Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Dini-gration of Darwinism
AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creatins; creation; crevo; crevolist; darwin; evoloonists; evolunacy; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 1,961-1,975 next last
To: ALS
Nope. all I have is you....

Oh, and I guess LVD would be part of that collection as well, actually he would be part of Generals collection, so nope, You're the only one.
661 posted on 05/15/2003 6:20:36 PM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: Junior
"Because we require a common framework for discussions."

well we don't

That's why I don't believe in evolution or tooth fairies.
662 posted on 05/15/2003 6:21:34 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Oh, very nice, so tell us mr TROLL ALS, what is your theory that competes so well with evolution, that you accept it over evolution?
663 posted on 05/15/2003 6:21:47 PM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Possibly. However, the point was that you set a condition and that condition was met naturally.
664 posted on 05/15/2003 6:22:31 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
I'm thinking you have cutouts of our usernames all lined up in your nursery...
665 posted on 05/15/2003 6:22:34 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Come on, babe! Scientists have to admit they are wrong quite often. I know that it's humiliating but that passes quickly and the alternative is significantly worse. Can you admit to a simple mistake and go on from there? Are you worth conversing with or are you just a milder version of Gore3000 or Dataman and their ilk?

I put it to you that that decision is still on your hands. Step to the plate and be an adult.

666 posted on 05/15/2003 6:22:48 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 620 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
I don't have a theory (thank God), I have a belief. And I'm honest enough to admit it. You can't.
And part of that belief is that your belief is crap.

btw - my belief is personal, but it is definitely not what you've assigned it to be.

shoo fly
667 posted on 05/15/2003 6:24:18 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
wrong about what?

668 posted on 05/15/2003 6:24:57 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: Junior
what condition did i set again?
669 posted on 05/15/2003 6:25:53 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: All
"…before Copernicus developed the heliocentric model of our solar system, most scientists believed that the planets and the sun revolved around the earth. Yet many astronomers of the time noticed that planets sometimes exhibited "retrograde motion" where they would temporarily move backwards in circular paths, unpredicted by the geocentric theory. This, according to geocentrists, was the result of "epicycles" where planets not only revolved around the earth, but also around a central point along their orbital path. An epicycle was therefore an additional explanation used to resolve inconsistencies between the scientific data and predictions from the now-falsified geocentric model of the solar system. Had these astronomers had a different sun-centered theory of the solar system, they would have quickly realized that these "retrograde epicycles" were merely the result of the earth's annual orbit around the sun. "

"In the same way, proponents of naturalistic theories of descent now develop "epicycle-like" explanations to resolve apparently falsifying data. While descent hypotheses could potentially be falsified by this data, these "auxiliary hypotheses" (i.e. punctuated equilibrium, miraculous genetic duplications and co-optations, lateral gene transfer, hopeful lack of data) do serve to preserve the original theory of descent. However, in the process, they force the primary claims of common descent, namely the fact that all organisms are related through ancestry and evolved by mutation and selection, into an unfalsifiable position. "

670 posted on 05/15/2003 6:28:27 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Your belief is personal?

Interesting, but you are not willing to clue us in about what that belief is?

At least creationists are honest about what they believe, and are willing to admit that it's based on their faith in the bible, but you're not even that brave.

Well, this little game is over, he's a coward that deserves no respect at all.

He's a little bitty man, that thinks to make himself feel more important, he comes in and makes fun of other peoples theories, without putting his out on the table for others to see.

COWARD......

Well, that game of whack a troll is done.

You had a little bit of respect from me left, but now it's all gone.

Buh bye troll.
671 posted on 05/15/2003 6:29:25 PM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
You got 666. It seemed so natural to you that no one noticed.
672 posted on 05/15/2003 6:29:43 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: ALS
#620: "Assuming you could get the proper combination of amino acids to assemble themselves in one place..."

They do get assembled in one place in interstellar dust clouds.

673 posted on 05/15/2003 6:30:44 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
You need a diaper change butt soon.

btw - forget about our request that you post something, anything, proving your crap belief. You'll just embarass the other evoloonies on here.

674 posted on 05/15/2003 6:32:44 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: Junior
What does a dust cloud have to do with my statement?

Earth to Junior
675 posted on 05/15/2003 6:33:34 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Your belief is personal?

What are your beliefs Aric2000?
In fairness, I am a Christian.

676 posted on 05/15/2003 6:38:40 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: ALS
Cowardly ALS Skipping placemarker
677 posted on 05/15/2003 6:42:40 PM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
I will answer in a bit, time for dinner, bbl.
678 posted on 05/15/2003 6:43:15 PM PDT by Aric2000 (Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
Ah, no answer. The passion for undying debate. No passion for reality, down to earth solutions.

You are a fraud, figure it out.

You choose to have "criteria" you never use. You want to prove a theory...(first clue, it is a theory). You chose to ignore better and easier criteria.

And when confronted with the ideas, you stick your head in the sand.

Have fun with creationism, or evolution. Choose your doctor on better criteria (easily available) or you are an IDIOT!

DK

Was that plain?
679 posted on 05/15/2003 6:44:49 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
is 2000 your birthdate?
680 posted on 05/15/2003 6:47:47 PM PDT by ALS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 1,961-1,975 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson