hey aric, you reckon they tied up the menfolk, raped the womenfolk and that was their master plan?
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.
No, he did not. He posted a *HYPOTHETICAL EXCHANGE*, clearly marked as such (e.g., it was introduced with, "OK, let's say that we are in a creationism debate, OK?"), in which he was making the point that it *would* be intellectually dishonest for him to challenge someone to "prove their theory" (among other things).
And then you *still* failed to understand that after he *explained it to you*.
- and you have the nerve to call me stupid.
With damned good reason. Allow me to second the motion.
You just don't get it.
He gets it just fine. You're still a few kilometers from being within viewing distance of "getting it" yet.
Why should you - you are here to disrupt, not debate or exchange ideas.
Uh huh... In order to properly characterize his posts properly, it would help if you *understood* them first.
Okay, I'll call your troll: Feel free to argue that biological evolution *does* "have something to do with cosmology".
This ought to be really amusing.
He is a disrupter
No, he's clearly someone who is looking in vain for an intellectually honest creationist.
But we know what *you* are.
hey aric, you reckon they tied up the menfolk, raped the womenfolk and that was their master plan?
And yet that seems to have troubled you not a bit as you posting his inexpert ramblings with all the gay abandon of a monkey at a salad bar. He may be a loon, but he's your kind of loon, eh? So long as he mouths the proper platitudes about evolution, it doesn't really matter that he's drooling on himself as he does it, I suppose...
As I'm sure you well know, I said nothing of the kind.
Question: Do you really think that playing the trollish game of "I have such poor reading comprehension that I make dozens of posts which purposely make it look like I'm a complete idiot, not to mention all the childishly insulting posts I make" really helps your case any, or makes your side of the debate (creationism) somehow more credible?
See, the problem with presenting that challenge is that he'll actually try to answer it, and I'm sure you can imagine the sort of hellish nightmare that's likely to be...
Actually, I don't think it's "kinda funny" at all that your behavior is so obvious that several people have figured you out.
Nor do I consider your behavior itself funny. It's merely immensely childish.
But go right ahead giving the creationist side of the argument a bad name, it makes my side of the discussion that much easier.
Any questions?
Readers are perfectly capable of reading what I actually said *in its full context*, where it's not chopped up beyond all recognition in the all-too-common creationist habit.
Keep it up, I always enjoy when anti-evolutionists make themselves look like dishonest lunatics.
Please, post more. You're a prime example of your side of the debate.
Very well then, I will take your point to heart, and modify my original statement to observe that you not only discredit creationists specifically, but anti-evolutionists of all flavors and denominations.
Post more, please. Don't stop. You're doing more good than you can possibly know. The more you post, the more the people on the fence can easily make up their mind which side they want to run screaming from.
Because it's not true, you paranoid goofball.
Not, of course, that being wrong, or a total lack of evidence, ever stopped your rants before.
With no regard whatsoever as to whether it's accurate or true or correct or anything, apparently. Hoyle will do, Jeff Rense will do, Ted Holden will do, the JBS will do - it's all good, no matter what kind of crackpots they are, so long as you can use them as a rhetorical club to beat people with. Well, I'll give you points for bravery, anyway - most people aren't so careless with their own dignity like that.
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.