Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Dini-gration of Darwinism
AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creatins; creation; crevo; crevolist; darwin; evoloonists; evolunacy; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 1,961-1,975 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Comment #271 Removed by Moderator

The fr pat henry ... self appointed mind and lives guardian // czar of other people's children via govt money -- schools --- very strange -- weird !

To: don-o

dp ...

What dissenting opinion gets the hammer?

owk ...

I myself was suspended just a week ago for ... questioning --- the existence of God...

And the posts were wiped from existence.

For example.

499 posted on 05/03/2003 10:45 AM PDT by OWK

421 posted on 05/04/2003 1:34:59 AM PDT by f.Christian (( With Rights ... comes Responsibilities --- irresponsibility --- whacks // criminals - psychos ! ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Phaedrus: ...new information [resulting from mutation], which I assume you would agree is absolutely necessary, is not created.

Junior: But it is. That is why those critters can survive the new environmental stresses. No genetic information is "destroyed" (or you'd have a host of other problems). Sometimes its rearranged, sometimes its introduced from the outside (viral agents).

Back now and have read Evolution is a Fact and a Theory from TalkOrigins a couple of times. What garbage. I'll be posting to you a bit later as to specifically how and why it's garbage. For now, as to the foregoing, you are assuming that mutation and viral agents are responsible for creating useful new information, and the facts simply don't support this. It is speculation only, Junior, and I've got to think you are seeing what you want to see.

422 posted on 05/05/2003 6:10:36 AM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Junior
I see you've responded at extreme length to my posts at numbers 332, 340 and 352, and I've read them over. The result is that my comment to you at #255, which follows, stands.

I have patiently, faithfully, gone through your response to my post to this point and have discredited it, item by item, without exception. You are practicing sophistry. There is no substance.

I'm not interested in now discrediting every statement you find the time to craft. That was done, to a point, in my #255 and my brief review suggests you are offering "more of the same". Bridge strategy aside, length is no substitute for strength. But you are invited to follow along in my discussion with Junior as I deconstruct TalkOrigins.

423 posted on 05/05/2003 6:34:57 AM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Deconstructionist placemarker.
424 posted on 05/05/2003 9:46:56 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Hey! Did you see the Mercury solar transit coming up for Saturday?
425 posted on 05/05/2003 10:26:07 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
I guess we differ on what we call anti-evolution material.

What you showed mostly, and linked repeatedly, were examples of specific creationist arguments, and pages dedicated to countering them. I wouldn't call bringing up creationist arguments, in an attempt to soundly trounce them, "anti-evolution" material. Apparently, you do.

Sole exception that I saw (I didn't check every single link, I tired after a dozen) was the debate between Ross and Gish... which was presented rather raw. I suspect it was included to show divisions in the creationist camp.

So... if that is what you can drum up as proof that talk.origins web site is the most fair collection of pro- and anti-evolution material, you have failed - it clearly remains markedly, undeniably pro-evolution.

Now, as for comprehensiveness... quite astoundingly comprehensive. I'd be curious to see if there are any creationist arguments that aren't rebutted somewhere on this site.
426 posted on 05/05/2003 10:53:10 AM PDT by FactQuest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: FactQuest
I don't know if this thread is going to make it to 1000.

Too bad.

DK
427 posted on 05/05/2003 1:34:54 PM PDT by Dark Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: Dark Knight; Ichneumon
Doesn't look like it.

Ichneumon spent his energy on Phraedrus and Gore3000, never did address Protoavis or the origin of birds.

Pity, would have been a good debate.
428 posted on 05/06/2003 10:47:16 AM PDT by FactQuest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
But you are invited to follow along in my discussion with Junior as I deconstruct TalkOrigins.

Gosh, we can't wait to be showered with your insight - it'll be a first.

429 posted on 05/06/2003 2:44:49 PM PDT by balrog666 (When in doubt, tell the truth. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus; balrog666
Still waiting.
430 posted on 05/06/2003 6:25:18 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Hey! Thanks for the heads up. I had not been paying attention lately. I have been terribly busy. :-(
431 posted on 05/06/2003 11:47:35 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer </