Replies

"How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology?" Dini's site reads.

As a Ph.D. in biology, I can say that Dini's statement doesn't even rise to the level of being moronic. If the theory of evolution (though we must ask which one) were suddenly gone tomorrow without a trace, it would make no practical difference at all in most fields of biology. Researchers would still be able to do molecular biology and discover how molecular mechanisms work. Medical scientists would still be able to devise strategies to fight disease. Ecologists would still be able to study the interrelationships between various animals and their environment. Geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry (even biochemistry), and mathematics would continue unabated since they have no reliance at all on a theory of organic evolution. As far as Dini's rhetorical question is concerned, not only would he be able to find no qualitative differences between two excellent medical doctors, one who did accept evolution and one who did not, there is nothing in the training of either of them that hinges upon a belief in evolution, the outcome of not believing being an inability to understand disease processes, diagnose, and treat.

This should serve to give those who have ears all they need to know about how "important" in a functional way evolution actually is. Its main purpose now, as it was in Darwin's day, is to provide a means of escaping the idea of a creator. Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, ALL of them, can be shown through their own writings to have yearned for such a way out. Many of those who publicly supported Darwin expressly for this reason in his day still didn't accept his theory but were happy to have something to which to rally the troops that could support their philosophy of naturalism which predated Darwin's theory.

As a Ph.D. in biology, I can say that Dini's statement doesn't even rise to the level of being moronic.

This would be a better term: "bigoted."

If the theory of evolution (though we must ask which one) were suddenly gone tomorrow without a trace, it would make no practical difference at all in most fields of biology.

Thanks for your post. I see that on a thread of over 300 post you only got two replies, one positive and the other incoherent. I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that the dogma known as the modern synthesis may have actually hindered developments in the area of genetics. Specifically, the modern synthesis predicts that all non-coding DNA has no purpose and therefore is not worthy of further investigation. Recently though, some molecular biologists and I don't remember who they were, discovered that portions of the so called junk DNA play an important role in gene expression and regulation. Happily, these true scientists forged ahead with their research, despite the predictions of the theory of evolution to the contrary.