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.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm stunned. Awesome performance.

[Junior]

Over the hump placemarker.

[Aric2000]

You are a gift from the gods...

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

[Aric2000]

You have been thoroughly, completely, and totally thrashed.

You need to work on your debating skills, oh, and a few FACTS to back up your argument would be nice too.

Sorry, don't mean to be nitpicky.

[Not Insane]

--Darwinism is a radical religious cult that is afraid of scientific reason --

I agree, and this professor is one of it's high priests.

He's also a goofball.

[Not Insane]

--And dinosaur bones, fossils, petrified shells and all other evidence showing evolution are really just mass hysteria, huh?--

I must also say HUH. They don't "show" evolution. Evolution theory tries to explain them and their condition. It is one of many plausible explanations.

[MEGoody]

"theoretical heart of the science that forms the basis of medicine"

This is quite a chunk of baloney. Even if these scientists could know without doubt what happened millions of years ago to the evolutionary tree, it would not have an impact on what we know about how the human body acts now. Medicine requires knowing the latter, not the former.

[Not Insane]

Man, I gotta comment on the rest as well.

--Amazing that so many museaums around the world would buy into the impossible.--

They don't "buy in" to the "impossible." They show they artifacts and offer viable explanations based on what facts we CUURENTLY have at our disposal.

--A little education on your part would do wonders.--

Not relevant. We're not talking about what we know, we're talking about our opinions based on what we know.

--And evolution is not necessarily an Atheistic pursuit, you would know this if you bothered to investigate for yourself.--

True enough. But it is firmly grasped as gospel by atheists that need a theory - any theory - that offers a substitute for a supernatural creator.

[Aric2000]

Sometimes I wonder why we even bother...

These people are fanatical, and no matter how much information we feed them, it seems to osmos out the other side.

Nothing seems to be in between to suck it up and understand.

It seems that info goes in, and more of the same blather comes out.

[Not Insane]

--The instructor was asking the student to give the scientific explanation for the existance of the current forms of life that inhabit the Earth. Belief was not brought into question, only whether the students could demonstrate that they properly understood the subject as taught.--

Actually, that is not correct. The question was:

"How do you think the human species originated?"

And he required a "rooted in science" answer. If you gave the wrong "opinion" you didn't get the letter.

[whattajoke]

Are Too:

I must also say HUH. They don't "show" evolution. Evolution theory tries to explain them and their condition. It is one of many plausible explanations.

Ok, you've stated your position. Now, please, enlighten us all with just one of the "many plausible explanations" for the fossil record. I'll make it easier for you. Please enlighten just li'l ol' me with ONE of the "many plausibe explanations" for the fossil record of ONE lineage. Take your pick.

This should be so easy...

[Aric2000]

But it is firmly grasped as gospel by atheists that need a theory - any theory - that offers a substitute for a supernatural creator.


WRONG!!!

We need a theory that does not have ALL the contradictions that yours does, and is not afraid to say, "We don't know yet" because to claim you have all the answers, is to say, there is NOTHING left to learn.

You claim to have the answers, that's fine, believe it yourself, but the rest of us, who do not wish to sit fat and happy and stagnate, will continue to grow and learn, and SCIENCE gives us that opportunity.

The creator does not need to be substituted, the creator just needs to be seen, and the best way to see the works of the creator, is through science, because the more we learn, the more wondrous the creator becomes.

You need to get a grip.

[PatrickHenry]

These people are fanatical, and no matter how much information we feed them, it seems to osmos out the other side.

In the original Star Trek series, Kirk encountered a planet killer, a "doomsday" device that was loose in the galaxy. It was just like a giant mouth, and whatever went in was destroyed. That's something like the creationoid brain.

[Aric2000]

SO, and what is wrong with that?

If I say that 2+2=5, I get an F.

If I say that creationism is based in fact, and then say that evolution has no evidence to back it up.

Then I should get an F, because I obviously do not understand science, nor it's basic concepts.

Therefore, I would not deserve a letter. as a matter of fact, I would not deserve to pass the course.

[Aric2000]

LOL

[ALS]

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 evoloonists 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.

AMEN

well evoloonists? we're waiting....

[whattajoke]

Are Too:

If you gave the wrong "opinion" you didn't get the letter.

You must have been a joy as a student...

NI: "Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1392"
Teach: "No, it was in 1492."
NI: "That's your opinion. I know what year I think he sailed in."
Teach: "It is incorrect to end a sentence in a preposition."
NI: "That's your opinion. Grammar isn't important anyway."

And so on. Yes, of course this is an ad hominem but it serves a point.

[whattajoke]

And we should do so in an open public forum whenever the opportunity presents itself.

huh? If by "open forum" you mean peer reviewed journals, researched methods, and testable experiments, then I've got 100 year old news for you: It's out there for your consumption.

if by "open public forum" you mean a circus sideshow down at the local church, then I'm afraid you need a refresher on the scientific process. What other discipline is subject to such antics?

[balrog666]

Well, hello, Ms. troll, do you want to play too?

Buzz! Awwwww, unfortunately, you have already demonstrated that you don't understand the answer.

[Hodar]

They don't "show" evolution

I must beg to differ. Bone structures common to all mammals can definitely show evolution as the animal changes. Let's take any animal skull as an example. The roof of the mouth, where the jaw attaches is normally held horizontal to the ground in normal posture in all animals. This prevents the animal from drowning in their own spit. This structure is used to ascertain the nominal head position, which then can be used to determine if an animal primarily moved on 2 legs, or 4. Also, positions of the eye sockets also give an indication of the overall height of the species. As we look at a series of skeletons, we can determine their primary mode of locomotion based upon this single piece. As a similar skull type is categorized in time (carbon dating, coordinated with other similar skulls in depth, ect) we can see that there are subtle changes in this angle, showing how that animal changed over time. The typical pictures of the evolving homo sapiens shows humans going from a ape-type walk to present day posture, through stages. These stages are not only supported by the skull bone structure, but also by pelvis, leg, arm and spine structures. Thus, man and other animals have changed.