Posted on 04/29/2003 10:43:39 AM PDT by 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.
Funny, I can't seem to find ANY anti-evolution material on there.
Then you didn't look very hard.
A great many of the "topic" pages on www.talkorigins.org contain sidebars in the upper-right corner containing links to anti-evolutionary material on the same subject, or specific rebuttals to that t.o. webpage. For example:
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular GeneticsMany other pages present anti-evolutionary arguments in all their glory (*cough*) and also present arguments and evidence which counter them (oh, the horrors). For example:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Evolution of Improved Fitness
Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of DesignOther pages are straightforward descriptions of anti-evolutionary positions and/or arguments, such as:Is the Complement System Irreducibly Complex?
Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism
So You Want to be an Anti-Darwinian: Varieties of Opposition to DarwinismBooks and other works by anti-evolutionists are freely reviewed and not hidden under a bushel. For example:Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe
The Coso Artifact: Mystery from the Depths of Time
Creationism and Human Evolution
Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's ViewsThe more common anti-evolutionary arguments are all cataloged, presented, and critiqued:Review of Michael Denton's, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe
A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project
The General Anti-Creationism FAQThere are many full-text debates on the site which let anti-evolutionists speak for themselves in full. A few examples:How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field
Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth
A talk.origins Age of the Earth DebateThe website contains a large archive of "Feedback", or letters-to-the-editor, which contains a large number of contributions by anti-evolutionists challenging information on the site or providing "new" arguments. Similarly, there are numerous classic post exchanges from the talk.origins Usenet forum, such as Fish Fossils: Post of the Month: September 2002, which give anti-evolutionists freedom to make their points.Hugh Ross and Duane Gish Debate
Debate between Richard Milton and Jim Foley
Furthermore, alongside the full text of Darwin's On The Origin of Speciescan be found The Book of Genesis
Finally, the links page provides links to all prominent anti-evolutionary websites.
Are you sure?
I have read plenty and debunked plenty of the trueorigins garbage. The articles are almost never written by professionals in the field. They are written by people with absolutely no reputation to lose. They are mostly rhetoric and half truths. Now if you or anyone of your cadre of evolutionists wishes to discuss any article from any source you like, let's see it, lets discuss it and let's see if it in fact gives any sort of solid evidence for evolution.
(In fact, we have an article here on this thread which you folks refuse to discuss and give evidence, Dini's calling anyone but evolutionists not fit to be doctors. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence from your side backing that up).
You and your friends only give a bunch of links which you yourselves have not read. If you have read them, if they give strong proof for your position, how come none of you is willing to post the proof right here where all of us can discuss it?
The answer to the above question is that your links are garbage as I and Heartlander have been saying. So all you have left is the three 'proofs' of evolution:
How so?
As a very relevant example I can cite that Marx considered it a good basis for his materialistic theory and offered to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.
Evolution specifically denies the Bible as we see abundantly in this thread also.-me- So do the creation myths of every religion other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
In your effort to contradict my statement you have put your foot deep in your mouth. You have admitted that evolution is an enemy of Christianity and opposed to it. Thanks!
You are showing your ignorance to the world. Just because an organism may be simpler than a human it does not mean that it does not have an ability to adapt to different circumstances. Single celled organisms are still around since the beginning of life on earth. Not only that, single celled organisms, in spite of their small size still constitute some 90% of the biological mass on earth. Now that's what I call adaptability!
I have. His most fundamental premise is wrong (and followup). Also another blow to Behe's thesis, a scathing review (MUST READ). Another review. More problems for Behe. Yet another review. Another problem with one of Behe's pet examples.
I'm very glad to hear you admit that, since True.Origins is a *creationist* website.
There may be hope for you yet if you've finally come to realize this about creationists.
Ah, another fellow who believes he can read minds. Wrong again.
If you have read them, if they give strong proof for your position, how come none of you is willing to post the proof right here where all of us can discuss it?
This is, quite simply, the most stupid question I've seen in months.
What is this -- an admission that creationists are either too lazy or stupid to know how to click a link and read the resulting page?
The answer is that anyone who wants to wade through the information can simply follow the link, whereas posting it in-line would be a burden on readers who have slow internet connections and aren't interested in that particular information. And courteously providing it as a link only in no way prevents "all of us" from "discussing it" -- at least those of us who understand how to click a webpage link...
So all you have left is the three 'proofs' of evolution: INSULTS DOUBLETALK LIES
Really? Where? You seem to have "forgotten" to support your accusation. But then, you tend to "forget" to support most of your amazing (and usually false) accusations. For example:
[Used with permission of the original author]Gore3000's FABNAQ's
(Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)
These questions have been dodged [4] times so farScience is very much aware that evolution is total nonsense, that is why it keeps refuting it.
Amazing claim, let's see if you can substantiate it:
In fact it is totally unbelievable that anyone would call evolution science in this day and age.
You mean, other than those countless thousands of scientists who work with it and research it all the time?
You make a lot of unsupported claims, son, let's see if you know how to support them:
1. The disproof of Darwin's racist claim that the brachyocephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior.
Troll Challenge #1: I've already challenged you to document this ad hominem claim. I already pointed out it was contrary to all I've read that Darwin has written about race (i.e., he considered them intellectual and moral equals; an amazingly fair-minded belief for his era.) You failed to even attempt document it. Do so now -- QUOTE Darwin and cite the source.
Troll Challenge #2: Document that whatever Darwin may have actually said on the matter has been "disproven".
NOTE:
For this and subsequent challenges, "document" does not just mean "declare it over and over again" as is your usual mode of "proof". It does not mean "quote other creationists". It does not mean "cut-and-paste semi-relevant website pages that happen to talk about the subject at hand and then declare that this proves your point through sheer volume". In short, none of your usual game-playing of "the conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader, and if you don't reach my conclusion you're an idiot." None of those are sufficient for your *specific* claims that "SCIENCE...KEEPS REFUTING" evolution and "SCIENCE is very much aware that evolution is total nonsense". So to document your amazing claims, you must quote, or provide specific citations for, MAINSTREAM SCIENCE publications which *specifically* declare to have contradicted, refuted, contradicted, or proven wrong the point you claim has "refuted" evolution via "science". For surely, if "science keeps refuting" evolution, someone in science would have mentioned it somewhere. Lord knows scientists aren't shy about pointing out when they've debunked something.In short, you must quote/cite an actual science source which AGREES WITH YOUR CONCLUSION in each case and FLAT OUT SAYS SO. Not just "could be used to argue that conclusion" if you squint at it just right, you must actually find where science SAYS WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES, with no need for "interpretation" or "line of reasoning" on your part.
You say that "Science is very much aware that evolution is total nonsense", so all you have to do is *quote* science actually SAYING the things you say it does. Should be easy -- if you're not a lying swine.
While some may dismiss this as a minutae, it is a strong refutation of evolution because it shows that there has been no 'evolution' in the human species and according to evolutionists evolution is always going on.
Troll Challenge #3: Over what timespan has your alleged "no change" occurred?
Troll Challenge #4: Document (*see above*) that it hasn't.
Troll Challenge #5: Document (*ditto*) that "according to evolutionists" there would *have* be a change of the specified type over the specified time period if evolution were true.
2. Mendelian genetics showed that the transfer of new traits was very difficult if not impossible.
Troll Challenge #6: Document this insane claim. And since you have a short memory, I will again point out that you must DOCUMENT this by citing an actual scientific source which declares it to be "very difficult if not impossible" -- your own babbling, hand-waving arguments don't count. You're not allowed to try to prove your amazing assertion, you must *document* that *SCIENCE* flat-out says so, since you claimed that it did.
Indeed because a new trait or mutation is not in the gene pool of other individuals, it has an almost impossible chance of survival.
Troll Challenge #7: Document, please. And since I remember your failures in our earlier discussion of genetic drift, I must remind you that 1-in-a-thousand, or even 1-in-a-million, is *NOT* "almost impossible". Nor do your misconceptions bother to address the selection of favorable new traits, which have a far higher success rate.
2a. Mendelian genetics also showed the concept of alleles - duplicate genes in every organism which performed the same function but a bit differently. This allows the adaptation of a species to the environment without the need to wait for a chance mutation to occur. It shows that transformation of organisms is not necessary for survival.
Troll Challenge #8: Explain how the (obvious) fact that organisms can "survive" without evolution in any way supports your thesis that "science keeps refuting evolution". Oh, don't bother -- you can't. You're just being foolishly irrelevant here and even you must realize that.
3. DNA - a Nobel Prize winning discovery - showed the utter complexity of the cells in every organism. It laid to rest forever the concept that just a little mutation could transform an organism or a species.
Troll Challenge #9: Document (again, via quoting an actual scientific source which SPECIFICALLY AGREES with your CONCLUSION here) that you're not just making a wild leap from "it's complicated" to "it's impossible".
Troll Challenge #10: Document where evolutionists have ever said that "*A* little mutation" (i.e., singular) could "transform" an organism or species.
Troll Challenge #11: While you're at it, define "transform" in a way that doesn't make your statement trivially false or tautologically true.
4. Genome Project - showed the utter interrelatedness of every single gene, cell, part of the body.
Troll Challenge #12: Document that twaddle. Make sure your source speaks of the "utter interrelatedness" of "every single gene".
It has shown that it is impossible for any new trait to evolve by chance occurrence (or at random, or without design or whatever you wish to call how evolutionary changes to the genome are supposed to occur according to evolution).
Troll Challenge #13: Document where "it has shown" this. Again, you must find a scientific source which specifically agrees with your *conclusion*, not merely one that you can wave around and say, "this is supporting evidence, my conclusion is therefore inescapable, can't you see that?"
For any change, for any transformation to occur, there would need to be the coevolution of the new trait together with a complete support system to make it work.
Troll Challenge #14: And "science" agrees with you on this point where, exactly? Document it. Make sure it's talking specifically about "ANY change, ANY transformation".
This of course is totally ludicrous, especially in view of 2 and 3 above.
I agree your descriptions are ludicrous.
5. discovery of gene control - showed forever that the arrogant (and moronic) evolutionist theory that 95% of DNA was just there doing nothing except to give proof of evolution was utter bunk.
Troll Challenge #15: Documentation, please.
Science showed that it is that very DNA which evolutionists called 'junk" which is what controls the actions of genes and many other processes in the organism.
Troll Challenge #16: All of it? Document where science "shows" this.
[Update: This is the one challenge that Gore3000 actually attempted a response to. Amusingly enough, his linked source material actually VERIFIED THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW THAT HE WAS TRYING TO DISCREDIT. Hmm, speaking of people posting "things they have not themselves read"...]
So as you can see, we are very lucky that scientists ignore evolution.
Troll Challenge #17: Document that this is the case. I'll accept a quote from any peer-reviewed publication in an accepted science journal.
Otherwise, biology would still be stuck in the dark Darwinian ages.
Someone's sure in the dark here, but it's not us.
Time for you to document your assertions, or withdraw them. Time for you to demonstrate that you have any idea what in the hell you're talking about when you make claims about what "science" shows.
[End of FABNAQ]
Thank you.
As many of you may have noticed by now, the "contributions" of a certain poster who marks his text with a blue font have a tendency to derail creation/evolution threads by sheer volume and non sequitur irrelevancy. Even when he sticks somewhat closely to an actual point, he overwhelms a thread by beating his point into the ground through staccato repetition and an absolute refusal to give an inch no matter how thoroughly he's been answered.
Therefore, most of us have learned to just ignore him unless he accidentally says something particularly amusing.
However, I don't want to let that leave the impression that we have no good rebuttal to him. We do, we just tire of saying it in every single thread he pops onto with his same broken record.
Therefore, if anyone (on any side of the debate) wishes to see something addressed which the blue Freeper happens to raise, feel free to quote it and ask for a response.
Barring that, we'll presume that you're as tired of his spam as we are and we can all spend our time discussing things with more productive participants.
We now return you to the thread in progress.
One must assume that you debunked the two main principles of the trueorigin's website:
1. The myth that today’s heavily popularized beliefs about macro-evolution find “overwhelming” or unequivocal support in the data of empirical science
2. The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data
We will all enjoy citing you as having refuted the above two points.
Examples:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.