Posted on 01/30/2003 7:15:04 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-evolution-dispute0130jan30,0,713004.story
Professor's Letter Refusal Causes Probe By LISA FALKENBERG Associated Press Writer
January 30, 2003, 9:50 AM EST
DALLAS -- A biology professor who refuses to write letters of recommendation for his students if they don't believe in evolution is being accused of religious discrimination, and federal officials are investigating, the school said.
The legal complaint was filed against Texas Tech University and professor Michael Dini by a student and the Liberty Legal Institute, a religious freedom group that calls Dini's policy "open religious bigotry."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
And it really floats your boat, I'll also admit shrill is not a color, red is not a philosophical theory, and Amstel light is not a beer. No offense, but who but an idiot would confuse an explanantion with an observation?
Really no different from white students receiving letters of recommendation only, but black students who make the request are refused based on their race.
The issue of recommendation letters being a private one, I fully support his right to discriminate against anyone for any reason - including religion or even race.
A stereotype like that is unworthy of a thinking being.
Perhaps we should look at it from a different perspective: The professor failed to use the mountain of evidence in his favor in a way that persuaded his students. IOW, the professor failed and is now punishing the students.
Now where have I seen that kind of hypocrisy before? Oh yeah-- The Dems, unable to control their spending, blame the taxpayer for being too greedy.
No he's not. How on Earth can you possibly expect to force someone to recommend someone? It is a private matter & he can refuse for any - or no - reason whatsoever.
No offense, but why did you choose that screen name?
On the contrary, the theory of evolution is irrelevant to serious scientific study. Variations within species do NOT prove this nutty theory. The theory of evolution is dependent on the belief that entirely new species are created by natural selectivity over time. That just can't happen, scientifically. Hence, the laughably expansive leap of faith as so-called scientists put their eggs in the evolution basket.
SourceCautions about sources and topics
Never cite a religious science source such as ICR, Answers in Genesis, or anything else like that. It is easy to recognize these groups. They are virulently anti-evolution. This caution also extends to the new ID (Intelligent Design) movement - another anti-evolutionary charade. These people are 95% wrong. As for the other 5%, no answer is known so they make up things that are not supported by experimentation. More than 100 years of rigorous investigations in fields from biology to geology have proven evolution as a fact. The debate is about mechanisms and it is a vigorous one. This debate is the theory part of evolution. You will be penalized for citing anti-evolutionary material. It is not science. If the thesis of your paper is anti-evolutionary (akin to arguing against the germ theory of disease or against the atomic theory of matter) you will receive a failing grade. Scientific journals do not publish papers with creationist and ID themes. I will certainly not accept them.
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.
We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life and all of history.
May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
-President Bush's State of the Union address to the nation on January 28, 2003
For the record. I have studied this issue for years trying to discredit creationism as a way to reject the rest of the Bible. Could not do it.
The species is an artificial category created by humans. Putting any significance on it as a limit on evolution betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of descriptive biology.
Q. for creationists: are Bullock's Orioles and Baltimore Orioles the same species?
In a non-biological course? Now that's very interesting. Whatever could possess someone to interject Creationist beliefs in a non-bio class?
Don't like it? Transfer to Bob Jones U.
If it's just an artificial category, then members of different species should be able to successfully mate and reproduce, thus creating a new species. Oh, wait, that can't happen, scientifically.
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.