Posted on 04/29/2003 10:43:39 AM PDT by 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.
Are you this ill-tempered all the time or did somebody spank you recently?
And before you ask, I *accept* that the Theory of Evolution provides the best scientific answer to explaining the history, proliferation, and diversity of life of Earth.
Ignoring quibbles about the use of the word "believe," yes, I do. Specifically I am well convinced that vastly diverse (and probably all) biological organism share a common ancestry, that is that they are linked by chains of "ordinary" biological reproduction.
In post 565, you claimed (using a doctored quote) that Dr. Save-Sonderbergh admitted to lying. Even after the full quote was posted (which showed that Dr. S-S did no such thing), you repeated that slander of him in posts 575 and 579.
Is that not a lie?
Your opinion is that it's "the best explanation". There are plenty of far more learned people than you that would disagree.
Worse, you haven't spent one keystroke attempting to prove your theory.
Face it. You have an agenda as to why you adhere to a speculation.
Just in case you've never look up what a theory is:
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject synonym see HYPOTHESIS
Currently unknown. Although this has turned out to be a fruitful field of scientific research in terms of the many interesting things that have been learned along the way, there is no general consensus, and no complete and satisfactory theory able to account for "biopoesis" or "abiogensis" (the origin, presumably by some sort of "chemical evolution," of life from non-life).
But, but, but... she's a liar-for-God-Almighty-who-might-not-continue-to-exist without such help, so we must forgive her!
I don't have a problem with your opinion; however, will you admit to the lie-by-omission to LL? Will you correct your future posts?
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
Sweetie, evolution does not cover the origins of life. It simply deals with the changing of organisms over generations. You're wanting a comment on biogenesis, a related but completely separate field. And, then, to start, you need to define what exactly constitutes "life" and where the boundary between life and non-life exists. Remember, at its most basic, life is simply chemical reactions. At what point do chemical reactions become life? As you initiated the question, I'll let you define the terms.
I'm not sure it did. Evolution explains how life developed from the first self-replicating creatures to the diverse species that inhabit the earth today. Those first creatures did not arise from evolution as I understand the term (descent from a common ancestor, with speciation occuring through modifications acted upon by natural selection).
My faith tells me that God created all life. Science illuminates how He used natural processes to create humanity from primitive forbears. As to the very first living things, science, for now, has little evidence to tell us how God created them -- perhaps He did it in a supernatural way, perhaps in a natural way that has yet to be discovered. Neither possibility would bother my faith; God created the laws of nature, so saying that something happened in a natural way is not to contradict that God did it.
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.