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.

[Aric2000]

Well then, You would be wrong.

Abiogensis is not part of evolution.

And the evidence for Macroevolution is there in the fossil record. You just have to be willing to look.

[whattajoke]

The BIG guns are out today.

yeah... I'm a freaking starter pistol in relation to RWP and Ich. But I try.

[f.Christian]

I need a 30 day truce -- moratorium !

Main Entry: mor·a·to·ri·um
Pronunciation: "mor-&-'tOr-E-&m, "mär-, -'tor-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -riums or mor·a·to·ria /-E-&/
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, neuter of moratorius dilatory, from Latin morari to delay, from mora delay
Date: 1875
1 a : a legally authorized period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation or the payment of a debt b : a waiting period set by an authority
2 : a suspension of activity

[Aric2000]

Damn, this guy is hopeless, completely, utterley, and totally hopeless.

[Aric2000]

Me too, but hey, we can always grow, and EVOLVE into something close, or at least I am hoping to someday do that.

[Right Wing Professor]

Gimme a break. I'm an 'educated layman' as far as most of this stuff is concerned.

[Aric2000]

They say that education is not in just learning the knowledge, but learning where to look for the knowledge.

Yes, You are a big gun RP, have no doubts of that.

[Stultis]

I always thought equivocation meant lying.

Hehehe. Oh, you know this I bet, but for the lurkers:

As an informal logical fallacy, equivocation means to use a term more than once in an argument, with the pretence that the meaning of the term is constant, and where the validity of the argument depends on the term retaining a constant meaning, but the where meaning is in fact NOT the same.

[js1138]

still waiting for a reply to 920

You know, I'm the only one here trying to engage you in a productive discussion, so why not respond?

[Aric2000]

He doesn't want a productive discussion, that was never his goal in the first place, but keep trying, maybe we will be pleasantly surprised.

[Galatians513]

Abiogensis is not part of evolution.

Perhaps it is more accurate to say Abiogenesis is a weakness of materialism, rather than evolution.

And the evidence for Macroevolution is there in the fossil record. You just have to be willing to look.

If the evidence was there, there would be no need for Punctuated Equilibrium, plus the genetic tree wouldn't look like a tangled bush that totally contradicts the morpholigical tree

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: de·ceive
Pronunciation: di-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·ceived; de·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deceivre, from Latin decipere, from de- + capere to take -- more at HEAVE
Date: 13th century
transitive senses
1 archaic : ENSNARE
2 a obsolete : to be false to b archaic : to fail to fulfill
3 obsolete : CHEAT
4 : to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid
5 archaic : to while away
intransitive senses : to practice deceit; also : to give a false impression < appearances can deceive >
- de·ceiv·er noun
- de·ceiv·ing·ly /-'sE-vi[ng]-lE/ adverb
synonyms DECEIVE, MISLEAD, DELUDE, BEGUILE mean to lead astray or frustrate usually by underhandedness. DECEIVE implies imposing a false idea or belief that causes ignorance, bewilderment, or helplessness < tried to deceive me about the cost >. MISLEAD implies a leading astray that may or may not be intentional < I was misled by the confusing sign >. DELUDE implies deceiving so thoroughly as to obscure the truth < we were deluded into thinking we were safe >. BEGUILE stresses the use of charm and persuasion in deceiving < was beguiled by false promises >.

[Right Wing Professor]

genetic tree wouldn't look like a tangled bush that totally contradicts the morpholigical tre

It doesn't. Genetics has occasionally led to rearrangements of the morphological tree, but I can't think of an obvious contradiction. Care to cite one?

[js1138]

Apply a bit of heat and pressure and the kernel explodes.

[whattajoke]

----From the Western University, Department of Biology---

Alright... I've been doing some digging (in the non literal sense. Let me be clear with you, since you require this: I did not go outside with a shovel and actually dig the ground, I've been "digging" through the net and WWU's website. Got that?

It appears the emminent David L. Alles did indeed work at WWU and did indeed teach a couple courses there. Note the past tense... although I have no idea why he no longer teaches there, or anywhere according to google among others.
The course he taught that used LVD's purported support of his idea was called, "Introduction to Science and Biology." Interesting, notice the distinction between generalized "science" and "biology." This course is for non science majors to fulfill a science requirement. Fair enough.

Mr. Alles seems to approach teaching non science majors from a very broad view. His lectures and syllabi try to tie in many different concepts, which can be pretty interesting. Then again, they can be used by the LVD's of the world to bolster his porous theories. Since LVD only linked an acrobat description, making it difficult to get the true gist and context of why a biology teacher would evoke cosmology in the first place. But I think a fair reading of his entire course outline will put it in better perspective. Here's his old course outlines and such.

At any rate, one guy's course outline from a small liberal arts school does not a coherent theory make.

[Aric2000]

ROFL!!!

That reminds me, that sounds really good about now.

BRB

I love microwave ovens!!

[Galatians513]

Genetics has occasionally led to rearrangements of the morphological tree, but I can't think of an obvious contradiction. Care to cite one

From what I've read the contortions of the geneolical tree are at a very basic, fundamental level...

As Doolittle indicates, from the base of the tree of life, it is not "tree-like." In the "bush" below (Figure 3), it is impossible to reconstruct such trees, as the observed distribution of characters create something which looks more like a tangled thicket or a bush. The three major "domains" of life--Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya have a distribution of characteristics which does not allow a tree to be constructed to describe their alleged ancestral relationships. This is due to a character distribution which is not what one would predict if they inherited their genes through common ancestry

[Galatians513]

The father of molecular systematics Carl Woese found that conflicts in phylogenies are present not only at the base of the tree, saying, "[p]hylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, form its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."21 For example, de Jong noted that,"the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals [of] the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce [the mammalian tree] to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows.12". Cao et al. found that molecular-based phylogenies conflicted sharply with previously established phylogenies of major mammal groups, such as ferungulates, rhodents, and primates22.

[Galatians513]

Some studies have tried to analyze the general relationships between animals and vertebrate groups through molecular data. One study analyzed molecular data from 10 different vertebrates and found that using different mitochondrial genes, twenty different disagreeing phylogenetic trees were produced, which differed at both recent and ancient divergence points23. Brown and Naylor24 found that trees based off of entire mitochondrial DNA genomes for 19 multicellular (metazoan) organsism did not match the previously accepted phylogeny for chordates, or within chordates, for vertebrates. Finally, a study which compared many proteines in humans, nematodes, arthropods, and yeast found that 2 starkly different trees were produced, depending on which genes were used25. This pattern of different genes yielding very different phylogenetic trees is very common in the scientific literature, and shows that molecular data fail to give a consistent picture of the alleged common descent ancestry of organisms.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Could you please tell us where you are cutting and pasting from?