The Dini-gration of Darwinism

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:

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.

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.

Darwin purposed that RM&NS is all that is required for the diversity of life we now see and logically comprehend - i.e. (now with neo-darwinism) there is no target for evolution and we are just lucky to realize our own luck.

This must extend into cosmology or there is a plan, purpose, and Target:

Evolution has no ‘Target’… Life is a big ‘super-store’ - Kinda' like:

Just like your local Wal-Mart store, evolution passes even more materialistic nonsense on to you by lowering our Every Day Low Quality of Life whenever we can. Check out the great lack of values in regards to life for your home! Each time you see the Rollback smiley face, you'll smile, too.

“Whether there is a target or not, the nature and mechanism of interspecies evolution demands that a millenia of transitional forms be processed through in order to get from a one cell organism to the variety of creatures we have today.”

And how can one argue with the predictions of this beautiful theory?

1. Had the rate of expansion of the big bang been different, no life would have been possible. A reduction by one part in a million million would have led to collapse before the temperatures could fall below ten thousand degrees. An early increase by one part in a million would have prevented the growth of galaxies, stars, and planets.

2. The material of the observable universe is isotropic (evenly distributed) to an accuracy of 0. 1 percent. Such an accuracy is antecedently improbable and slight variations would rule out life.

3. Had the values of the gravitational constant, the strong force constant (the force binding protons and neutrons in the nucleus), the weak force (the force responsible for many nuclear processes [e.g., the transmutation of neutrons into protons]), and the electromagnetic force been slightly greater or smaller, no life would have been possible.

4. In the formation of the universe, the balance of matter to antimatter had to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to arise.

5. The random coalescing of several unrelated factors necessary for life someplace in the universe is highly improbable. This can be seen by examining the factors on earth necessary for life. The point is not, however, that it is amazing that these factors came together on earth instead of somewhere else. Rather, it is amazing that they came together anywhere, and earth is used to illustrate the factors necessary. Had the ratio of carbon to oxygen been slightly different, no life could have formed. If the mass of a proton were increased by 0.2 percent, hydrogen would be unstable and life would not have formed. For life to form, the temperature range is only 1-2 percent of the total temperature range, and earth obtains this range by being the correct distance from the sun, just the right size, with the right rotational speed, with a special atmosphere which protects earth and evens out temperature extremes. In addition, the planet which had these factors just happened to contain the proper amount of metals (especially iron), radioactive elements to provide the right heat source, and water-forming compounds. Perhaps the proper temperature range could be obtained in another way. But earth shows how delicate and multifaceted are the independent factors involved in maintaining the correct temperature for life. 3

6. The chance formation of life from nonlife (abiogenesis) has been estimated at around 1 x 1040,000 Thus, the probability of life forming anywhere in the cosmos is miniscule. 4 Furthermore, in the process of reacting in some prebiotic chemical soup, the reactants often need to be isolated from their environment at just the right time and reintroduced at just the right time for the reaction to continue. This is achieved in the lab by investigator interference, but it is difficult to conceive of a mechanism to do this in nature and to do it at just the right time.

1. Davies, God and the New Physics, P. 189. 2. See Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 177-89; The Accidental Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); John Wiester, The Genesis Connection (Nashville: Nelson, 1983), pp. 27-36, 47-50; hn Leslie, "Anthropic Principle, World Ensemble, Design," American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (Aprfl ):141-50. 3. Wiester, The Genesis Connection, pp. 42-43, 47-50. 4. For examples of these estimates, see Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin, pp. 113-66, 218-19; Pierre Lecomte du Noiiy, Human Destiny (New York: The New American Library of World Literature, 1949), pp. 30-39; Robert Shapiro, Origins (New York: Summit, 1986), pp. 117-31; Henry M. Morris, ed., Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, Calif.: Master, 1974), pp. 59 69

But what are the predictions:

FIG O: Origin of the Phyla: Darwinian predictions

FIG Q: The origin of the phyla: the fossil evidence

The sudden appearance of between 50 and 100 disparate body plans with extremely low species diversity supports the conclusion that neither gradual Darwinian evolution nor lower taxon-level punctuations can account for the origin of the higher taxa and the major body plans.

FIG P: Origin of the Phyla: Darwinian predictions

FIG R: The origin of the phyla: the fossil evidence

The sudden appearance of between 50 and 100 disparate body plans with extremely low species diversity supports the conclusion that neither gradual Darwinian evolution nor lower taxon-level punctuations can account for the origin of the higher taxa and the major body plans.

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.