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]

There are plenty of far more learned people than you that would disagree.


Give me a list of these socalled learned people that do not accept the theory of evolution as having the best explanation of the evidence.

I'm waiting...........

Oh, those would be creationists wouldn't they, that's right, I am supposed to accept the opinion of .01% of the scientific community over the other 99.99%, I see.

You might do that, because they agree with your worldview, but I don't think so, I am a bit more intelligent then that.

Oh, and you MIGHT, just MIGHT want to read that definition yourself. Such as #5...... maybe, just maybe....

Thanks for playing....

Well, at least you put the whole thing in there this time.

Good job!!

[Junior]

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

[ALS]

Origins of the Species:
Charles Darwin

I always get a laugh how the evoloonists want to leap their way to the imagined comfort of their theory, but that theory can't even explain how it came to be. It's like watching the last 5 minutes of Star Wars episode 3, then professing you understand the book.

It take far more faith to believe in your hypothesis than it does for an average person to believe in God.

[Dark Knight]

Have you ever asked your doctor about evolution? It of course would not be fair to go out ask him now. He probably has never offered nor you asked his/her beliefs on the subject.

The idea that now you have a criterion that you have never used before or even asked, that can disqualify your physician from being a qualified and competent doctor sounds purely argumentative. I doubt that anyone on this thread has had any discussion about evolution with their doctor. It is generally a non-issue.

So why is there a problem? Evolutionists and creationists make wild claims about each other. They generate 500 plus threads waxing eloquent about the idiocy of their foes. Proving theories (I'm still aghast about that) and fundamentally ignoring questions that any personnel director would treat as an easy question.

What are the best indicators of a good future doctor from the field of biology?

Dr. Dini didn't ask them.

He chose his passion, instead of science.

If you were to choose the three most important questions for your physician, what would they be?

DK

Dr. Dini does have the right to hold any belief he wants or withhold writing letters of recommendation to whomever. He does not hold the right to be free from criticism and judgement. That's a fantasy the left is beginning to understand.

[ALS]

hahaha.. man that is groping!

conveniently ignoring any other parts are ya?

[Not Insane]

--While you did not respond to or refute my ACCOUNTING class counter example--

You're right. It wasn't germane.

--The question was what do you THINK, not what you BELIEVE.--

Barbra Streisand.

Let me ask you this: How do you think an airplane stays in the air? Is the answer not also what you believe? This was not a court of law. Any reasonable person would have interpreted it to mean "what you believe." If it is not what the teacher meant, he should have been more specific.

--You know, if the students were so utterly offended by the material, why the heck were they taking the class at this institution? Why not take their whiney behinds to some school that will preach what they want to hear?--

If the teacher was any good, there probably was some great information and facts imparted during the course of the semester. But problem isn't what the kids want to HEAR. The problem is what the professor wants them to BELIEVE.

--I was a teacher for about 6 years. In my class, you demonstrated that you learned the material AS TAUGHT, and if you wanted to present counter-arguments for anything, THAT WAS JUST FINE, as long as you proved to me that you UNDERSTOOD the concepts presented. --

I think that's great. But this teacher didn't want to know what they understood. He wanted to know what they thought/believed.

Maybe he just asked the question very poorly.

[ALS]

We're still waiting for you to make one simple post that actually attempts to prove your theory.

You haven't yet. Instead, you've cruised around looking for someone to laugh at.

pathetic

Do want a binky to go with your absurd theory?

[Heartlander]

Anyone who doubts (but understands) the ‘theory of common descent’ is not competent for a job as a physician.

Is this statement true?

[Stultis]

God created the laws of nature, so saying that something happened in a natural way is not to contradict that God did it.

Not bothering to look it up just now, but in the book of Amos God is said to "create" the wind. (The word is the same as used in Genesis, which biblical apologists sometimes -- falsely -- claim only refers to creation "out of nothing.") The bible also informs us that God creates each generation of Israel, praise on the lips, and that he is involved intimately, personally and actively in the embryological development of individual human beings, "forming inward parts," "knitting together bones and sinew," and the like.

In short there are many instances were the Bible uses creationistic language to describe what even the most literalistic modern fundamentalist understands to be perfectly "natural" phenomena.

[ALS]

plausible to who?
accepted by who?

Isn't that exactly what the argument is about?

btw - lamo try on redefining what a theory is..

factaroo:
Fact and Theory are spelled different for a reason.

telling me that something is "offered" as an explanation, is not very impressive as to its validity.

[whattajoke]

Do you believe in evolution?"

Tis true I posted this the other day... but if the shoe fits...

I shall remind you that the scientific enterprise is not in the ‘belief’ business. Science’s primary mission is to understand the reality of how things work in nature. This is purely an intellectual activity and does not require the operation of any faith or belief system. I use a broom to sweep out my garage because it’s the best tool for dealing with the reality of grunge on my garage floor. But I don’t ‘believe’ in brooms. I consider the reality of the broom in terms of my dirty garage floor.

Scientists seek the best tools to help them comprehend the reality of the natural world in which they live. To the extent that a theory is useful, it will be used. To the extent that a theory is not useful it won’t be used. Scientific theories are the tools for scientists like wrenches are the tools of mechanics. We use tools in our lives where they are most appropriate but we are not required to ‘believe’ in them.

How did evolution make the jump from no life to life?

Huh? Where did this come from? Now you've switched topics completely. I accept evolution. I don't know the answer to your 2nd question. If I say, "God," will that make everything OK in your little part of Kansas? Or do I have to define it as "Christian God?" Or, "non-Catholic Christian God?" Or, maybe, "non Catholic Fundamentalist angry Old testament fire and brimstone god." Or maybe Vishnu, hell if I know. And you don't either.

[Lurking Libertarian]

In short there are many instances were the Bible uses creationistic language to describe what even the most literalistic modern fundamentalist understands to be perfectly "natural" phenomena.

As the Talmud says, "All miracles happen in a natural way."

[Not Insane]

--Anyone who doubts (but understands) the ‘theory of common descent’ is not competent for a job as a physician.
Is this statement true?--

I would say it is if only because any doctor that didn't at least understand it slept through school.

That alone would want me to avoid him.

[whattajoke]

Fact and Theory are spelled different for a reason.

So are "informed" and "ALS"

Often this statement is considered a sufficient dissenting argument. But it really is an expression of ignorance about how science works. I remind you that everything we understand about how things work in this world is ‘theoretical.’ Architects consult architectural theory. Structural engineers designing a bridge consult structural engineering theory. Medical doctors consult medical theory. Repeat, scientific theories are discoveries of how our natural reality is organized. To the extent a theory is useful it will be used. To the extent a theory is not useful it won’t be used. Given the power and utility of the theories that form the foundation of modern, technological civilization, a statement like the one above reflects a failure to understand this.

[Heartlander]

Please read again...
...(but understands)...

[Not Insane]

--Please read again...
...(but understands)... --

That was the phrase I was keying on.

[Aric2000]

You fail to understand, I DO NOT have to attempt to prove my theory, It is not my theory, and theories ARE NOT proven.

Why should I want to try and PROVE something to you little Troll?

More learned men then I have already shown that evolution is indeed the best theory to explain the evidence up to this point.

You need to take some science classes, but, you might actually learn something, so can't have that.

And YES, I am laughing at you, you keep reaching at straws, claiming that the theory of evolution claims to try and find out how life BEGAN, and it does not.

If this is the only rope you have, then it's MIGHTY thin.

OK, I am done playing with the troll now, anyone want the stick and go a few rounds?

[Stultis]

Assuming you could get the proper combination of amino acids to assemble themselves in one place and "lightening struck", the myelin sheath (that also magically appeared) couldn't last 2 minutes, yet the said structure is now supposed to replicate and remain viable enough to continue that replication.

I don't know what the heck you're talking about here. The "myelin sheath" is a cellular level adaptation of specialized cells (like those of nerve and muscle tissue) that is peculiar (IIRC) to animals. IOW it came along, long, long, long, long after the origin of life as such.

Do you have any coherent explanation of what the "myelin sheath" has to do the the first origin of (presumably) simple life forms?

[whattajoke]

Care to revisit those oh-so-conveniently forgotten misquotes you posted earlier? Y'know, the ones you took from some creationist website, with no verification, and re posted here? Even though we've all seen them 100x and have simply and easily shown your source to be engaging in subterfuge, deception, and generally making a mockery of the 9th Commandment?

Hmmmm?

[Stultis]

btw - lamo try on redefining what a theory is..

Uh, yeah, hey, I was quoting from the dictionary entry YOU posted.