Creationists, give up already! I hope the link works, its fom the NY Times, I have to sneak into it through Google LINK Here is a link to the professor's web site http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm Professor's Snub of Creationists Prompts U.S. Inquiry By NICK MADIGAN LUBBOCK, Tex., Feb. 2 — A biology professor who insists that his students accept the tenets of human evolution has found himself the subject of Justice Department scrutiny. Prompted by a complaint from the Liberty Legal Institute, a group of Christian lawyers, the department is investigating whether Michael L. Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech University here, discriminated against students on the basis of religion when he posted a demand on his Web site that students wanting a letter of recommendation for postgraduate studies "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the question of how the human species originated. "The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution," Dr. Dini wrote. "How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology?" That was enough for the lawyers' group, based in Plano, a Dallas suburb, to file a complaint on behalf of a 22-year-old Texas Tech student, Micah Spradling. Mr. Spradling said he sat in on two sessions of Dr. Dini's introductory biology class and shortly afterward noticed the guidelines on the professor's Web site (www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm). Mr. Spradling said that given the professor's position, there was "no way" he would have enrolled in Dr. Dini's class or asked him for a recommendation to medical school. "That would be denying my faith as a Christian," said Mr. Spradling, a junior raised in Lubbock who plans to study prosthetics and orthotics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. "They've taken prayer out of schools and the Ten Commandments out of courtrooms, so I thought I had an opportunity to make a difference." In an interview in his office, Dr. Dini pointed to a computer screen full of e-mail messages and said he felt besieged. "The policy is not meant in any way to be discriminatory toward anyone's beliefs, but instead to ensure that people who I recommend to a medical school or a professional school or a graduate school in the biomedical sciences are scientists," he said. "I think science and religion address very different types of questions, and they shouldn't overlap." Dr. Dini, who said he had no intention of changing his policy, declined to address the question of his own faith. But university officials and several students who support him say he is a religious man. "He's a devout Catholic," said Greg Rogers, 36, a pre-med student from Lubbock. "He's mentioned it in discussion groups." Mr. Rogers, who returned to college for a second degree and who said his beliefs aligned with Dr. Dini's, added: "I believe in God and evolution. I believe that evolution was the tool that brought us about. To deny the theory of evolution is, to me, like denying the law of gravity. In science, a theory is about as close to a fact as you can get." Another student, Brent Lawlis, 21, from Midland, Tex., said he hoped to become an orthopedic surgeon and had had no trouble obtaining a letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini. "I'm a Christian, but there's too much biological evidence to throw out evolution," he said. But other students waiting to enter classes Friday morning said they felt that Dr. Dini had stepped over the line. "Just because someone believes in creationism doesn't mean he shouldn't give them a recommendation," said Lindsay Otoski, 20, a sophomore from Albuquerque who is studying nursing. "It's not fair." On Jan. 21, Jeremiah Glassman, chief of the Department of Justice's civil rights division, told the university's general counsel, Dale Pat Campbell, that his office was looking into the complaint, and asked for copies of the university's policies on letters of recommendation. David R. Smith, the Texas Tech chancellor, said on Friday afternoon that the university, a state institution with almost 30,000 students and an operating budget of $845 million, had no such policy and preferred to leave such matters to professors. In a letter released by his office, Dr. Smith noted that there were 38 other faculty members who could have issued Mr. Spradling a letter of recommendation, had he taken their classes. "I suspect there are a number of them who can and do provide letters of recommendation to students regardless of their ability to articulate a scientific answer to the origin of the human species," Dr. Smith wrote. Members of the Liberty Legal Institute, who specialize in litigating what they call religious freedom cases, said their complaint was a matter of principle. "There's no problem with Dr. Dini saying you have to understand evolution and you have to be able to describe it in detail," said Kelly Shackelford, the group's chief counsel, "but you can't tell students that they have to hold the same personal belief that you do." Mr. Shackelford said that he would await the outcome of the Justice Department investigation but that the next step would probably be to file a suit against the university.
I'm biased, but a professor should feel free to determine any policy she or he wants (um, short of asking for sex) for saying "yes" or "no" to a request for a recommendation letter. You don't win the right to a recommendation letter when you pay to go to college. If you make a good impression on a professor or two, then you get some letters. I mean, professors can be weird. Some write really mean letters, and students learn this and avoid those professors. So creationist students learn to avoid this guy. Big deal. I'm sure taking people to court is justifiable via the Bible for this student too. If I was that professor, I'd say "okay, I'll write you a letter alright. Give me a sheet of paper and shield your virgin eyes, punk."
Scientific evidence outweighs fairy tales in this argument. I don't believe the Justice Department should be involved in this. What kind of grades were the students making when they filed the complaint? If they weren't the best students then I can see how they would use religion as a shield for why they didn't get into medical school. I sure as hell don't want to visit a doctor who believes in unsubstantianted legend rather than scientific fact.
Unfortunately what this professor is saying is that anyone who believes in Creationism should not be in med school. This is a ridiculous position. I am quite sure there are many quality medical professionals who believe God created everything.
Why does everyone assume that Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive? Or is the definition of Creationism so specific that it precludes evolution? In other words, does 7 days need to be taken literally?
It's sad when Christians can't get along... apparently there are passionate feelings about the subject. It seems like everybody should just calm down and think about it: we weren't here when the earth was created or evolved, so none of us can say for sure. We can take what we see and formulate theories, but the best science is going to come from what we know here and now. It's true that evolution is accepted pretty much as fact in the field of biology these days. It's not unreasonable to ask someone to explain it and understand it, since you need to know how to speak the language. Most people are aware these days that it's not necessarily incompatible with creation; it could be the mechanism for creation (hence the Intelligent Design theory). However, I wouldn't be upset with a student of mine if they personally doubted evolution based on their faith. Maybe they feel they are choosing to obey God rather than man (an unpopular choice these days). You would think a Christian professor would be sympathetic to that viewpoint, whether or not he agreed with it. But this guy isn't the only one. One of my friends teaches biology, is a Christian, and is always getting upset with "Creationists". I don't get that. I've asked him, and it seems that he feels it's unscientific. Again, though, this is something that's unproven... you need to be able to speak the language of evolution to operate in academic biology circles (though not to be a doctor), but why can't Christians respect each other's faith? <i>"I must learn to protect myself from the sins of science." - Tears For Fears</i>
A lot of scientists, including this prof, I bet, make PLENTY of room for a brilliant mind-of-god-or-creator type of effect. The funny thing is, if you look at the world scientifically, your brain will explode if you don't admit that there's something going on here that surpasses randomness and the human mind's ability to comprehend it. If by Creationism here he means some student who believes the whole world-in-a-week Bible metaphor to be absolutely literal, then that's one thing. Bottom line, for me. His rule is kind of dumb. But he can make whatever rule he wants -- this isn't his teaching; these are kind favors to students of whom you have a high opinion. Period. Finally, as the medical profession turns increasingly to genetically based diagnostics and therapies, don't you want to have doctors who accept the basic underlying mechanisms? They sure work well. And evolution and modern genetics are pretty tied up in one another. So it does kind of make sense that having an appreciation for evolution (even if you say God set it up) is critical to learning the trade. Just my 2 cents. I'm not even in medicine.
I don't think this is true. If he said he wouldn't give you a recommendation unless you were white, or male, or straight, it would be completely unacceptable. There are certain criteria upon which you simply are not allowed to discriminate. Religion is right there next to creed and color. And, he teaches at a public university, putting him in an especially vulnerable position. Plus, his reasoning is flawed. If you want to do genetic research, creationism will be a big stumbling block in your career. But, to go into prosthetics and orthotics, evolution is completely irrelevant. And even genetics isn't impossible with a literalist creation theory. Just because creationists reject evolution does not mean they reject the mechanics of genetics. Most I know draw the line between fact and fiction at speciation, allowing even some evolution within the confines of the species.
I don't see why evolution and genetics even have to go together. You can believe in the existence of DNA no matter what. Natural selection, in terms of traits of a population, has been proven and no one will disagree with that. It may or may not occur drastically enough to change one species to another (which could no longer breed with the first species), but there are no records of humans observing or recording the evolution of a new species firsthand. Evolution could certainly have been used as a mechanism to create new life forms, and perhaps it was. In terms of random natural selection, though, think about how many changes something would have to go through to alter its DNA enough so that it could no longer interbreed with the other species. (some of these might occur naturally after continental drift or physical separation from the rest of the species, but what about those that are not separated from each other?) And what about those mutations which are judged helpful, but are not essential for survival? I just wonder why we don't see more "in-between" species than we do... Of course, the time scale of all this is hard to comprehend, but creationists or those who favor intelligent design may look at things like these. Most everyone believes in "evolution"... just not necessarily from one species to another, or <i>randomly</i> from one species to another.
I hope that kid isn't my doctor someday. "Hmm, damn, I should have read that chapter. Ok, may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you cuz you are S.O.L." I didn't like this quote: There's a reason why those are taken out, because not everybody prescribes to those beliefs and it wouldn't be fair to teach kids that way or to hold people up to those morals in court. Biology doesn't have much wiggle room. Isn't Lubbock where the public schools only teach abstinence? Don't they have one of the worst teen pregnancy rates there as well? Can you say correlation.
When a teacher can't ask for a scientific answer during a science course, well then you know things are getting pretty screwed up.
Here are a few passages from a National Academy of Sciences Report: Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed "theistic evolution," is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines. The advocates of "creation science" hold a variety of viewpoints. Some claim that Earth and the universe are relatively young, perhaps only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. These individuals often believe that the present physical form of Earth can be explained by "catastrophism," including a worldwide flood, and that all living things (including humans) were created miraculously, essentially in the forms we now find them. Other advocates of creation science are willing to accept that Earth, the planets, and the stars may have existed for millions of years. But they argue that the various types of organisms, and especially humans, could only have come about with supernatural intervention, because they show "intelligent design." The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.
You're right, but he isn't asking for a scientific answer. He wants the student to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer." Knowing the theory backwards and forwards isn't sufficient; you have to believe it too.
You are contradicting yourself here. You are ok with separation of church and state when it suits you. When a professor at a state run college (Texas Tech) insists that his students adopt a thought process that runs counter to their religion, it is no different than posting the Ten Commandments at the courthouse. Is your knee jerking? It should be because that's the type of reaction you gave. Many doctors are devoutly Christian or Jewish, and thus reject evolution theory. It hasn't hampered their ability to diagnose maladies and subsequently cure them. We could disagree on the genesis of the automobile, but it doesn't hamper either of us from fixing our brakes.
Maybe God used evolution to create man (and woman) and that 7 days to God is millions, or even billions of years. And maybe by making Adam from the dust of the Earth he meant that he slowly evolved over a day from the organisms in the dust of the Earth, and a day to God is millions of years. And maybe by having the metaphor for taking a rib and making woman, it meant that woman just evolved from man over millions of years. Maybe God had Genesis written the way it was for a reason, maybe he knew the men who were writing it weren't ready for the understanding they would need, so he simplified it for them into a story. Maybe some form of human like animals existed and God made man different from them then they died off explaining the seperation in modern people and pre-humans. Lots of possibilities for Christians to believe or look at. I don't necessarily believe or think all the thing above, but as a Christian, if your willing to believe in God's miracles, you should have an open mind to other possibilities in how God was trying to explain things in Genesis. Christians and Science can go together.
For all the creationist, or Christians who also believe in Evolution, what does the story of Adam and Eve mean to you?
Well, with organisms that have conveniently short life cycles, you can observe the mechanations of evolution on a table top. Mrs. B-Bob sees mutations all the time that mean yeast cells can't undergo sexual reproduction anymore with their fellow yeast cells. (and, for hecklers, not her own personal yeast cells!). And JuanValdez, I think the "oh, but what about race and gender!" argument is completely out of place. The professor has nothing against Christians (nevermind that he is a Christian, allegedly). He has absolutely nothing for or against Christians. In my physics class, a student who believes Aristotle's logic of falling bodies will not be as prepared for further study as someone who accept's Newton's or (better yet) Eintstein's view of falling bodies. A student who accepted the Ptolemaic universe (Earth-centered, and advocated by certain religions for many centuries in the face of all proof) would be less prepared for a career in astronomy than one who accepted the Copernican/Keplerian version. Now, if a smart student knows evolution backwards and forwards, but holds his own beliefs dear, I really don't think he'd have a problem getting a letter from this dork. And this is the point, most professors WANT students who profess doubts ... after they master the intricacies of a given theory. If this prof is saying he will penalize excellent students because of their deeply held hunches or beliefs, even as they completely understand the course material and see its logic, then he's a double dork. But FINALLY: writing recommendation letters is a gray area that many, many people view as a favor to students. Some profs take students to lunch occasionally. And you know what? That is not decided with fully PC logic. Not by a long shot. Okay, I'm done. That's as clearly as I can articulate my thoughts. Interesting issue to be sure, and sadly, it will become more and more relevant. edit: supermac's post basically echoes my own personal feelings on the matter, not that my feelings are so relevant to the argument.
The fraility of human beings. That we are all destined to sin...like Adam eating the forbidden fruit. That's the lesson that is to be gleaned from Adam and Eve. That we all have faults and are all going to sin from time to time. It is the nature of being human.
False. The article even states that the professor demand that the student ACCEPTS evolution as correct.
Okay, Ref, time out. If you read my post, then I accuse him of being a double dork if this is his stance. I don't trust any newspaper article to completely root all the truth of a situation. It's too difficult. But if that's his stance, he is really silly, in my opinion.
