Is a theory that may explain how we, as humans, exist in the first place relevant to our daily existance?
It's ridiculous to suggest that agreement with or rejection of Darwinism is an indicator of medical competence or diagnostic skill.
It's a test of someone's ability to apply the scientific method, even when the results make him or her uncomfortable. Granted, it's a high standard, but the man is being paid to train scientists, after all, and is only doing his job. He cannot simply tell people that it's OK to only apply the scientific method of reasoning when they feel like it. That makes for bad science.
What the professor really means to say, IMHO, is that only atheists and agnostics apply for his recommendation.
Hey, wait a minute -- isn't that discrimination? Oops! I forgot. It's anti-religious discrimination, so it's OK.
You can be of any religion (or no religion) and pass his test - Or fail it. I guarantee you that many Christians have passed that test and gotten his recommendation, and that at least some of them have believed in Creation and accepted the theory of evolution.
To imply that being a Christian automatically precludes someone from being able to apply the scientific method is an insult to Christians everywhere.
DFS
"The scientific method" is about more than just human origin. I find it difficult to believe that there is a realistic scenario in which a biochemist's opinion of Peking Man factors into the accuracy of tests for a cure for diabetes.
Granted, it's a high standard, but the man is being paid to train scientists, after all, and is only doing his job. He cannot simply tell people that it's OK to only apply the scientific method of reasoning when they feel like it. That makes for bad science.
Dini wrapped up by saying the following:
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?
Dini does a neat little weasel act when he haughtily asserts that the standard Darwin answer to the question of human origin is "fact," and then suggests that people who discount or reject the "fact" have "committed malpractice."
Without access to the references at the bottom of his page, it is impossible to know whether or not Dini has a leg to stand on when asserting that discounting Darwinism as "theory" and not "fact" has resulted in "bad clinical decisions" that have resulted in a "crisis in antibiotic resistance."
You can be of any religion (or no religion) and pass his test - Or fail it. I guarantee you that many Christians have passed that test and gotten his recommendation, and that at least some of them have believed in Creation and accepted the theory of evolution.
With all due respect, there is no way you could possibly know that.
To imply that being a Christian automatically precludes someone from being able to apply the scientific method is an insult to Christians everywhere.
I wholeheartedly agree. And that is what Dini has done.