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]

Hey, It just seems that your irrational fear of evolution shows a belief in some sort of Christian deity, that's all.

My belief in a god has nothing to do with my critical thinking skills which allow me to understand scientific theories, and their import for the future.

This seems to be missing for you and I wonder why, only creationists seem to have this irrational fear of the scientific theory of biological evolution, and do their best to misrepresent it in order to refute it.

Just as you do.

[ALS]

Which god?

[f.Christian]

a2 ...

the scientific theory of biological evolution,

fC ...

nothing scientific about it !

[ALS]

Can you describe this god?

Does it/he/she have the power to create?
Does it/he/she make you feel good?
Does it/he/she have a name?

[Dark Knight]

Greatest Concieveable Being or GCB was used in my Logic text.

Otherwise we'd go off into tangents about Crom or Hera if a God is really a God if they have limits.

So a working definition might be (omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent) +1

Then you can use the concept of GCB to exhibit proofs of GCB's existance, and then the same proof roughly to prove GCB's nonexistance. All quite cleanly on a piece of paper.

That's why the Philosopher Union was so unhappy when Deep Thought was going to answer the question of life existance and everything.

"I mean what good is staying up all night arguing the existance of God, if this machine is going to give you his telephone number in the morning?"

Of course every bit of this is relevent to having quality physicians.

DK

[ALS]

Any theories on why Aric needs a god?

He seems to have ran to the closet.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Needing God placemarker.

[ALS]

hahaha!

[Lurking Libertarian]

What's so funny?

[Dark Knight]

Aric is free to have any God he wants. God is a personal experience and if you haven't noticed, it is rather childish to berate someone on their belief in God.

Science is just a tool for understanding our existence. It is not our existance.

Me, I just want to berate people who think that evolution is a very important concept in choosing and retaining physicians. ;)

DK

[ALS]

"Aric is free to have any God he wants. God is a personal experience and if you haven't noticed, it is rather childish to berate someone on their belief in God."

Precisely what he and his Eloons attempted to do to me, but once the worm turns the roaches scatter.

But you already knew that, right?

[Dark Knight]

I'm sure that they were not berating your charm and dedication to debate, or maybe some other issues came into being.

DK

"but once the worm turns the roaches scatter."

What the heck does that mean?

[ALS]

scroll feature is your friend

[Dark Knight]

Obscurity is your friend.

LOL

DK

[ALS]

"what's so funny?"

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[balrog666]

Then again, maybe he's watching the series finalé of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that's on right now.

I missed that one. Was it a good series?

[Aric2000]

What or who my god is, is none of your business, and I have explained this before, it is my idea of god, no ones elses, and I don't believe that it should be.

My god has no name, no gender, no nothing, because I do not claim that a god must have human conditions placed upon them in order to be understandable, because a god is not understandable by definition.

If god were understandable, they would not be a god, now would they?

And no, I did not run off and hide, had to run down a program that has been jumping my CPU usage to 30-40% every 5 seconds and it took me a while to run the little bastage down. I squashed the little bugger though, so now I can play my ghost recon without having my computer hesitate every 3 seconds.

You ever tried to play a game where the framerate jumps from 100 FPS to 2 in 1 second, and then sits there for 3, IT SUCKS?!!!

I got it run down though, so Ghost Recon is back, sniper time for me.

[Dimensio]

It had many more ups than downs. The final episode could have been better, but it had some really funny moments.

[general_re]

What! Now the die-hards will get it from two directions!

Die hard what? The only people I've ever met who seriously claim that poli sci is a real, live empirical science are liberals, soup to nuts, and I think even most of them only believe it because believing it is just about the only way to get published in the APSR these days ;)