Texas Tech Professor Snub Creationists

I think your knee is jerking Ref. The bit about him being my doctor was a joke. Maybe I did contradict myself, but biology is biology. I don't care if this kid believes that evolution was natural or if it was by God's design, but if he is supposed to be a competent doctor, how can he not believe in Evolution at all when it is a fundamentaly important part of biology? The Prof is apparantly a Catholic and seems to have no problem with evolution. We could disagree on the genesis of the automobile, but if one of us believes that the previous automobiles didn't exist and were just put in junkyards by people to fool us(maybe Carl Everrett is a bad example) and that God just created them the way they are now, well one of us isn't going to be a very good mechanic. . .

 

In some permutations, the two can go together. But, why should Christians have to fit their beliefs into a box just to accomodate Science? If they want to believe in a literal 7 days, why can't they just believe in a literal 7 days?

Oski, I just don't think that is true. I think I can be a good mechanic while being completely ignorant of a car's origins. You just need to know some physics and understand the assembly to fix the thing. In a related subject, science hasn't been able, as yet, to really quantify what life is -- how it comes and goes. But, doctors still manage to help keep people alive.

B-Bob, I'm surprised to see you take a thread somewhat seriously. The "he's a devout Catholic" argument is about as convincing as saying, "some of my best friends are black." Sure, he doesn't have a problem with someone being a Christian, just so long as it he also believes in evolution. Not all Christians find the two at all compatible.* So, he doesn't have something against some Christians, but does have something against other Christians.

Your example with physics doesn't hold in this case. There are some careers in which belief in evolution is almost completely necessary -- evolutionary biology, for example. Medicine, though, really does not require even an understanding of, much less adherence to, evolution. It is a theory that all doctors -- and all educated people, really -- should be familiar with. But, it really isn't something that will have any application in their profession. I can't think of a single operation, or treatment, or diagnosis that would require decisions based on evolution. Even genetic diseases need only an understanding of inheritance.

(* On this issue of compatibility, my wife had a very interesting observation. In the Adam & Eve story, they eat from the Tree and, as punishment, are cast from the Garden and are cursed. In addition to having to work and to have painful child-bearing, the curse includes death. Later (in Romans), the Bible says "the wages of sin are death." But, in the evolution system, death is very engine of natural selection. If things did not die, there would be no selection and, without selection, there would be no evolution. So, the Long Day theory, which suggests that things evolved before the Fall during the six days of creation, would be impossible. I think there is room for argument, even within wholly Christian boundaries. But, it is also a good example of how demanding someone accept evolution is an attack on the very core of their religion.)

 

He's asking for affirmation of a scientific answer, not affirmation of any particular answer. Of course creationists don't have a scientific answer for the origin of man which is where the problem starts with mingling blind faith into a science course.

 

you're talking about two different kinds of death...mortal death and eternal death. at least that's how this Christian sees it. When Jesus says, "the wages of sin are death," I think he has an eternal focus.

 

I would argue that some Creationists fit their beliefs in a box so they can ignore science. To my way of thinking, this also puts God in a box and in so doing, limits His powers.

 

Timing, to split hairs, we're not talking about a course here, we're talking about a recommendation letter. So, it isn't even a mixture of "blind faith" (whatever that is) with science (which, I infer has none of this "blind faith" mixed into its own mythos?). But, besides that, what is a student to do when science tries to reach beyond its scope? There is no scientific creationist explanation of creation because it is divine. That would be like having a scientific answer to the meaning of life, or why The Grapes of Wrath is a fantastic book. It is absurdly reductionist to expect science to be able to provide a complete answer to all of life's questions, in every field. Some people are satisfied to limit themselves to it; but many others find it wanting. So why, in an extra-curricular context, should a prof demand that a student confine himself within the boundaries of science when dealing with a question of such enormous importance?

Max, point well-taken, which is why I mentioned there was room for argument, even within Christianity. I don't think the Pope, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Nicene Creed, or any other authority specifies this theory as true. I mentioned it only as an example of how a demand like this prof's really cuts to the core of some religious beliefs: that to forsake a literal creation theory means for some also forsaking Original Sin, which renders Christ's crucifixion meaningless. You can see why some would be very upset at that suggestion.

Rimrocker, you may well be correct in that regard. But, shouldn't it be their right to do so?

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anyone address my bottom-line argument. If writing recommendation letters is
not a job requirement, why is this even an issue? Again, will he have to take all students to have a cup of coffee, or just his favorites? Ain't fair, but it ain't in his university duties.

As for my other arguments, the parenthetical comment that he may be catholic was not central. Hoped that was obvious. I disagree with many of the points concerning medicine and physics, but I want to go back to taking absolutely no thread seriously.

For me, this professor is a complete idiot for putting these "requirements" in writing. He is just another bitter, old prof (and I know many of these... am looking forward to becoming one...) who is sick of writing recommendation letters but most of all is sick of Lubbock! Still don't think it's lawsuit-worthy at all.

 

Well, I'm not sure about Adam, but Eve was a single celled organism.

 

tell me why you think my interpretation is in contrast to the Nicene Creed. maybe i'm misunderstanding you.

 

I'd like to bring back some people's arguments from the thread about the Boy Scout who was kicked out because he didn't believe in God and wouldn't recite the oath.

As B-Bob pointed out, writing a letter of recommendation isn't required of him, so how can this be a legal issue?

 

I agree with you; however, if the professor has a criterion for whether he will write a recommendation letter or not that includes something that violates the law in some way, then I can see how it could be actionable.

Once he set forth a policy for writing recommendation letters, that policy needs to fit within the law. Whether it does or not is the question.

I can see how some would see this as being akin to having a policy that he wouldn't write letters of recommendation for women or Hindus or African-Americans. Just because he could justify it to himself, it wouldn't necessarily make it a legal policy.

This professor set forth three policies. One, you had to have an A in one of his classes. No potential legal problem there. Two, you had to make an effort to have him know who you were (though he would apparently write more generic letters for those who made an A but who he didn't know well), and 3. You have to be willing to tell him that you think that the species originated in the accepted scientific way.

Again, I think once you publish a policy, it needs to be a non-discriminatory policy (in a legal sense). He set forth three conditions to getting a letter of recommendation, one of which could be seen as saying, "Deny your religious beliefs", especially since he's not asking the person simply to know what he's taught them. He wants them to believe it.... or at least pretend to do so long enough to get the recommendation (which is what I would've done if I were this kid).

If I ever become a college professor, I will require that students believe that the San Antonio Spurs are the greatest NBA team in the history of the world in order to get a letter of recommendation from me.

The irony is that he makes a big bit on his website about what it takes to be a good doctor even though he's never been one. How does he know what it takes to be a good doctor? I don't think I'd ask him for a letter of recommendation anyway because he seems a little loopy to me (plus, his letters seem relatively easy to get, making them less valuable).

 

No, no, no! The physics analogy is not valid because... Well, I forget why. ... Actually, that sounds kind of like a good analogy to me.

Oh, wait, I remember. Doctors don't need to believe in evolution! So maybe we could say that cosmologists don't need to accept quantum theory or any tenants of solid state physics, because they normally won't use those... Unless of course the cosmologist wants to build a detector to do a great new experiment and she needs to use solid state components. Whoops.

 

A few things:

1. I thought I had read that the whole human genome project had erased all doubt in the scientific community in regards to the validity of evolution - that the proof was ingrained into our very DNA, etc. Now, granted, I am no expert and only have peripheral knowledge of reading such a thing (I start to get a nosebleed once I venture into peripheral fields in the humanities...much less in tha - gasp - sciences).

2. B-Bob is correct, this is a competely voluntary action upon which a professor can place any restriction and bias he/she so desires. At least the guy is honest - some will not be so honest and instead write subtle - wink wink - "this student is an idiot despite the fact that I am saying nice things about him/her" letters.

3. JV - here you go - I disagree with you (your week in the sun has ended). I do not see a parrallell with racial discrimination because race would have nothing to do with the specific field. I do not see a problem with a biology professor asking/expecting a biology student who wishes to study biology on the graduate level to explain the very origins of biology in a "scientific manner" (that sentence made me tired). At the least, it gets them to understand what will be expected in the future in a harsher academic environment.

If an art history undergrad wrote a senior thesis about God being the ultimate artist (since God creates everything) such a thesis, while religiously plausible and acceptable, would be torn apart, as professors would feel it lived outside of the realm of art history. Sorry, that is the only analogy I can come up with to fit into my neat little bubble.

4. B-Bob - you are a youth-corrupting academic? College level?

 

I didn't realize there were multiple accepted scientific explainations for the origin of the species. And I suspect those who answered exam questions with "God made it that way" would not be in line for a letter of recommendation anyway since they would likely not have A grades in the class. And he doesn't just say he wants the person to articulate it. He wants them to tell them how they think it happened, which implies he wants them to believe it.

But it doesn't matter how he justifies it if it is discriminatory. If I write a long solidly-reasoned justification for not writing recommendation letters for students from India, it wouldn't matter how well I could justify it on my webpage. It's still a discriminatory policy that could run afoul of that whole section of law that talks about race, creed, religion, national origin, etc.

He is more than welcome to make whatever policy he likes in terms of recomendation letters as long as those policies do not violate anti-discrimination laws. In this case, since he is only writing letters for people who believe a certain way, he may well be violating anti-discrimination laws. If all he said was that he wanted students to come in and articulate an accepted scientific answer to the origin of the species, there wouldn't be a problem. That's requiring them to show them they learned something. His way is saying they need to believe a certain way in order for him to recommend them.

And that's the question that will be answered by the lawsuit, whether his policy does, in fact violate said laws.

Normally, I would agree that the professor doesn't have to write a letter if he doesn't want to, but once he set forth a policy that was potentially discriminatory, he has to answer for it. He really can't place whatever restriction he wants on it. If he says, "Sorry. I just don't write recommendation letters for black students. Or for women. Or for Catholics", the lawsuits would flow just as fast (if not faster).

And I'm sure there are, or have been, professors who have refused to write letters for women or black students or whatever, but they've been smart enough not to make it a written policy. It's the fact that this professor has a written, official policy that's the trouble and what will likely make the difference.

 

It doesn't say that he wants them to be able to explain it. It says that he asks them how they think it happened and he wants them to truthfully affirm a scientific way. If they truly believe in creationism, he will not write them a recommendation even if they can beautifully articulate any scientific principle of biology and the origin of the species there is.

It truly is one thing to ask students to explain to him the scientific principles (and they likely would not be A students, and therefore not up for a recommendation anyway, if they could not), it's quite another to require them to believe it.

 

It would be if he required them to believe it rather than just articulate it.

That's the line that's been crossed. The one between requiring the student to have knowledge and be able to express that knowledge and requiring the student to believe a certain way.

I've had classes where the professor completely butchered, in my opinion, discussions of the theories behind certain economic policies or historical events. But I answered back on the tests the way that professor taught it, even if I thought he was wrong (these being areas where even educated people and even experts disagree). Had those professors required me to believe the way they did about those areas, I wouldn't have honestly been able to do that.

I could get an A in the classes, and I could tell them what they taught me, but I wouldn't have been able to stand there and honestly say that I believe their answer to be the correct one. Granted, I would've just lied to get whatever it was I was trying to get from the professor. But that's me.

Of course, in my example, it wouldn't be discrimination because the issues are ones of opinion rather than ones that touch on areas protected by law. But the principle is the same. It's one thing to ask someone to tell you what they've learned. It's quite another to require them to believe a certain way.

 

Because, unlike the Boy Scouts, the professor works for the state and this is an issue of adopting a belief that runs counter to one's religion.

Back to your post responding to me eariler. You couldn't be more wrong. The notion that one believing in creationism cannot successfully and competently learn about the body systems and diagnose and cure disease is laughable.

 

I hope and pray (what irony!) that the professor has tenure. What possible difference does it make that it's a state university? The man enjoys academic freedom. So do his students. The students have the freedom to drop the class if they don't care for the prof. The professor has the freedom to write a letter of recomendation whenever and however he wants. The student went to TWO classes of intro biology and decides to file a lawsuit?? And some of you think this is reasonable? Good god, when I think of the professors I had, in subjects I loved, who thought a lecture was reading from a text... why didn't the fool just drop the class? And to think the poor "dork" thought that using the Net would make his job easier. What a laugh!

 

This is no different than a state institution like the courts hanging a copy of the Ten Commandments. I could argue that an individual was only in there twice.

As to the difference it makes that it is a state university...there is this little concept called separation of church and state. Had the professor required that his students adopt a belief in Jesus Christ as the savior, would it still be ok in your book? Maybe so...but many other people would be calling for his head.

Separation of church and state works both ways. You can't just have it work one way.