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.
The real question is "why?"
1. What does the nonsense phrase "evolution as cosmology" mean? Select all that apply.
a) LVD is a blithering idiot
b) LVD is an unabashed moron
c) LVD is a unmitigated troll
d) LVD is a disruptor from DU
e) LVD is a laughingstock
f) Even LVD understands that he is a fraud and makes no sense
g) LVD is too stupid to stop digging when he realizes he is in a hole
Score 1 point for each selection.
Scoring:
0 = Congratulations, you are vital member of the unwashed, illiterate, uneducated, anti-science, Bible-literalist, snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues sect of fundamentalist Creationism.
1 or more = You can think for yourself. So welcome to the party, pal.
Orthodox Darwinist is a term I come up with – you may disagree with my term, nevertheless it is part of reality. My position is Orthodox Darwinist (basically close-minded, rigid thinking, know-it-alls) seem to believe evolution as the main principle of cosmology explains it all and there is scientific evidence to back it all up. The reality is there is only scientific evidence to support a teeny tiny part of any cosmological theory. While you are free to disagree with my opinion – my opinion is part of reality therefore you have failed to support your position.
In the above statement you actually imply you are in a position to speak for the “real world” (which is absolutely ludicrous – you can speak for YOURSELF and that is all) – you are an extremely arrogant know-it-all.
I think "evolution as cosmology" means nothing to anyone but you.
Once again the arrogant know-it-all speaks for EVERYBODY – how the hell he thinks he can know what EVERYBODY but me is thinking is beyond reason.
I am not surprised that you don’t understand being you claim evolution has nothing to do with cosmology – despite the plethora of evidence provided. Evolution is the KEY principle of most cosmological theories. I will explain this for the 100th time(Actually I don’t really know if it is the 100th time): I used the term “evolution as cosmology” to differential between that and “religion as cosmology” - if you want to argue the term is awkward, fine you are correct. But if you want to argue the term is meaningless you are just demonstrating your ignorance. I come to cosmology from the philosophy side – it seems you have not studied philosophy and because you are a know-it-all, if the approach to a subject is different from what you understand – you pretend it is wrong or meaningless (Know-it-all 101).
Evolution as we know it, is usually meant to be biologic, and does not, will not, and can not address the big bang. You should really know this by now.
What a stupid statement.
1. Nobody EVER claimed the Big Bang had anything to do with evolution (Intellectual dishonesty)
2. Only you assume evolution means biological evolution (HINT: the word and concept of evolution existed before Darwinism
3. You are a know-it-all that thinks he can speak for everybody - the REALITY is you can only speak for yourself
4. Evolution is a concept – biological evolution is merely ONE example of evolution – assuming evolutions mean biological is like assuming automobile means Mini Cooper.
When their positions are disproved they turn to this crap (Disrupter 101)
I guess they feel if they can’t argue intellectually they can always turn to insults and childish nonsense.
Again, huh?
You can’t be this clueless? Can you? Many Orthodox Darwinist (my term) I have come in contact with see that Darwinism (a type of evolution) has a large amount of scientific supporting evidence therefore they assume evolution in the context of cosmology also has a large amount of scientific supporting evidence. I will admit my wording is awkward – that happens when you bang these things out quickly while I doing other things like my job – I do believe you should be able to grasp what I am saying – you may not agree and that’s ok.
Umm, ok. Wait... what?! WTF did Darwin ever say about the origins of the freaking universe?
Is English your second language? Notice the word “and” between “origin of the universe” and “Darwinism” (not to mention I used the term “theories” meaning more than one) - all I am saying is both “the origin of the universe” and “Darwinism” are theories and neither can be called “the truth”.
How you can construe I was implying Darwin addressed the origin of the universe is beyond reason. If I said the Bible and The Origin of Species are both books would you scream “ WTF Darwin did not write the Bible.
Do you even remember writing this drivel?
Yes and I can defend it. What would you like to challenge.
How about this challenge: Someone other than LVD explain to me what all this mumbo jumbo means.
I see – you can’t challenge any of it but you can insult it (Disrupter 101)
You had many more gems, but I've grown tired of this exercise.
You too Mr “Evolution has nothing to do with Cosmology” (not to mention “Biological Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology”) – although I would not characterize them as gems – more like turds.
That's a very misleading link. Those guys may have been creationists (I have my doubts because of the inherently fraudulent nature of the presentation), but other than archaeology, no discovery in science has been connected to or derived from the bible. Their religious views are unrelated to their scientific work. It's like making a list of blonde scientists, and then claiming that blonde hair gets the credit.
100%. Biological evolution as theory and fact is absolutely the best current idea to explain the diversity of life we see on earth.
So as a know-it-all you are now claiming theory is fact. That pretty much sums up my term “Orthodox Darwinist” - know-it-alls that believe Darwinism is a proven fact . If you do not understand the difference between theory and fact, you have a hell of a lot of nerve commenting on other people’s intelligence.
Another funny point – in the same sentence he says biological evolution is fact, a theory, and the “best idea” (implying there is more than one). What is even funnier is he does not even realize all the contradictions.
Whoops, that should be "modern descendants", of course.
Yes. As mentioned to you previously, I can't say scientifically, but I'd venture a guess of 99% of all humans who know what evolution is, know it to be a biological theory. As mentioned to you previously, no study on this has been commissioned because stupid ass studies like this don't often get commissioned.
The sign of a true know-it-all – he assumes 99% of all humans agree with him no matter how stupid his opinion. I have proved that both evolution (the concept) and biological evolution are part of cosmological theories.
This proves my point: You can lead a know-it-all to data but you can’t make them think.
Just out of curiosity: why would you still contend evolution has nothing to do with cosmology when I have present supporting evidence that you are absolutely wrong (a Biology Department from a University that opens their page on Cosmology by stating “Cosmology is evolution…” – not to mention the dictionary definition of the word. How can you still cleave to a clearly disproved statement. Are you Amish?
(no offence to Amish people)
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.