Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)

Micah Spradling was OK with learning about evolution in college, but his family drew the line when his belief in the theory became a prerequisite for continuing his education.

Tim Spradling said his son left Texas Tech this semester and enrolled in Lubbock Christian University after en countering the policy of one associate professor in biological sciences.

Professor Michael Dini's Web site states that a student must "truthfully and forthrightly" believe in human evolution to receive a letter of recommendation from him.

"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?" Dini's site reads.

Dini says on the site that it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the "evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions."

He declined to speak with The Avalanche-Journal. His response to an e-mail from The A-J said: "This semester, I have 500 students to contend with, and my schedule in no way permits me to participate in such a debate."

A Tech spokeswoman said Chancellor David Smith and other Tech officials also did not want to comment on the story.

At least two Lubbock doctors and a medical ethicist said they have a problem with the criterion, and the ethicist said Dini "could be a real ingrate."

Tim Spradling, who owns The Brace Place, said his son wanted to follow in his footsteps and needed a letter from a biology professor to apply for a program at Southwestern University's medical school.

Spradling is not the only medical professional in Lub bock shocked by Dini's policy. Doctors Patrick Edwards and Gaylon Seay said they learned evolution in college but were never forced to believe it.

"I learned what they taught," Edwards said. "I had to. I wanted to make good grades, but it didn't change my basic beliefs."

Seay said his primary problem is Dini "trying to force someone to pledge allegiance to his way of thinking."

Seay, a Tech graduate who has practiced medicine since 1977, said a large amount of literature exists against the theory.

"He is asking people to compromise their religious be liefs," Seay said. "It is a shame for a professor to use that as a criteria."

Dini's site also states: "So much physical evidence supports" evolution that it can be referred to as fact even if all the details are not 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," Dini states on the Web site.

Dini is in a position of authority and "can injure someone's career," and the criteria is the "most prejudice thing I have ever read," Seay said.

Both doctors said their beliefs in creationism have never negatively affected their practices, and Seay said he is a more compassionate doctor because of his beliefs.

"I do not believe evolution has anything to do with the ability to make clinical decisions — pro or con," Seay said.

"A student may learn about a subject, but that does not mean that everything must be accepted as fact, just because the professor or an incomplete body of evidence says so," Edwards said.

The letter of recommendation should not be contingent on Dini's beliefs, Edwards said.

"That would be like Texas Tech telling him he had to be a Christian to teach biology," Edwards said.

Harold Vanderpool, professor in history and philosophy of medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said he has a problem with Dini's policy.

"I think this professor could be a real ingrate," Vanderpool said. "I have a problem with a colleague who has enjoyed all the academic freedoms we have, which are extensive, and yet denies that to our students."

Vanderpool, who has served on, advised or chaired committees for the National Institute of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, said the situation would be like a government professor requiring a student to be "sufficiently patriotic" to receive a letter.

"It seems to me that this professor is walking a pretty thin line between the protection of his right to do what he wants to do, his own academic freedom, and a level of discrimination toward a student," he said.

"It is reaching into an area of discrimination. That could be a legal problem. If not, it is a moral problem," Vanderpool said.

Instead of a recommendation resting on character and academic performance, "you've got this ideological litmus test you are using," he said. "To me, that is problematic, if not outright wrong."

William F. May, a medical ethicist who was appointed to President Bush's Council on Bioethics, said he cannot remember establishing a criterion on the question of belief with a student on exams or with letters of recommendation.

"I taught at five institutions and have always felt you should grade papers and offer judgments on the quality of arguments rather than a position on which they arrived."

Professors "enjoy the protection of academic freedom" and Dini "seems to be profoundly ungrateful" for the freedom, Vanderpool said.

He said a teacher cannot be forced to write a letter of recommendation for a student, which he believes is good because the letters are personal and have "to do with the professor's assessment of students' work habits, character, grades, persistence and so on."

A policy such as Dini's needs to be in the written materials and should be stated in front of the class so the student is not surprised by the policy and can drop the class, Vanderpool said.

Dini's site states that an individual who denies the evidence commits malpractice in the method of science because "good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs."

People throw out information be cause "it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs," Dini's site reads. A physician who ignores data cannot remain a physician for long, it states.

Dini's site lists him as an exceptional faculty member at Texas Tech in 1995 and says he was named "Teacher of the Year" in 1998-99 by the Honors College at Texas Tech.

Edwards said he does not see any evidence on Dini's vita that he attended medical school or treated patients.

"Dr. Dini is a nonmedical person trying to impose his ideas on medicine," Edwards said. "There is little in common between teaching biology classes and treating sick people. ... How dare someone who has never treated a sick person purport to impose his feelings about evolution on someone who aspires to treat such people?"

On his Web site, Dini questions how someone who does not believe in the theory of evolution can ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist.

May, who taught at multiple prestigious universities, including Yale, during his 50 years in academia, said he did not want to judge Dini and qualified his statements because he did not know all of the specifics.

He said the doctors may be viewing Dini's policy as a roadblock, but the professor may be warning them in advance of his policy so students are not dismayed later.

"I have never seen it done and am surprised to hear it, but he may find creationist aggressive in the class and does not want to have to cope with that," May said. "He is at least giving people the courtesy of warning them in advance."

The policy seems unusual, May said, but Dini should not be "gang-tackled and punished for his policy."

The criterion may have been viewed as a roadblock for Micah Spradling at Tech, but it opened a door for him at LCU.

Classes at LCU were full, Tim Spradling said, but school officials made room for his son after he showed them Dini's policy.

Just because a physician does not believe in evolution as a mechanism of origins does not mean he/she cannot deal with the human being of today, nor does it mean he/she cannot think. Talk about a non-sequitur . . .

I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point. In my opinion, when the theory of evolution is correctly presented (which seems to happen only rarely in most schools), with the evidence and the reasoning, and it's contrasted with the "theory" of Genesis, there simply is no contest -- scientifically speaking.

The physician who rejects evolution theory, in the face of the mountains of evidence which support it, isn't thinking very clearly -- certainly he's not thinking like a scientist. I'm sure he could stitch up a wound, or set a broken bone (fairly straightforward stuff that could also be done by an Army medic); but I wouldn't respect his diagnosis in a complicated case, nor would I want him to operate on me. I know opinions vary about this. That's mine.

On the other hand, the nurse who gives an injection or an enema is functioning as a technician only, and I wouldn't mind a creationist nurse. Might be kinda fun ...

Disagree with you here. I'm in the "think of it" and I can reassure you evidence based medicine is strong and well where I go to school. We spend a year in anatomy - 1/2 the year is gross and 1/2 the year is neuro. If you don't think this is enough, join a medical school anatomy class, walk a mile, then tell me what you think . . .

According to the physician sitting 30 ft from me, many med schools no longer require a year of anatomy, and he feels this is a travesty. During his med school days, an entire semester of the year-long anatomy class was devoted to the dissection of single cadaver.

Even so, it would be common sense to find out what the people at the party ate and treat accordingly. There is nothing special or amazing with the story.

.... except that at the time, no one knew what it was that they ate that was causing the symptoms. It was only after the fact that they were able to identify the "pokeweed" as the source of the problem. And in any case, the "treatment" for pokeweed poisoning was not known at that time, so it's a bit difficult to "treat accordingly" even if he had known that pokeweed was causing the problem, which he didn't.

...except that at the time, no one knew what it was that they ate that was causing the symptoms.

I had to go back to read your story. Is it a joke? Of course nobody knew what was causing the symptoms. That's why they called the physician. And there was nothing more than cookbook doctoring going on there. Symptoms --> differential--> further questioning to rule out all but one item on the differential list --> diagnosis. It's all in the cookbook.

Just because a physician does not believe in evolution as a mechanism of origins does not mean he/she cannot deal with the human being of today, nor does it mean he/she cannot think.

There's some question about a student who has had instruction in evolution as an undergrad. Many medical students don't and have the cartoon version from high school. But someone who is well-versed and rejects it may have some "issues". Medical school admission committees try to weed out students with "issues". (Make them take the MMPI, etc.) Creationism isn't a red flag per se. There are many notable physicians in university positions who are creationists. They wouldn't get there without being able to think.

For medical studies, the creationism thing is a red herring. Think of it this way, they escape a career in the biological sciences, perhaps even because of their creationist beliefs and move into a professional application of research already done.

Those on the forum who think this is a problem don't seem to have much of a clue about medicine.

I had to go back to read your story. Is it a joke?

No....

Of course nobody knew what was causing the symptoms. That's why they called the physician. And there was nothing more than cookbook doctoring going on there.

You're not paying attention....

Symptoms --> differential--> further questioning to rule out all but one item on the differential list --> diagnosis. It's all in the cookbook.

There was no way to identify which plant they ate that was causing the poisoning; ALL the plants on the "menu" were listed as edible...... he had to treat them without knowing the specific cause of the food poisoning.

It was only after the danger had passed that he was able, with the help of the cook, to determine that they had consumed portions of a plant that were toxic, in addition to portions of the SAME plant that were non-toxic. At the time the patients presented, the cook was convinced everything they consumed was edible and safe. Research the next day revealed the mistake.

So? He treated based on symptoms and minimal history. It's done ALL THE TIME.

Off the top of my head, here are four Christian physicians who contributed greatly the advancement of medicine while at the same time not believing in evolution as a means to origins.

Roger Barnes - urologist who all but defined endoscopic urology surgery. If you've ever had endoscopic prostate surgery, this is the guy who developed the procedure

Leonard Bailey - instrumental in advancing cardiothoracic surgery and transplantation (think Baby Fae and Baboon heart)

Ben Carson - accomplished neurosurgeon; first to successfully separate Siamese twins joined at head

Howard Gimbell - opthamologist; developed the technique of phacoemulsification and sutureless cataract surgery

Diagnosis and treatement are not based in any evolutionary theory. Medicine deals with the treatment of the species today. I take offense at the thought I and many others who don't believe in evolution as a means to origins are somehow not "good" doctors. Maybe you should personally get ahold of all the physicians on the short list and let them know that they are bad doc's?

Your position is one of dogmatic religous bitgotry and intolerance, but if that's the way you want to be, to each his own . . . For me I'll get the best medical care possible wether the treating physician believe in evolution as to origins or not.

Well that's rather unfortunate. I've spent much quality time with my body and will be a better physician for it. We spend half the year on gross dissection and the other half of the year on neuroanatomy. Before making blanket statements, please remember not all medical schools are the same and not all physicians are either.

So? He treated based on symptoms and minimal history. It's done ALL THE TIME.

I don't recall making any statement about the frequency with which physicians do this....

The point of the post was in response to what appeared to be "realpatriot71's" implication that physicians were nothing more than medical technicians, a position which he has clearly stated subsequently was NOT his intent.

The point is that the physician who treated the patients felt that it was his basic fundamental scientific-based training that made it possible to determine the appropriate treatment with such limited information. In his opinion, modern physicians tend to be much more "cook-book" based in their approach to diagnosis and treatment.

Those on the forum who think this is a problem don't seem to have much of a clue about medicine.

Thank you.

I personally do not completely reject evolution. However, my religious beliefs hold that we were specially created, so I do reject evolution as a means to origins. This does not make me a poor scientist nor does it make me a poor thinker. I will be a good physician.

Off the top of my head, here are four Christian physicians who contributed greatly the advancement of medicine while at the same time not believing in evolution as a means to origins.
...
Your position is one of dogmatic religous bitgotry and intolerance, but if that's the way you want to be, to each his own . . .

As I said, opinions vary. My point wasn't that there can't be a good physician who is also a creationist. I rather carefully spoke of those who, having been properly presented with the evidence and reasoning for the theory of evolution, then reject it in favor of Genesis. Those I regard as thinking poorly -- scientifically speaking. Perhaps the examples you gave were never properly exposed to evolution, and thus they don't fit into what I had said. I don't know their intellectual history.

From what I've read, a modern physician, true to "cook-book" form would treat the situation the same way. There's a certain type of fact-finding which goes on, and extensive cross-referencing of long lists in memory or books. With experience this becomes second nature.

Disclosure: I get this information by osmosis. There are 5 MD's in my family, thankfully, 3 of them have PhD's for their scientific inclininations.

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.