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.

[Junior]

if I quit drinking --- that is evolution too !

If you quit drinking you'd become coherent, and we'd miss the old, babbling, you.

[bondserv]

Excellent post!!

[Not Insane]

Various theories that fall under the umbrella of "evolution" differ from one another. No, I am not going to give specific examples. The time for that has passed for me. I normally avoid these threads because I am, quite frankly, talked out. It's like trying to argue the lunacy of Islam with some rank and file muslim that believes everything he's told. It's like banging your head against the wall.

This one sucked me in because it was obvious that the professor was protecting "evolution theory" with religious fervor - a trademark of the goofiest of adherents to this particular belief system.

[Junior]

Sweetie, your Darwin and Gould quotes are taken out of context. The full quotes obviate the point you are making with you selective misquotes. As for several of the others, most are more than two decades old (and the science has come a long way since then) and that Denton fellow is a dyed-in-the-wool creationist who's comments should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

[Not Insane]

--WRONG!!!--

I disagree. I think I am right on this one.

--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.--

I don't know what theory you think is mine. I don't have a theory. I love all the discovered knowledge that scientific research has imparted. It's not even the "evolution" conclusions some make that bothers me. It is the religious ferver with which they attempt to protect these conclusions. And there is plenty more to learn and I find the process fascinating.

Remember, even if we were to discover everything there is to know about how life came to be and how each of the diverse species came to be we could still not answere the question that True religion answers: Why?

--You claim to have the answers,--

No, I am saying that the evolutionists CLAIM to have the answers. I have made no such claim.

--...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.--

Good. I count myself in that group.

--...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.--

Well which is it? Do we "need" to see the Creator, or just the works of the Creator? Yes, science shows us the works of the Creator, but then, so do my two eyes and ears. Not to condemn science. I love it. But it's nice to notice a nice sunset, or the patern in a leaf once in a while.

You will not find the Creator in creation any more than you'll find an architect or builder in the walls of a house.

--You need to get a grip.--

Actually the grips on my bikes are fine. One of the end caps fell off though.

[ALS]

So you're saying that the background of who said what discards what they say, irregardless of the facts?

Just for kicks, disregard the ones you've prejudiced, and move on to the ones you haven't, yet.

[Junior]

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

[Junior]

"This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution. Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered. After all, biologic research shows no sign of approaching completion; quite the opposite is true. Disagreements and clashes of opinion are rife among biologists, as they should be in a living and growing science. Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin."

- Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975), "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

(I added this because you have a T. Dobzhansky misquote in your selection. If you'd double check the actual provenance of the quotes instead of simply copying and pasting from creationists websites this would not be such a problem.)

[bondserv]

Hello whattajoke,

1) The ID video is 1 tape at 60 minutes. Nice doc. Must contain lots of info.

When you are told the correct formula and given the answer, it takes no time at all.

2) Conversely, the recent Evolution doc is 8 tapes at 600 minutes. Hmmmm... draw your own conclusion.

When you are poking and hoping, and trying to blunder the audience with hogwash, it's better to throw in the kitchen sink.

3) Your article for a creationist source states that the show is available for uplink from the satellite. Or something. To date, I don't think any member station has taken up this offer.

PBS, as god hating as it gets. PBS just so happens to be funded by liberal extremists. Be careful how often you agree with the enemy.

4) In fact, checking pbs.com's extensive and exhaustive list of shows, "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" is nowhere to be found.

PBS, as god hating as it gets. PBS just so happens to be funded by liberal extremists. Be careful how often you agree with the enemy.

5) Not on current shows available or their "Previews of shows to come."

Moral clarity must come from proven goodness. Seek the answers from Him who has proven goodness, not from those like us who have proven baddness.

Truth comes from above in the living message of Jesus Christ. It's all laid out for those who don't fear the seeking.

Whattajoke, hope you and yours are well!!

[ALS]

Do you type all your quotes in?

I think quotes are acceptable to cut & paste.
Afterall, they are quotes, right?

[Junior]

So you're saying that the background of who said what discards what they say, irregardless of the facts?

First off, "irregardless" is not a word. Secondly, if you are going to argue from authority (which is, in itself, a fallacy) be sure you have an authority with some knowledge of the subject of which he addresses.

[whattajoke]

RE: your misquote salad. When will you folks grow tired of this? I could spend the 20 minutes setting you straight on them all, but what good would it serve? Would you learn anything? stop posting this cut and paste job again? If you can honestly say yes, then I'll bother with it.

Misquoting or misrepresenting quotes is, quite frankly, lying. And I don't deal too well with liars.

[Junior]

But one should check for the original source. Creationist websites have an agenda -- and they are not adverse to misrepresentation or outright lying to further that agenda (some Christians they are, huh?). Unfortunately, your run-of-the-mill creationists come along and copy the misquotes wholesale without ever checking to see if they are correct.

[ALS]

"folks", "lying"?

reduced to character assassination so soon?

Just think, you could have been proving your beloved theory all this time instead of looking for cracks in the sidewalk.

typical

[ALS]

But one should check for the original source. Creationist evoloonist websites have an agenda -- and they are not adverse to misrepresentation or outright lying to further that agenda (some Christians scientists they are, huh?). Unfortunately, your run-of-the-mill creationists evoloonists come along and copy the misquotes wholesale without ever checking to see if they are correct.

[Not Insane]

--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.--

I most definitely agree. After all, creationism is based on faith. Christianity REQUIRES faith, which is one reason there is any debate at all. There is evidence for evolution. There is evidence that G.W. Bush sleeps around, but not enough to convict.

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

Your whole post misses the point. The teacher asked them to have the "right opinion" based on interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves. If he had said, "What are the POSSIBLE forms of evolution you think could be supported by the fossil evidence and why?" or some such, it would have been different. He was asking them what they think, not what they think are plausible theories. That's the rub. One can be a creationist Christian and still understand all the facts and evidences used to support the theory of evolution and still think it is wrong without being intellectually bankrupt.

You can understand all the implications and results of rust on a car without having to believe the rust created the car.

[Not Insane]

--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. --

No it doesn't. This is apples and oranges. Human beings recorded the events of Columbus' escapades. There is a written record. Also, there is no credible authority suggesting 1392. If there was, then the argument would actually be valid.

Regarding the grammer, well, it's as important in front of a teacher as your speed is in front of a cop.

[Not Insane]

--Bone structures common to all mammals can definitely show evolution as the animal changes.--

No, evolution is the most common current explanation for the bone structures common to all mammals.

Of course, many of the dissimilar cars made by GM have common parts under the skin. They're all MADE by the same company. It's not evolution, allthough it may appear to be by some.

The rest of your post could just as easily be someone from another planet explaining all the working parts of a buick, a 747 and a windmill - all things that were designed for a specific function.

The key word is "designed." Of course, evolution theory can explain it up to a point. I believe Ptolomy had an explanation for how the solar system worked, based on geometric shapes. It worked up to a point as well, but turned out to be completely wrong as evidence presented itself. For starters, I believe it was based on the idea that the Earth was the center of the solar system.

[Not Insane]

--Bone structures common to all mammals can definitely show evolution as the animal changes.--

No, evolution is the most common current explanation for the bone structures common to all mammals.

Of course, many of the dissimilar cars made by GM have common parts under the skin. They're all MADE by the same company. It's not evolution, allthough it may appear to be by some.

The rest of your post could just as easily be the equivalent of someone from another planet explaining all the working parts of a buick, a 747 or a windmill - all things that were designed for a specific function.

The key word is "designed." Of course, evolution theory can explain it up to a point. I believe Ptolomy had an explanation for how the solar system worked, based on geometric shapes. It worked up to a point as well, but turned out to be completely wrong as evidence presented itself. For starters, I believe it was based on the idea that the Earth was the center of the solar system.

[ALS]

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].