. While your argument is sound enough, it is not a clinical example.

your choice for a physician is not being done logically, and I find that terribly funny.

I find it funny that you might think it "logical" to go to a doctor who believes the Earth is flat, and find that no indication that perhaps the doctor isn't playing with a full deck.

Perhaps think of this analogy. If I had a surveyor marking my new property, 40 acres... would it matter if he thought the earth was flat? No, not really, as long as he could do his job well, and gave good customer service at a fair price.

[FactQuest]

the talk.origins archive is quite simply the very best, most fair, most comprehensive online collection of pro-evolution and anti-evolution material available.

Funny, I can't seem to find ANY anti-evolution material on there. Are you sure?