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.

[Aric2000]

Your logic is a sight to behold.

But then again, faith as logic is indeed a thing to behold.

If my Doctor is a christian, and tells me that evolution is not a valid scientific theory, and that evolutionary biology is NOT something he believes in, then I will find a new doctor, because the man is a quack, and I sure as heck do not want him digin around in my innards, BUT, if my doctor is a christian, and tells me that he indeed thinks that Biological evolution is a valid theory, and is used extensively in the research of medicine, then I will stay with that Doctor forever. Because he understands science and evolution and it's greater usage.

This Doctor has EVERY right to refuse to write a letter for ANY student that claims that Evolution is not a valid scientific theory, because of it's great use in the medical industry, any Student that claims that evolution is not a valid theory would be a quack and would not get ANY sort of recommendation from me, that is for sure.

[Hodar]

ev·o·lu·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-) n.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.

Whether the animals were designed, or based upon a random arrangement of molecules that somehow gained intelligence, does not set asside the multitude of physical evidence that this process exists. On my side, I have a world-wide infestation of fossils, mummified remains, the rock record, and countless doctoriates who have devoted their lives to search for scientific knowlege.

On your side, you have YOUR interpretation of a book written by man. The bible need not necessarily run contrary to evolution. God did not create man until day 6. Evolution supports this. God simply set the ball in motion, and being 'all knowing' simply knew that we would be the result; at this point in time. The bible makes no mention of dinosaurs, so do you deny the skeleton remains you see? The bible makes no mention of nuclear fission; so is the sun bright because of nuclear reactions, or God's will? Or is the real truth a combination of things?

[ALS]

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

http://m-w.com

[Aric2000]

Well then, WHERE is the scientifically verifiable evidence that Evolution is wrong?

I really, really, really want to see it.

Please show me this scientifically verifiable evidence, and maybe then I will quit telling you how clueless you are about science.

I have asked ALS for this info in a number of posts, but I have yet to get any sort of coherent response. All he does is whine.

[ALS]

"If the C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it."

T. Save-Soderbergh and I. U. Olsson
Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively
University of Uppsala, Sweden


This guy admits he lies. How do you stomach that?

hmm?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Do you have a source for that quote?

[ALS]

Sure I do, but why not just write the guy yourself?

Prof. Torgny SAVE-SODERBERGH Egypt. Inst. Gustavianum, 752 20 UPPSALA, Svezia.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...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..."

DUH! It was a SCIENCE Class! Of course he wanted an answer "rooted in science"

Assume for a minute that this was an ACCOUNTING class, and the instructor asked:

"How do you think bookkeeping should be done?"

If the student described a system that did not provide for double entry checks and balances, then the instructor would have every right to say:

"It appears you have not properly assimilated the material of this class as taught. I could not in good conscience recommend you for further study as an accountant, unless and until you demonstrate an understanding of the fundamentals."

Again, the students were not FAILED, the instructor merely did not write them a letter of recommendation.

I really do not see the problem here, evo or not.

[Not Insane]

Believe it or not, we pretty much agree. The problem is that when you say you believe in evolutionary biology, it's like saying you believe in astronomy. The statement is so broad as to have no meaning.

The same is true about students that do not believe that evolution is a valid theory. The question posited by the professor wasn't regarding whether "evolution" was a valid theory. He asked them what they THOUGHT and then required them to pick one from a specific BUCKET of theories, not allowing them to say that although they all have merit, the student may BELIEVE that the origin of species was through creation. It cannot be proved or disproved and is, therefor, a valid answer to an intellectually sincere teacher, which this one clearly was not.

It's the specifics of the question that make it a problem. Generally asking kids which evolution theory or which parts of it seem to make the most sense would have been a more sincere way of discovering their knowledge on the subject.

[Not Insane]

I agree with your post, but I would like to clarify one part:

--Whether the animals were designed, or based upon a random arrangement of molecules that somehow gained intelligence, does not set asside the multitude of physical evidence that this process exists.--

I agree but throw this out: Studying the rust happening to a derelict car rusting away in a field, and trying to come up with how the rust process created the car doesn't get you any closer to the factory. It will give you a great deal of knowledge and understanding of the chemical makeup of the metal however - and I don't knock it.

But when people start claiming, with a religious fervor, that rust is how the car came to be, or changed from a model T to a Thunderbird, and I am a mindless idiot for suggesting that, although there may be evidence, it's not enough to convince me that rust is the de-facto event that created the car, well, that's when I just shake my head.

[Aric2000]

In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."

This quote came from this site http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm#Carbon

By 1969, enough radiocarbon dates of objects of known age, it became apparent that calibration of the 14C dating method was both possible, and required, to make radiocarbon dates useful for the determination of calendar dates. Indeed, it is often material from prior to 1969 that creationists use as ammunition against the 14C dating method.

That came from this site http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1999/c14hist.html

You proved that point, that quote came from a symposium in 1969, just after it was decided that indeed Carbon 14 dating could be calibrated.

Oh, and you misquoted as well, you cut it, to be honest, should you not put as much of the quote in your post as possible, and put a link to where you acquired the quote, so that it's source could be checked? How fascinating that you chose to do that, not unsurprising, but fascinating all the same.

Nice try though, it's an old quote that is OUTDATED.

Thanks for playing, have a nice day....

[Aric2000]

Here is a source for you Lurking, and see Ichneumon, I learn fast!! ;)

[general_re]

Misquoting or misrepresenting quotes is, quite frankly, lying.

From your lips...

(headers snipped for brevity)

From: Chris Ho-Stuart <hostuart@sky.fit.qut.edu.au>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Response to AIGs reaction to SA article. (no html!)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 22:30:10 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 87

David Jensen wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2002 18:30:20 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
> acoxon1274@aol.com (Acoxon1274) wrote in
> <20020804143902.11844.00001931@mb-cu.aol.com>:

[snip]

>>Here's an example of the problems we Creationists have with
>>radiometric dates being published as solid evidence:
>>
>>"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the
>>prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague,
>>Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among
>>archaeologists toward it, as follows: 'If a C-14 date supports
>>our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not
>>entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if
>>it is completely 'out-of-date,' we just drop it."
>>
>>T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and
>>Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute
>>Chronology, ed. Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in
>>Pensee, 3(1): 44].
>>
>>Dated though the article may be, it still tells me that
>>what I was taught in school is pure assumption and personal
>>belief/bias masquerading as science.
>
> Since you have this article available, could you also provide the
> context of this quote? I think that a paragraph or two on either side
> would help me understand why this was said.

You are, of course, hinting at the obvious. Acoxon does not have the article. He is quoting a secondary source without acknowledgement, and has the implication diametrically reversed.

Two years ago I contacted professor Olsson directly myself on this matter; with reference to a quote by another creationist which was given rather less completely. Professor Olsson had this to say:

| In our paper, p.35, in the Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium
| Ingrid U. Olsson (ed.)
| Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology
| Almqvist & Wiksell Stockholm
| John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, London, Sydney
| 1970
| Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-11 57 69
|
| we (T. Save-Soderbergh) wrote:
|
| C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the
| Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly
| summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows:
| "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If
| it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And
| if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it."
|
| As you can see the quote, as you wrote it, was almost correct. Nothing
| except for some formal writing was changed. I myself have experienced
| similar attitudes to results given by me. Sometimes the "customer",
| later on, has admitted that he earler was wrong and that the result
| forced him to reconsider his opinion.
| I can not give any better reference to Brew.

The extreme irony of this remark is that, if I understand the matter correctly, Professor Olsson reported Brew's comments in the context of a complaint about archaeologists who were unwilling to revise their opinions in the light of radiocarbon dating. This is given in the context of CRITICISM of such an attitude.

Professor Olsson is a well published expert in radiocarbon dating, well aware of its reliability and accuracy (when due care is taken); and is here being criticial of the attitude described.

The right attitude would be to recognize the implications of absolute dating for refuting a hypothesis.

I wonder how many creationists are willing to admit error and reconsider an opinion in the light of dating results, or even acknowledge evidence which is contrary to their position; and how many creationists illustrate the attitude of the quote by simply ignoring inconvenient data.

Cheers -- Chris

[Not Insane]

--Well then, WHERE is the scientifically verifiable evidence that Evolution is wrong?--

I never said it is wrong. There are plenty of holes (literally) in the evidence supporting it. I am simply not convinced by the currently existing evidence. I don't buy it, hook line and sinker, just because some "experts" in the field say it must be true any more than I give ritalin to my son because some teacher sez he is hyperactive in class.

I'm a skeptic. I need significantly more evidence. It is an interesting theory however, and I hope it sparks more investigation and discovery, as I am sure it will.

Also, your request is unreasonable. You assume that I need evidence against a claim for it to not be true. You and I both know that is as sincere a request as it would be for me to ask you for proof that God doesn't exist. The old attempt to require proof of a negative.

[ALS]

You don't seem too smart. All you did was prove my point, which you failed to observe.

An admission of lies, deceipt and your garden variety of purposely "cooking the books".

Please read my posts before you make a quackery of yourself.

btw - Do you believe evolution is true?

[Aric2000]

Sorry guys, please see post 571

[Lurking Libertarian]

This guy admits he lies. How do you stomach that?

In context, he is admitting no such thing; he is quoting another person (an Egyptologist, not an evolutionist) who was admitting to lying. [Thanks for the full quote, Aric!]

How do you stomach using misleadinglly-edited quotes to support your position?

[Aric2000]

Excuse me ALS, you once again IGNORED the part of the post that proved you were being dishonest.

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water.....

[ALS]

Yeah, he lies.

deal with it

[PatrickHenry]

I wonder how many creationists are willing to admit error and reconsider an opinion ...

I don't wonder at all.