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.

You clearly believe that the substitution of interminable length for substance

Wrong again. What I believe is that in order to rebut a post of "interminable length" (yours), it is necessary to thoroughly examine and deal with each claim made, and to properly argue and document each point of rebuttal.

In short, I believe in providing a lot of "substance", and that will necessarily be somewhat verbose.

Apparently you're unused to being comprehensively "deconstructed" yourself.

and snide remarks for balanced commentary

Poor baby -- I take it *you're* the only one who is "allowed" to be impudent around here? Dream on, and get off that high horse before you fall and hurt yourself. Need I remind you that your participating in this thread *began* with a post where you made "snide remarks" such as:

They have yet to be answered with anything other than empty rhetoric by the Darwinists. Darwin was a Master Sophist, as are his acolytes. It's the facts they have trouble with.

So don't start *now* acting all hoity-toity, like a few insolent jabs somehow offend your delicate sensibilities... Here, have a hanky.

But I hardly "substitute" snide remarks for "balanced commentary". On the contrary, when I make a snide remark, I ensure that it's fully backed up with supporting evidence for my assessment.

somehow overcome the lies by commission and omission that appear as "education" on the TalkOrigins web site.

*What* "lies by commission and omission"? Over and over you make the charge. Again and again you fail to actually substantiate it. Your only attempt to date has been a pale whimper about how you don't like their definition, and feigned shock that they admit they don't know all the answers. Now would be a great time to actually show us an alleged *lie* from them -- or admit you have no examples to give and retract your accusation.

As I have shown, it is a garbage site.

You have only "shown" this by repeating the charge over and over again, and by presenting a few quotes from the site which, as *I* have shown, you laughably misunderstood and/or misrepresented.

I ask again, what else have you got?

And when you accuse me of being dishonest, which you invariably bury in your interminable posts,

I don't *bury* it in my post, I say it where all can see it, along with the many ways in which I have documented the truth of that characterization of you.

it is you who is being dishonest and who is thereby discredited.

So soon are you reduced to Pee Wee Herman's, "I know you are but what am I?"

Feel free to point out where *I* have been "dishonest". Be specific and quote me. If I gave supporting evidence for my statement, be sure to properly rebut it first. I'll wait.

You don't like my conclusions and value judgements, is all.

No, I don't like your false accusations, your flawed arguments, your transparent evasions, your logical fallacies, your poor reading comprehension, your uninformed arrogance, and your insulting attitude, all of which I have documented at length.

I thought I had made that pretty clear already.

Honest people can and do make value judgements. They should.

Indeed, which is why I have no quarrel with *honest* people, even when I disagree with them.

The very fact that you must resort to snide remarks and personal attack discredits your posts.

If that were how it worked, hon, you'd have discredited your own posts *long* ago.

But enough about my alleged attitude -- where am I *wrong*? Which of my rebuttals of your various errors is supposedly mistaken, and where?

How much easier it is to feign sorrow over my uncouthness than it is to defend against my points, eh?

A while ago, I deconstructed one of your posts line-by-line.

Yes, you're fond of "deconstructing", but you didn't actually *refute* it, or provide evidence contrary to anything in it, did you?

Instead, you engaged in your usual tut-tutting about style and imagined motives, breezily announced that you needn't even examine the evidence I gave because links are "a vast time-waster", tried to cut off discussion with a haughty "end of subject", claimed to "refute" by making unsupported and false claims which were already disproven by evidence I had already posted, mumbled a non sequitur about Godel that you pretended supported your position but didn't, arrogantly dismissed everything you didn't want to deal with as "nonsense", filled the gaps with unsupported "is not!'s, and then after the above prance-and-dance you ludicrously claimed to have "discredited it, item by item, without exception", when you had studiously avoided dealing head-on with anything.

In short, it was the very sort of "rhetoric and sophistry" you accuse just about everyone else of when you can't think of any better way to deal with their points. I then systematically pointed out all of your evasions and errors in your "deconstruction".

If you think you're fooling anyone with this sort of performance, I truly regret to inform you that you are quite mistaken.

And as I said earlier on this thread, because you can produce this stuff at immense length neither bolsters your point-of-view, and that's all it is, nor carries with it the obligation that I overcome your every misstatement and mischaracterization of my positon and posts.

Translation: "Damn, he called my bluff and thoroughly took my post apart line by line. How will I deal with that when responding will just dig myself deeper? I know, I'll just claim it's all wrong and hope someone buys it."

Fine, Phaedrus, leave my documentation of your flawed post standing as is. I'll try to deal with my heartbreak.

I will perform this exercise once more, however, briefly, to show the lurkers that you indulge in sophistry.

...she says, as she embarks on nitpicking about *one* very minor side issue in my post, in the hopes that it will make it appear she has dealt with something substantive...

[But even if he had degrees in the relevant fields, this would still just be an attempt by you to play "argument from authority". Having degrees in no way proves that anyone happens to be correct on any given point; we all know plenty of doctorates who are wrong almost every time they open their mouths. So why the bio?]

The point was not to establish Spetner's authority in "information theory" but to show he had a learned, able and relevant academic and research background, that he could think and write well and clearly.

...in other words, an Argument by Authority. You were trying to puff up his reputation in the mind of the readers, in order to try to lend more credence to what he had to say than it might otherwise garner. That *is* an Argument by Authority attempt.

I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to show that *I* was engaging in sophistry. That sort of backfired, eh?

You choose to focus on the "authority" aspect,

Because *you* did by making the choice to post large chunks of Spetner's academic bio, as if it helped your case.

for which I and anyone who thinks for themselves have little if any regard as a measure of truth.

I'm so glad you agree that it's a cheap bit of sophistry to try to pump up a point by playing "This is Your Life" with the guest speaker...

A few acronyms after the guy's name would have been entirely acceptable, but to post a significant portion of his whole resume was *way* over the top.

Biology is filled with at least nominal believers in Evolution and they're all wrong, if Evolution is defined as one species transforming into another and judged by the facts -- wrong in the sense that this definition of Evolution has never been shown to occur in the real world.

That's a lovely little speech you've rehearsed there -- I'm especially moved by breathtaking conceit of the "they're all wrong" bit -- but wasn't this supposed to be about supposedly showing some sort of flaw in my post (you know, the one documenting the problems in *your* post)?

Going off on a philosophical rant like this is a marvelous non sequitur, which seems intended to fill space without having to actually stay on topic and make one's original point. One might almost call it... sophistry. Come to think of it, nah... sophistry is subtle, and this isn't.

And as for the facts and evidence for evolution, I've provided a ton of them in prior posts, which you blew off entirely with laughably cheap excuses about how you didn't like the source site, so you were "ignoring" the material. Well, that's *one* way to keep your belief unsullied by actual facts, isn't it?

Kuhn won a Nobel Prize for writing a book showing how science moves from paradigm to paradigm, with the newer and more correct concept overcoming the old only when those scientists invested in the old departed this life. Whole fields of scientific endeavor can indeed be wrong, and for a very long time, is the point, and "non-experts" are often more able to see the truth than those invested in the old paradigm.

*looking at my watch*

Spetner makes a closely reasoned case backed by facts and citations of reasearchers' results; i.e. he supports his statements.

Yes, he makes "citations of reasearchers' [sic] results", but any Xerox machine can do as well. But he *doesn't* "support his statements", nor make a (correctly) "closely reasoned case backed by facts", as I already documented at length in my post.

Do you make any attempt at responding to my critique of the problems in his work? Why no, you don't, do you?

Instead, you just redeclare that by gosh, the guy's done his work, and we should all stand in awe of it. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I identified what seem to be serious flaws in his work, backed up by supporting argument and evidence - which you UTTERLY FAIL to even acknowledge, much less deal with.

Once again, wasn't this example supposed to be about *my* alleged sophistry, not yours?

THAT is what you're supposed to argue with,

And I did -- your pretending that I didn't makes you appear grossly, well, *dishonest*.

not the man or his "authority".

Hon, *you* were the one making an issue of his "authority" by posting his academic bio. I was just pointing out the cheeky irrelevance of it.

but you do not mention that the research citations in support of the points he makes are far more current and relevant and this, you must realize, is your own form of argument from authority.

Try to remain coherent.

My comment about his academic pedigree was just a sidebar triggered by your own "let's read all about his career" digression. It was in no way any valid measure of his work either way, AND I SAID SO. So don't try to pretend that bore any relevance to my actual rebuttal of his *work*, or that I had any kind of obligation to "balance" his biography. Could you *be* any more frivolous?

You "forget" to mention that I then went on to *directly* address the *specifics* of Spetner's arguments, and showed why they were highly questionable.

Do you in any way attempt to refute my points? No, you don't. Do you in any way attempt to defend the weak points I identified in Spetner's argument? No, you don't.

Have you yet again pranced around the real issue and tried to pretend that you've somehow won the discussion? Yes you do:

Trashing Spetner earns you no points for TOE. All of this is invalid debate. You're bright enough to know all this, so I conclude that your attempt here is at misdirection.

Oh yes, there's "misdirection" all right, but not on *my* side of the discussion. You choose to whimper about the "Spetner bio" side topic, and then TOTALLY IGNORE what you know to be the real substance of my rebuttal of Spetner's work.

Dishonesty, thy name is Phaedrus.

In simple, direct terms, Spetner shows that the British peppered moth is an example neither of so-called "micro-" nor "macro-"Evolution; i.e. the genetic code for both light- and dark-colored moths was resident in the moth population at all times and no change whatever in their genetic structure was shown to have occurred.

Congratulations, all you've done is restate Spetner's original claim, WITHOUT IN ANY WAY ADDRESSING A SINGLE POINT OF MY REBUTTALL OF IT, OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT I HAD MADE ANY.

Just repeating a flawed argument in no way strengthens it, Phaedrus. In fact, by studiously avoiding dealing with the existing rebuttals to it, you only appear to be trying to run away from them.

The use, then and now in biology textbooks, of the British peppered moth as an example of Evolution, even in the meaningless sense of "change", is clearly fraudulent.

...and now you're repeating *your* original claim, without dealing with my subsequent rebuttals. Not very honest of you, is it?

When you can't deal with a criticism, just pretend it never happened, is that it?

You're bright enough to know this as well.

Actually, I'm "bright enough" to know what you do not, which is that selecting for a particular pre-existing variations is as much evolution as is selecting for a novel variation introduced by a recent mutation.

It might help you to actually *understand* evolution before you start making silly pronouncements about does or does not qualify as such. From your favorite website:

The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.
The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

But just for giggles, do please grace us with *your* personal definition of "evolution" under which the observed changes in the moth gene pool over successive generations would not qualify as "evolution". Be specific and concise.

Yet you just continue on trashing Spetner and me.

What I do is I point out the actual weaknesses in Spetner's argument (which you haven't even acknowledged I have *done*, much less actually dealt with point-by-point), and in yours (for the most part, ditto on the failure to deal with the points I raise).

Again, this is not valid argument,

On the contrary, I *have* engaged in valid argument. You just prefer to pretend to ignore the parts where I have, and focus on the side issues (e.g. Spetner's bio, my "snideness", etc.) where you can sputter and become indignant for a while, safe in the knowledge that you haven't gotten near any of the land mines known as "my actual points".

and it convinces no one who thinks clearly or for themselves.

If that helps you sleep better, go for it.

What you may or may not realize is that when take this tack, you discredit yourself because you do not have the facts on your side, and it is the facts, the evidence, upon which Evolution must rise or fall.

You mean the many facts I have posted and linked, which you have very studiously chosen to ignore and utterly fail to deal with, other than by cheap excuses for why you refuse to look at them? *Those* facts and evidence?

Measured by the facts, Evolution has clearly fallen, it is bogus science,

You have *yet* to make a case for this repeated assertion of yours, *nor* refuted any of my counterarguments and facts which I have provided in abundance and you have ignored in toto.

and you help me make my point by going off-point and staying there, at length.

You only try to make it *appear* that I do so by a) complaining at length about the few times I *do* digress into a sidebar, and b) purposely sidestep any discussion of my *actual* on-point arguments, which make up the bulk of most of my posts.

Is that honest of you? No.

Is there any need for me to go further than this in rebutting your long, long posts?

Yes, if you'd like to honestly deal with the counterpoints which have been made to your posts.

No, if you really want to leave it at that and make obvious to all how evasive you are about defending your points against the many arguments that have been made against them, and the many times your dishonesty and false accusations have been documented.

Your choice.

I don't think so.

Imagine my surprise.

Length is not strength or substance.

Neither is evasion.

I refer you and the lurkers once more to my posts at #438 and #445.

Translation: "Pay no attention to the rebuttals. Just reread my posts again. Trust me, they're just fine. They've never been called into question or documented as flawed. Read only *my* side of the topic. Me, me, me."

It's funny, on prior threads your "I'm running away now" posts have at least been of the form, "I invite readers to read my posts and theirs and make up their own minds". Now you've gone to "just read my posts, pay no attention to the rebuttals". Hmm.

Let's pause, however, momentarily, to deal with your closing remarks, remembering that your opening remarks have been discredited.

Really? Where? "Denounced" does not equal "discredited".

I've bracketed my comments so you will be very clear as to what they relate.

But hey, maybe buried deep in Fernandez's dishonest [your editorial comment, itself dishonest]

I documented and supported my critique of Fernandez's dishonesty, so your calling it merely an "editorial comment" without your in any way dealing with my points is itself dishonest, thank you very much.

presentation and ludicrous misunderstandings [your value judgement, worthless as substance]

See above, I documented Fernandez's misunderstandings. Did you in any way deal with them? Nope, not in the least -- so who's really "worthless of substance" here?

there really *is* some kernel of accuracy which actually, in your words, "debunks" TalkOrigins.Org or (for a change) finally [a sneaky slam, here]

Nothing sneaky about it -- you repeatedly accuse TalkOrigins.Org of "dishonesty" and "lies", but have *yet* to adequately support the claim. I was merely reminding you of that fact.

supports your accusation that they are "liars" and "dishonest".

What, no snippy bracketed comment here?

So if there's anything of value somewhere in Ferndandez's flawed rant ["flawed rant"? -- I don't think so],

You are entitled to your incorrect opinion. I documented the flaws. You failed to even attempt to refute the flaws. They still stand, no matter how hard you try to pretend they haven't been made.

I hereby invite you [as I said earlier, Been There, Done That]

As I've shown earlier, no, you haven't.

to find the single *best* example in there, and present it to us.

Your utter failure to respond to my direct challenge that you cut to the chase and present what you consider the single *best* argument in Ferdandez' scattershot is duly noted.

If you had an actual support for your accusation, wouldn't you be ready and willing to show it?

I gave you a gold-plated invitation to support your slur, and you... failed to do so.

My dismissal of Fernandez' screed as being devoid of merit stands.

Scattershot attacks (i.e. making dozens of attempted attacks in the hopes that maybe one will stick) are oh so Creationist...

Now here you are being both flat dishonest and irrelevant.

No, accurate and observational.

My posts have nothing to do with Creationism and so-called Evolution, if it is science, stands on its own irrespective of who criticizes it, Creationists included.

What, you're allowed to make multiple broadsides against "evolutionists" nearly every chance you get, but I'm not allowed *one* crack about creationists? Congratulations, you've won the coveted Hypocrite Of The Week award.

The problem for you folks is that Evolution fails as science.

Really? Feel free to make a case for that interesting claim. One better than you've managed so far, I mean. Or maybe you could attempt to salvage your original attempt by actually *refuting* my responses for a change instead of just dancing around them and calling them "sophistry", as if a label counts as actual refutation...

That's why you give us rhetoric.

...only in the strange sense that that's all that's left after you get done ignoring all the direct arguments and evidence we provide, you mean. If rhetoric annoys you so much, why don't you try dealing with our *evidence* next time, instead of making excuses for why you shouldn't have to tarnish your eyes looking at it? Why don't you refute my actual arguments instead of dishonestly pretending that I haven't offered any?

There's a definite failure of communication here, but it's not on *our* side.

[So far, all of your blunderbus blasts have been, well, blunders. Got anything *good*?]

And this last is just triumphal nonsense.

Triumphal, yes. Nonsense, no. Your scattershots have indeed been poorly aimed, and thus my invitation for you to offer something really meaty if you've got it. By your reaction, I take it you don't.

Now I've wasted a lot of time here and I won't do so interminably, just enough to identify sophistry for what it is.

And what a prime example you've been.

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.