The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[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 Wing Professor]

The opinion of some unknown academic in Western Washington university's biology department, along with $3.25, will get you a latte at Starbucks.

[Last Visible Dog]

more bad news for Junior

------From the NASA webite (WMAP) -------

Cosmology: The Study of the Universe

Cosmology is the scientific study of the large scale properties of the Universe as a whole. It endeavors to use the scientific method to understand the origin, evolution [hey NASA, Junior says evolution is not a cosmological theory (ie "it don't do origins")] and ultimate fate of the entire Universe.

- WILKINSON MICROWAVE ANISOTROPY PROBE (WMAP) - NASA website

BTW: speaking of "don't do origins" Junior, doesn't biological evolution explain the ORIGIN of life on this planet?

[js1138]

Are you claiming I have not made any affirmative statements?

I have gone back and read every post you have made on this thread. You have made one and only one affirmative claim -- that is that evolution is tied somehow to cosmology. Twenty plus posts, and not a bit or a byte devoted to what you mean by this or what it means to you or what it should mean to us. You have established that at least one dictionary uses the word evolution in its definition of cosmology, but how does this affect biological science, and how does it affect the interpretation of the fossil record?

[Aric2000]

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).

Biology's central organizing principle is the evolution of living things,

Do you just ignore that which is inconvenient to your argument?

[Last Visible Dog]

The opinion of some unknown academic in Western Washington university's biology department, along with $3.25, will get you a latte at Starbucks.

Now that is an intellectual retort!

Do you feel the same way about the dictionary?

[f.Christian]

Atheist theory w/o facts // reality ... from and going nowhere --- evoblootion !

[Last Visible Dog]

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).

Biology's central organizing principle is the evolution of living things,

Do you just ignore that which is inconvenient to your argument?

That makes no sense. What are you claiming I am ingnoring and how does that relate to my position?

[PatrickHenry]

Your first item, Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22), is false. That passage says "circle," as in disk. I've previously traced that word in the original, and all its subsequent appearances in the bible, and it always means disk (there's a different word for sphere). And you conveniently ignore all the numerous passages in the bible that mention the pillars of the earth (not yet discovered), the four corners of the earth (whatever they may be), the immobility of the earth (disproven), and the geocentricity of the universe (disproven). If the bible is your science text, that's up to you. I prefer to consult the bible only for it's moral teachings.

[f.Christian]

Atheist theory w/o facts // reality ... from and going nowhere --- evobloation !

[PatrickHenry]

it's = its. I hate apostrophe errors!

[Not Insane]

You have got to be kidding! You presume to judge the mind of God? You said, "'Designed' DNA would show significantly different features from evolved DNA."

My response: Maybe if YOU designed it. But you didn't, and I think who did may understand it a tad better than anyone within creation itself. I design computer programs. The simpler, the more elegant. I think creation is a wonder in its utter simplicity/complexity combination. It's like Christianity itself. That is, it is simple where people try to complicate it, and it is complicated where people try to simplify it.

Another thing. Lots of us have our favorite web sites supporting our opinion on both sides. There garbage on both sides as well. I haven't read ALL of them. But I haven't read the entire tax code either. I still know I have to pay my taxes.

Evolution (a general term if ever there was one) is a great theory. I think it is an interesting theory. My guess is that parts of some versions of it are ultimately right on, especially when dealing with micro-evolution. But to embrace the theory as FACT is, well, really bad science.

You mention matching predictions. Ptolomy's theory matched predictions - to a point - and it turned out to be utterly wrong from the very beginning (earth centered universe). It helps also if you change your predictions as new information surfaces. And in some cases, that IS what's going on with evolution theory.

The real problem with arguing against evidence for intelligent design and why it's not fair for me to argue too much is that just as evolution can try to solve its problems by throwing more time into the mix, ID people can argue that you cannot second guess a creator. Anything discovered can be arguably the way He designed it, if for no other reason than to cause the very confusion we are having now.

It's like adding a bolt to a piece of metal that doesn't hold anything together. It's just there, to confuse those who MUST DISCOVER it's original function. It's function is to keep them buisy for the creator to get a good laugh.

I don't address all your points because of time and the need for some semblance of brevity. And, quite frankly, some don't need to be refuted (or I agree with you).

You need to lighten up. The theory is not worthy to be RELIGIOUSLY defended...

"They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause." -- Genesis, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.

[Last Visible Dog]

I have gone back and read every post you have made on this thread. You have made one and only one affirmative claim -- that is that evolution is tied somehow to cosmology. Twenty plus posts, and not a bit or a byte devoted to what you mean by this or what it means to you or what it should mean to us. You have established that at least one dictionary uses the word evolution in its definition of cosmology, but how does this affect biological science, and how does it affect the interpretation of the fossil record?

Actually all I have done is defend against attacks.

I am not claiming any effect on biological science.

Are you one of the flat-earth society members that is claiming evolution has nothing to do with cosmology?

[Junior]

You complete dipwad. "Evolution" in your quote is used as an adjective and not as the name of a "Theory of Cosmological Evolution." Every time you tap your keyboard you reaffirm the general view that you are an ignorant fool.

[f.Christian]

To be an evolutionist you have to take the pledge of stop thinking !

[Aric2000]

I don't think that I could have made it ANY BOLDER for you.

It is NOW POSSIBLE, not that it is being done, not that it would be a good idea, but that it would be possible.

Do I really have to spell it out for you?

And the second part that I tossed at you.

You say that this comes from the biology Dept, well, guess what? He still says that "Biology's central organizing principle is the evolution of living things"

Do I really have to explain these things to you in detail, or you just being hardheaded?

[Junior]

Once more, your quotes are not referring to a "theory of evolution" but to a process. That you confuse the two concepts speaks poorly of your mental faculties.

[js1138]

Are you one of the flat-earth society members that is claiming evolution has nothing to do with cosmology?

Cosmology has something to do with evolution is the sense that evolution requires far more than ten or fifty thousand years for the age of the earth. During Darwin's lifetime, and prior to the discovery of radioactive decay, the accepted maximum age of the sun was calculated my Maxwell to be approximately fifty thousand years. This was a serious conceptual problem at the time.

What do you have in mind as the connection between evolution and cosmology?

[PatrickHenry]

Your second item is also false. You claim it says: Number of stars exceeds a billion (Jer. 33:22). But it says "the host of heaven cannot be numbered." Slight difference. Give up this "bible is a science book" kick you're on. It's really a dead end.

[unspun]

"The Dini-gration of Darwinism"

Darwinism? What's that?

[PatrickHenry]

900?