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.
Further, we can also note that evolution,
16. is not a cosmological theory (i.e., "it don't do origins"),
So now you think you can speak for every single Dawinist. Give us a break
Darwinist evolution is BIOLOGICAL evolution, and does not use any part of cosmological evolution to explain anything
This is news. You are now claiming no Darwinist thinks the universe evoluted. What do they beleive? God created the universe? BTW: first you talk of Darwinists and now you change the subject to the Darwinist theory (nice try)
You wanna talk about the origins of the universe, and origins of life, go to a thread where they are talking aout such things.
Ah yes, Aric2000 thinks he is King of FreeRepulic and he controls what can be talked about.
There, is that better? so, now, when I say evolution, I mean BIOLOGICAL or Darwins theory of evolution. If I say COSMOLOGICAL evolution, I will be discussing what you are discussing.
you can say whatever you want - if you want to assume evolution only means biological evolution - that is your trip - you can also assume automobile only means Mini Cooper.
And break the trend?
Do you understand what a fact is?
Fact - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
Unless you have a “way-back” machine we can not have knowledge of what happened. No Theory = Fact. This is what I mean by Orthodox Darwinist – they assume all of evolution is fact. Aspects of Darwinism may be fact but the theory in totality is still mostly theory. It may be the BEST theory and a well supported theory – but it is still a theory and not fact.
No matter how much you stomp your feet.
I notice that you have utterly failed to address the points I made about why design is *not* an "equally plausible solution" for the nature of the observed evidence. "Designed" DNA would show significantly different features from evolved DNA. What does the DNA evidence actually show? It meets the predictions of evolution, not design. For starters, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html. That's just a portion of the ways that DNA matches evolutionary predictions. Then hit the "Contents" button for yet more ways (not just DNA) in which the biological evidence (both present, and past) closely matches evolutionary predictions, but for the most part clashes strongly with what would be expected from the results of "intelligent design".
Since you have not even attempted to refute them, the points still stand, and you are being less then honest with yourself when you then continue to declare that it is "equally plausible".
--In other words, all known biological systems and DNA sequences are so far consistent with an evolutionary origin.--
It's also consistent with a designer creating an environment and then creating a diverse ecosystem of plants and animals designed to flourish, self repair and self replicate.
Again, no it is not, unless you are talking about the most minimal amount of "intelligent seeding" at the beginning, followed by a hands-off approach that let nature take its own course subsequently.
--Gosh, food for thought, eh?--
It has been one of the main courses of my food for thought ever since I started debating this subject in 1982.
Then try debating it, instead of failing to address points made counter to your original statements. Honest debate either incorporates objections made to one's argument, or substantially rebuts them. "Debate" which simply ignores objections and rebuttals and then continues to repeat itself isn't debate, it's merely proselytization.
If you can't challenge any of my point - you can always post this crap - what next? Insults? How original.
Now who was it the observed the entire fish-to-man evolution?
Are you sure about that?
Biblical Forecasts of Scientific Discoveries
Scientific Accuracy of the Bible
On the other hand, the theory of evilution has given us nothing. Wait - it has given us a few things:
Junior, you better go have a talk with Western Washington University, Department of Biology
----From the Western University, Department of Biology---
Cosmological Evolution
The beginning of the twenty-first century is a unique point in human history; for the first time we have a coherent picture of the history of our universe. Because of this a major change in teaching science is now possible.
With our current scientific knowledge it is now possible to teach science as the history of nature. The organizing concept behind this is the evolution of historical systems through time (see Essays on the Nature of Causality). Almost all of science is the study of the evolution of historical systems. Biology's central organizing principle is the evolution of living things, just as geology centers on the evolution of the planet Earth, and astronomy on the evolution of the universe. Understanding the central explanatory role of evolution in so many areas of science is the first step toward integrating science education.
The history of nature can be subdivided chronologically into the evolution of the universe or cosmological evolution, the origin and evolution of our solar system and the planet Earth, and the origin and evolution of life on Earth or biological evolution. One of the principal goals of this web site is to develop and make available to science educators the resources necessary to teach the history of nature using the concept of evolving historical systems. This page is devoted to cosmological evolution and takes advantage of the explosion of information about astronomy and astrophysics on the Internet as shown in the following web papers.
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.