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.
Right on. That is what I mean by intellectually dishonest.
Now, that's not fair - I offered to exchange ideas, and only withdrew when it became clear that you had none.
Do you actually expect Aric2000 to present a position (to dream the impossible dream…) If Aric2000 presented a position, he would have to defend it (other people could snipe at it) – I think he is too chicken for that
I guess you think you are witty. Dishonest but witty. You dive for the tall grass faster than all the other disrupters.
No. Your not a disrupter (/Sarcasm)
That's a lame evasion even for you.
Was my "name mentioned"? No..., but you seem to be trying to gloss over the blindingly obvious fact that your crack was made in support of Phaedrus's slam against *me* specifically, so your intention was entirely unmistakable, no matter how much you try to run away from it now.
But if your above waffling is your version of a hasty retraction, then I accept your withdrawal.
good luck
well, dad, i think i'll pass.
The "I'm not a creationist" creationist is not a troll type that it interests me to engage. I'll respond to whatever portions or aspects of your messages I choose to, and when I think I might have something worthwhile to offer in the discussion and/or when I feel like it.
No. You are not a disrupter (/Sarcasm)
True to form all you have to offer is intellectually dishonest snipes from the sideline.
Yep, they should call you "Mr. Substance" all right...
I don't understand how your comment here is supposed to relate to what I said. Not that it matters. It just reminds me of something else you said that I didn't understand, and doesn't seem to make any sense: about how the "myelin sheath" (which I understand to be a structure of certain advanced and specialized cells) somehow presents an insurmountable obstacle to a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life.
How does a structure of advanced (eukaryotic, indeed animal) cells have any relevance to the origin of life as such. I might point out that scientists who study the very early fossil record claim that life existed for around a BILLION years before the first eukaryotic cells even appeared (at least so far as the fossil record reveals).
Now *you're* lying.
We point out that creationist sources lie with misquotes depressingly often because it is a thoroughly documented fact that they do, frequently. Yet more documentation. And yet more. If that's not enough for you, follow the *DOZENS* of links at the end of that first link for yet more documented examples, including entire *websites* devoted to tracking misquotes by creationists.
Your childish re-editing of this documented fact into a statement that *evolutionists* frequently do the same thing is a reprehensible lie, because evolutionists are on the whole scrupulously careful to verify their material, and aren't that fond of trying to play "proof by quote" in the first place because they realize it's a child's game of "my quotes can beat your quotes".
So feel free to document your slur, OR RETRACT IT as the lie that it is.
It's just breathtaking how often creationists such as yourself will stoop to making baseless accusations in the full knowledge that they don't have any foundation for their falsehoods.
Unfortunately, your run-of-the-mill evoloonists come along and copy the misquotes wholesale without ever checking to see if they are correct
Document your lie, or retract it.
Contrary to your presumption that "everyone does it", the evolution side actually has integrity, and checks their facts. May the significance of that difference someday dawn on you.
If you are not disrupting – why do you feel so compelled to strongly defend yourself? (ye doth protest too much)
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.