The View From 1776

-----------
The following essay was written by John M. DeMassa, who holds a Ph.D. in organic chemistry and is a research chemist.

************
In Liberal Urban Legends Tom Brewton writes, “Darwinian atheists, in the same way, attack anyone who points out that their hypothesis is not supported with scientific data, but rests upon nothing more than assumptions necessitated by their preconceptions.”

Below is a story that demonstrates academic bias towards a student who niether believed the “scientific data” presented in his college classroom supporting human evolution nor the “assumptions” upon which the model of Darwinian evolution are built. 

Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, in “Converting Beliefs into Scientific ‘Facts’ (Stamford Advocate, 2/13/03),” reports another salvo fired in the ongoing Creation/Evolution controversy challenging our nations schools.  This time, a creationist, brought a lawsuit against a professor for religious discrimination. 

Michael Dini, a Texas Tech biology professor required of those students requesting a recommendation for graduate school, among other things, a “truthful and forthright” scientific answer to the question: “How do you think the human species originated?”

In a posting at Dini’s website during 2003, he wrote, “So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the ‘fact’ of human evolution, even if all the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs.”

Creationist Micah Spradling, a student who dropped out of Dini’s class in its opening days, found Dini’s requirement unacceptable because he demands that students personally affirm a belief in evolution; Spradling personally affirms a belief in biblical creation.  Spradling collected lawyers from the Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) to challenge the matter with University officials.  Officials refused to recognize Spradlings’ claims, resulting in an appeal to the Justice Department for relief. 

The Justice Department said Dini might be discriminating against students with certain religious views because he excludes from consideration a letter of recommendation for students who will not affirm a personal belief in human evolution.  Some months after the original report, according to one source “(April 22, 2003) The U.S. Justice Department dropped its investigation of a complaint that a Texas Tech University biology professor was discriminating against students who did not believe in evolution.  The department announced April 22, 2003 that it ended its probe after Professor Michael Dini eliminated the evolution belief requirement from his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution.” (See also).

Yet the efforts of the JD or Spradlings challenge seem to have effected little change.  “(A)n Associated Press report(s), Dini says he will still ask students: “How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?” On his website, Dini says students who cannot give a scientific answer should not expect his recommendation—and he makes it clear that he considers evolution the only scientific explanation.” In short, if you don’t give the proper party line of evolution you don’t get the coveted letter of recommendation.  (Or if you will indulge my bad humor, if you don’t ring the evolution bells you don’t get the treat.)

Spradlings’ case has again drawn the spotlight to academic bias on the question of origins and specifically the insisted ‘fact’ of biological evolution.  Without any doubt, if human evolution were a scientific ‘fact,’ one would expect little argument among professional scientists. Indeed Spradlings’ position is ridiculous if human evolution is an undisputed, proven ‘fact’ of science.  However, the professional and popular literature does not show unity among scientists, but rather shows strong controversy surrounding the alleged ‘evidence’ upon which human evolution is based. A sampling follows. 

Dr. Lyall Watson in Science Digest (May 1982) comments; “Modern Apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making big-brained humans - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a coffin!” Dr. Lyall Watson, “The Water People,” Science Digest vol. 90 (May 1982), p. 44

Michael Lemonick, in Time Magazine (1994), files the same complaint: “Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debates.”

Christopher Stringer, in Scientific American (May 1993), states that the available fossil data has actually made the debate about human origins more “uncertain.”

If human evolution, considered by professional researchers, is a “mysterious,” “debate(able),” “uncertain,” “concocted,” idea, is it fair to force Micah Spradling, or any student, to simply parrot the party line?

Still we might rightly ask; What does Micah Spradling believe that is so unacceptable?  Spradling believes in special creation; a position that holds God created all things supernaturally, including man.  There are scientists who don’t merely see holes in the evidence allegedly supporting evolution but interpret the evidence to suggest special creation, citing microscopic and bio-molecular data.  Creation scientists, or more recently Intelligent Design advocates assert that proof of a designer is clearly seen through the complexity of systems and structures found in biological organisms. Dr. Michael Behe (Darwins Black Box) describes the complexity of structures such as the flagella, and the blood clotting system.  Chance happenings as proposed in the theory of evolution simply can not produce intricate biological parts or systems let alone something as complex as man.  Dr. Michael Dembski, a mathematician, asks where did the genetic code come from, except a Code Designer or Intelligent Designer?  Dr. Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial (InterVarsity, 1991), showed how “evolutionary theory was hopelessly compromised with the philosophy and bias of naturalism.”

Spradlings’ case may have involved religious discrimination, but much of the argument seems to come down to this very simple question; If professional scientists are choosing either special creation or evolution, isn’t it proper to extend the same courtesy to students in the classroom?

Or in the words of one scientist… “One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all…. To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself…. They [evolutionists] challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance.” Dr. Wernher von Braum (father of the American rocket and space program).

Visit MoveOff Network Members