"Even me" - LOL! I'm honored to be the gold standard :)
Let's be clear, though - I recognize that not everyone will consider this to be evidence of the same kind of evolution that is held to have resulted in the origin of man. I think you can make a very good case, however, and once you admit that evolution occurs, you're on a slippery slope to proving that it only occurs under certain specific circumstances that would have never ever affected our supposed progenitors. I and many others accept this example as being a good example of evolution taking place, and so far I've found counterarguments to this being a form of evolution somewhat lacking. Doesn't mean there's not a good counterargument, mind you, or there never will be - But I'm not convinced.
Consider the PCBs example, by the way - We also have bacteria that eat PCBs at the bottom of the Hudson river. Those chemicals didn't exist before the 20th century, and neither did those bacteria. That's a more substantial leap than antibiotic reistance, in my opinion, and it happened. What are we to conclude? Well, unicellular reproduction is much faster, so presumably evolution, if it's happening, must be much faster as well, since it depends on reproduction to pass on the valuable traits. Hence the problem with "observing evolution" in multicellular animals - As I said before, we don't live long enough to see such jumps as a hypothetical equivalent of the PCB thing, something like humans "suddenly" (that's a matter of perspective BTW; was the PCB thing "sudden" to the bacteria?) being able live off of eating synthetic plastics (yummy!)...
I've even looked at the basic arguments on genetic material exchange, etc. If there is not a concrete example of evolution as a required belief, there are much better biologically sound traits a physician must possess.
Sorry for being dense - I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here... I think it's along the lines that there are better metrics to judge someone by, when determining whether they will be a suitable physician or not...? ...and that this is because you've examined some evidence for evolution, and reached the conclusion that the case is not clear-cut? I'll go with that - Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Second point first. I think it's safe to say that the majority of scientists familiar with evolutionary theory accept it. We can make an argument that they're all heavily biased fools, but this is slightly prejudicial :) Just as it would be prejudicial to declare all people who believe in Creation, according to the Bible, to be ignorant or uneducated. I think it's a lot more fair to say that, while some of the scientists are biased, close-minded, and intolerant of counterarguments, as are some of the folks who believe in Creation, most of them are not (and, in addition, that these two ideas need not be contradictory). So with that said, I am inclined to accept both the evidence that I have seen for evolution, as well as the scientific opinions of the majority of those people most qualified to judge, as I don't think that all (or even most) of them are bad scientists (and that's basically what we're saying otherwise).
First point. You're right, there are better ways of judging someone's suitability with respect to being a physician. Surgeons, for instance, should have steady hands, and a high tolerance for gore :) But, to reiterate: Dr. Dini is not training physicians. He only teaches biology, and he is training people in the scientific method, as applied to the biological sciences. They are definitely related to medicine, but he's not training doctors. He has been hired to train scientists to be as objective as possible, and I believe he is trying to do just that. His opinions on physicians we can readily disagree with, absolutely. This does not at all detract from the fact that science only functions when scientists are objective, even when the conclusions they read are unexpected or unpleasant, and that he, as a science teacher, is being paid to do his best to convince people of this.
When the litmus test of agreement with the professor's theories or beliefs are required, science suffers. I would liken it to political science professors that only give good evals to those that parrot their every word. Science was supposed to be skeptical.
Absolutely right. I don't think he's doing this, however, and at any rate there's certainly an out - If you can present reasonable scientific evidence to support whatever your answer is to that question, as a scientist he should accept it - Or he is a bad scientist. If he is, by all means, he should be ashamed of himself, and people would have every right to complain about him being unfair. If no one can present such a case, no matter what we think of the man we cannot argue with the standard. Science is supposed to be skeptical, yes, but I think it's fair to say that we also have to prioritize. In the grand scheme of things, what is the least likely to be accurate, and what is the most? I wouldn't waste much skepticism on gravity, for instance - There are better things I could be doing with my time.
Now, back to the out I discuss above - I have yet to see such evidence myself, and so while I am not saying it will never exist, I will still need some serious convincing to believe that the universe is really less than 10,000 years old and that all life was created in a few days. I can believe that God set in motion the events to create all life, and I can believe that 1 day for God is not the same as a day for us, but right now, that's as far as I'm willing to go. But to reiterate, I am totally prepared to believe someone who can show me otherwise - I have no vested interest in accepting any particular theory, other than the one that best explains the world we live in.
I would change this because, much to the surprise of many, I am not a creationist.
My GOD! (Sorry, oh Lord ;)
OK, caught my breath. Well, this may come as an anti-climax, since you beat me to the punch, but I'm not an evolutionist, either. I'm a complicated man, and no one understands me but my...well, nevermind. At any rate, I applaud your resistance to being labeled, because all that ever accomplishes in most discussions is to separate people who might otherwise actually agree on something - Life is not so simple.
You are studying religions at a public college.
I never said it was public :) That could cause some problems. Even at private schools though, they often get state funding in some way or another, so it's still tricky, for sure.
A professor prints up on his web page that he teaches The Philosopy of Christianity. If you want to get a positive letter of recommendation I will ask you: "Do you believe in Christ?" Belief is a central issue in the true understanding of Christian philosophy, and no one can really understand without it.
And Dr. Dini holds that evolutionary biology is a central issue in the true understanding of the biological sciences, and no one can really understand without it.
There is something left off of both. The ability to have a discussion of the merits of that belief. When discussion ends, so does the scientific method.
Absolutely! But the man doesn't want a dissertation :) He's not arguing against our right or ability to discuss the theory of evolution and its merits and shortcomings - Of which there are both, it's certainly not perfect (nor does he claim it is) - He's simply asking the student what the best scientific explanation for things is, to date, based on the evidence. Since he's asking for a scientific explanation, if we don't give him one we have only ourselves to blame. The scientific answer does not deny the religious answer, or vice-versa. And anyway, if you went into his office and wanted to have that discussion about evolution, I would be shocked if he wouldn't engage you, assuming he had the time. I can't speak for his patience in the face of a theory that states that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, but if you wanted to discuss the shortcomings of evolution, I seriously date he would claim that there weren't any.
Thanks for reading,
DFS