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.

[BMCDA]

Well, they're certainly not and so they can use whatever criteria they want for signing up on their message board. However, they must have a reason why they don't allow people who don't subscribe to their brand of (YEC) creationism.
As far as I know there are no "Evolution" boards that don't allow creationists to sign up.

[stanz]

The only blind followers are those who do not question. Science is nothing else except questions. It is not and never has been an organized dogma. People who study evolution are always challenging existing information. Atheism doesn't enter into the mix. Either you believe in God or you don't. It's not a pre-requisite and nothing's written in cement. Take a basic physical anthropology course
and you will understand how hypotheses are constantly under scrutiny.

[Dataman]

Been there, done that. Do you defenders of bigotry have any NEW or even ORIGINAL ideas? Hey- if it's as simple as you say, there's nothing to worry about.

[Dimensio]

True, the theory of evolution does not generally attempt to explain how life first began. Evolutionists just skip over anything that would cause someone to question the theory.

Evolution only deals with existing imperfect self-replicators. Given that it is known generally how those self-replicators operate, how those self-replicators ultimately came into being has no bearing whatsoever on the theory of evolution. Gravitational theory deals with objects that have mass, but it does not try to address how those objects with mass ultimately came into being, yet I see no one trying to use that as a challenge to gravitational theory.

The attempt to link the origins of life with evolution is a creationist diversionary tactic. The creationist claim that the seperation of the two concepts is an evolutionist copout is a blatant lie.

[Dataman]

You guys need to come up with analogy that works. The reductio ad absurdum pit that you fall into is getting full.

[Dataman]

The subject is Dini. The Think Peas remark is a red herring.

[Dataman]

Science is nothing else except questions. It is not and never has been an organized dogma.

What is your unbiased authoritative source for that remark?

From the article:

Dini claimed that "one can validly refer to the ‘fact’ of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known."

A little dogmatic, isn't it?

[Rebel_Ace]

"...zoo science --- religion // kennel !..."

Oh, I am so sorry. I understand now. I regret that I did not fully appreciate your arguments or points before. Man, once I read:

"...zoo science --- religion // kennel !..."

that did it for me! The light went on! Golly, how could I have been so dense. Thank you for being so patient with me.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

I've struggled with this for years. First being fully indoctrinated on young earth creationism (before it had that name), then being fully indoctrinated with evolutionary naturalism.

Never have fully sorted it out, but I have reached a few conclusions.

I. The Bible is open to some limited interpretation. Day-age, for starters. Which hebrew words are used for "made"? For that matter, look at what leading Jewish theologians say about it, its vastly different that what they teach in mainstream protestant sunday school.

II. Science itself is not anti-God. It is a study of that which God has made, and can provide a multitude of lessons about the nature of God.

III. Science is limited to naturalistic assumptions. Meaning, being based on repeatable experiments, it [i]a priori[/i] excludes the miraculous. Some misunderstand this and conclude miracles are impossible. No, they are just not subject to investigation by science, because they are by their very nature non-natural, non-repeatable.

IV. The Theory of Evolution is a mixture of good and bad science, and advocated zealously by the naturalists. The naturalists seem to think that the T-of-E removes the need for a God. Ignoring the whole question of where did the universe come from in the first place.

V. The two single biggest problems for the T-of-E are macroevolution and abiogenesis.

A) Abiogenesis, that life arose from inorganic material, is, scientifically, a discipline in shambles. A lot of time and energy spent, a lot of speculations made, and so far, nothing but some impossible speculations to show for it.

Oddly ... the impossibilities are suppressed --- the cleverness of the speculation trumpeted, and in some quarters people think its already proven.

B) Macro-evolution - perhaps a bad term. I mean to say, descent with change is proven - children differ from their parents, over time this can lead to changes in a species.

But, the assumption or speculation that this accounts for the grand diveristy of all life on the planet has not been proven, and in fact, scientifically, is a huge and largely unsupported leap. Put another way: the fossil record supports this theory very poorly.

7 posted on 04/28/2003 8:03 AM PDT by FactQuest

[Jeff Gordon]

Professor Dini was accused of engaging in overt religious discrimination..

Anti-evolution is NOT religous based .... except when it is useful.

News Alert

Baghdad Bob refuses to take top anti-evolutionist PR position. Bob is quoted as saying "Being a spokesman for anti-evolution would ruin my creditability."

[Dataman]

The attempt to link the origins of life with evolution is a creationist diversionary tactic.

If it is as you say, you must allow for the possibility that God created and even started life. Naaa. Not you.

[f.Christian]

cm...

(( conservative me ))


I know this is "conversation" is worthless, BUT evolution is a scientific THEORY.

fC...

Atheism and evolution is a cult // religion of liberals -- statist -- social engineers // manipulators !

Do you know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic ?

cm ...

There is plenty of supporting evidence, but it has not been proven. BTW, the "Big Bang" theory could arguably be the same as the Creation theory, and is also taught. I have spoken to many Christians who believe evolution is possible. After all, with God, isn't anything possible?

fC ...

All evo double talk !

God can not lie or bear a false witness !

cm ...

I am not sure how you are getting pc secularism. Religious indifference isn't taught. As a matter of fact, I couldn't tell you how many times I have been told I am going to hell. Does that seem like tolerance or indifference to you?

fC ...

Secularism is atheism a false religion -- cult hostile to the foundation America was founded upon --- theism !

cm...

Diversity is a good practice, imo, when done within reason. We want to accept those different than us. The US is a melting pot afterall, but to be forced to accept everyone is wrong, and I agree with that aspect.

fC ...

most diversity is specious rights alien to the purpose America was founed upon !

mc ...

One thing you should also consider is that it is generally NOT the Atheists who are the ones at faulth. We are usually a silent minority. The people who are pushing the so-called Atheist agenda (which there really isn't one so far as I can tell, other than allowing Athiests the same rights as theists) are the Democrats trying to get votes and be seen as tolerant.

fC ...

"silent minority" ? ? ? ...

Brown shirts --nazis ! ! !

cm ...

Quite honestly, it seems like you want a Christian state.

fC ...

Your BIAS !

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[BMCDA]

The subject is Dini. The Think Peas remark is a red herring.

OK, then why didn't you say that in your reply to him but instead pointed to the fact that the ICR is not a tax-funded institute?
I mean you could have as well said that they're not doing science or if they do, that they are bigots who back their bigotry with science.

[FactQuest]

The attempt to link the origins of life with evolution is a creationist diversionary tactic.

You got your dodges, and you got your dodges. True, abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution. It is, however, usually taught side-by-side with it. It is advanced as good science. They are intrinsically related. I can argue them together, or apart, no big deal either way.

[whattajoke]

My god man, when will you give it up? You live in a knowledge vacuum, plain and simple. This is not an "ad hominem attack," but rather one of the facts that you creationists supposedly search for...

From the poorly written article:
"And we should do so in an open public forum whenever the opportunity presents itself."

As has been stated here a million times, scientific debate is not meant for public spectacle. Truth be told, it's a tedious, boring exercise detailing minute facts, written out over tens of thousands of pages in hundreds of texts, journals, online resources, museum placards, etc. Get with it. "Debating" a showman like Duane Gish is pure folly. Gould knew this, which is why he discouraged it. Gish would simply spew 35 fallacies allowing minimal time to answer part of one, and declare himself a winner. Again, it's stupid. Anything on the ICR website is easily refuted by an 11th grade honors student in writing, but even Gould couldn't keep up with Gish's sideshow on a stage. It is just a waste of time to do so.

From the poorly written article:
"Recently, I asked Dr. Dini for that proof. He didn’t respond."

And why should he? Do you respond to the junk email you get on a daily basis? Do you hit reply and write, "No thanks, I don't currently have a need to see teenage girls in all their carnal glory, thanks." Believe me, creation garbage is akin to this... pure nonsense that doesn't warrant a response. (So why am I doing it? ; )

From the poorly written article:
"Dini’s silence as well as the silence of other evolutionists speaks volumes about the current status of the discipline of biology."

Yes, "silence." /sarcasm> Let's take a trip to the Library of congress and add up the silence of 150 years of research, books, journals, magazines, texts, tomes, treatises, proposals, and reference materials. Lets put all this "silence" on one side of a scale and gather up the AiG and ICR and their ilk's cute little pocket paperback lie-filled garbage and see. "Silence" indeed.

Do yourself a favor, Remedy, and remove thy head from thine posterior.

[Dataman]

Even if it were true, the childish "but they do it too!" response does not justify Dini's bigotry.

[Dimensio]

"The attempt to link the origins of life with evolution is a creationist diversionary tactic."

If it is as you say, you must allow for the possibility that God created and even started life. Naaa. Not you.

While I lack belief in the existence of any gods, I cannot authoritatively say that absolutely no gods exist, so I cannot authoritatively say that the first life forms were not created by some god.

Got any more strawmen?

[Dimensio]

True, abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution. It is, however, usually taught side-by-side with it.

Where is it taught side-by-side? Evolution is a theory, abiogenesis is just a hypothesis. No credible institution should give abiogenesis the same level of credibility as the ToE.

It is advanced as good science.

What, exactly, is advanced? The teaching of the two together or abiogenesis itself? Who is advancing it?

They are intrinsically related.

No, they are not. Abiogenesis might be dependent on evolution, but it is a one-way dependency. Starting with accepting abiogenesis would require something like evolution to explain the current diversity of the species, but evolution does not require that abiogenesis occured. Evolution theory us unaffected by the means by which the first life forms came into existence. Evolution starts once the first life forms are present. Before that happens, there is no evolution so the theory cannot apply to anything.

[Dataman]

While I lack belief in the existence of any gods, I cannot authoritatively say that absolutely no gods exist, so I cannot authoritatively say that the first life forms were not created by some god.

Nor can you authoritatively say that live evolved... for the same reasons. Dini seems to have granted himself that authority.

[MEGoody]

"Science is nothing else except questions. It is not and never has been an organized dogma."

Interesting, then, that when someone questions evolutionary theory or simply does not accept it, adherents to the theory get as whipped up as any adherent to a religion.