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.
WHAT!
You said evolution has nothing to do with cosmology (that was a pretty straight-forward statement) That is a really stupid retort. You were wrong - accept it! WTF is "Theory of Cosmological Evolution" supposed to mean?
Did I ever claim evolution was the "name" of something. That is ludicrous. Like I said - it is a concept, a principle
You can't spin your way out of this one - you were wrong, accept it.
Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22).
Um, sorry, but science has known the Earth was a sphere since classical times -- hell, some Greek dude not only figured it was a sphere, he worked out its size to a relatively close degree.
The usual piece of mendacious creationist tripe. I mean, let's just take the first item:
Biblical Statement: Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22).
Science Then: Earth's a flat disk.
Science Now: Earth is a sphere
Unfortunately, when we look at what Is. 40:22 actually says, it's " It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" (KJV; RSV is essentially identical)
A circle is not a sphere. In fact, a circle is in effect a flat disk. And of course, it's debatable that anyone who merited, even loosely, the title of scientist ever thought the earth a flat disk. Even the Greeks knew better.
Biblical Statement: Number of stars exceeds a billion (Jer. 33:22).
Science Then: Number of stars totals 1,100
Science Now: Number of stars exceeds a billion
Actual text (KJV): As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
Assuming the 'host of heaven' refers to the stars, what it says is the number is infinite, not 'over a billion'. And in fact, there is every indication the number of stars is finite. So, in this respect, again, the biblical text is incorrect.
We could go through this line by line: in general, the original author, who claims to love the Bible, apparently loves his own misrepresentation of the Bible even better. This puzzles me. Why are people who thump their chests about their Christianity so addicted to misrepresenting the truth, if not to actual falsehood? We hear consistently from creationists that evolution is responsible for an amoral Zeitgeist, yet the same self-proclaimed moralists can't seem to tell the truth to save their lives (or their souls?).
You, Michael Michelangelo, did you post this without checking what it says? Without caring about what it says? Knowing it was false, but hoping no one would check? Why?
I guess I'll have to change the scoring:
1: Desparately needs mental help.
2: Lacks in reading comprehension.
3: Getting there.
4: Close!
...
7: Fabulous! You are eligible to join our Vast Right Wing Conspiratorial Causes:
Basic American Committee for Orthodox Neodarwinism (BACON),
Evolution's Greatest Geniuses Society (EGGS), and
the Society Promoting Undying Darwinism and Science (SPUDS).
Sign up for our breakfast seminars today!
That has got to be the stupidist comment thus far
How can evolution be anything other than a process.
Stick a fork in this debate – it is done – all sense of reason and intelligence is gone
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHA! It's like modern art and rap "music" - we can all recognize crap when we see/smell/feel it.
As a teacher, I've learned to adjust the level of what I say to the intellectual capacity of my audience.
Do you feel the same way about the dictionary?
Alas for WWU, I cede most reputable dictionaries more authoritativeness.
Evolution (the process) is the key principle of nearly all (maybe all) non-religion based theores of cosmology.
I know you are, but what am I.
Name it!
Present you contrary defintion.
(called your bluff)
Can you give some examples outside the realm of biology?
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.