[TightSqueeze]

"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."

My guess is if asked, these special students wouldn't be so sure that the sun, stars and planets didn't revolve around the earth too!

[Iwentsouth]

Now people think they are entitled to recommendation letters.

The dumbing down of America continues.

[Physicist]

"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."

The professor isn't telling them to change their personal beliefs. They can believe what they want. What's happening here is that the court is being asked to change the professor's personal belief that these students will not make good scientists. Nobody is owed a recommendation. The only obligation the professor is under is to make his true opinion honestly known to the recipient of the letter.

[Physicist]

I should add that if a physics student asked me for a letter of recommendation, and it was known to me that the student believed the universe to be 6000 years old, I could not in good conscience give that student a good recommendation...unless, of course, the student could convince me of that also. (But in that case, I would urge the student to publish and collect his Nobel Prize.)

For a student to believe that the universe is 6000 years is not simply a matter of personal belief; it requires that he close his mind to extremely well-established facts. This mind-closing is incompatible with a career in science, and I would be compelled to say so.

I'm certain that the professor saw things the same way with respect to evolution.

[steve-b]

A rational judge would order these lawyers to write "My Client Does Not Have A RIGHT To A Recommendation Letter" one thousand times.

[Crusher138]

I think this whole silly business boils down to did the Professor give recommendations based on an individual's religion?

Since religious belief is constitutionally protected, this becomes a rather sticky point.

One could argue, rather spuriously, that a Professor in a medical school that publicly stated that he would not give a homosexual a recommendation because the lifestyle is not healthy nor conducive to a career in healing, would be similarly at risk for a lawsuit. While not constitutionally protected, many would feel that the Professor SHOULD be sued, that such criteria, while having some legitimate value, blatantly discriminates.

Let's say the original Professor in question discovers that his student attends a nearby fundamentalist Christian church. Does he disqualify him on that knowledge? What about other religions that believe in Creation - Jews, Muslims, and Hindus all have the universe being created by a Devine Being. If you practice any of those religions, are you automatically disqualified to be a physicist in this Professor's view.

Another point to consider is how important is this recommendation to their future job prospects?

I guess my point is if the "left" is going to bring silly discrimination lawsuits for barely tenable reasons, why should we be surprised if the "right" begins to bring their own?

[ODDITHER]

Let's see, if I understand the definition of a theory, it means an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, which has been confirmed by verifiable fact (and the absence of incompatible fact).

The difference between fact and theory is that a theory has not be undeniable proven or refuted by fact.

Creation and Evolution should have equal standing within the scientific community. The outrage, should be that a professor used belief in a theory, to rate whether a student should be given a letter of recommendation. The whole reason the scientific community keeps advancing, is that students are trying to prove or disprove theories.

[Kryptonite]

The level of misunderstanding of the legal issues in this matter, as demonstrated by the comments on this thread, is profoundly dismaying.

All those who think this professor has a legal right to discriminate based on religious beliefs probably also think he has the right to discriminate based on race. Nobody can honestly believe that this guy could legally issue letters of recommendation only to white people. He couldn't. And he won't get away with this stunt either.

[Nebullis]

Mr. Spradling said he sat in on two sessions of Dr. Dini's introductory biology class...

He decided ahead of time that nothing Dini could teach him would change his mind. He's a typical close-minded creationist.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There is nothing in the article that says the student even asked for a letter of recommendation.

[Nebullis]

Next up: Peer review. Creationists claim they are being discriminated against for religious reasons when their papers showing evidence of a world-wide flood are rejected by mainstream journals. Should reviewers be allowed to reject submissions based on bad science?

[Havoc]

"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,"

Sorry, this is crap. Requiring belief in an unproven theory as a basis for a recommendation is intended to do what? One need not believe in a evolution to practice good science. This is akin to saying one needs to believe in ESP in order to get a recommendation as a psychologist. So who is he trying to keep out of the field? This won't stand up to scrutiny of the courts.

[tobiasjodter]

The central question that is not being discussed is the question posed by the professor:

"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?"

I think we need a better definition of "properly practice" since I personally know people in the science and education fields that are at least successfully practicing while not accepting this most important theory.

[realpatriot71]

I know I'm getting into this discussion a bit late, but would say two things:

(1)A recommendation is not something that anyone is required to give anyone else. For instance I would never right a recommendation for someone that I didn't think would be good at what he/she wanted me to recommened them for. At least this professor is honest and upfront about the fact that if one wants a recommendation, one had better take a stance he supports

(2)A physician need not believe in evolution as a source of origins to be a good physician. In fact evolution never comes up, except as an occasional asside in a textbook.

[RightOnline]

""He's a devout Catholic," said Greg Rogers, 36, a pre-med student from Lubbock. "He's mentioned it in discussion groups.""

Bulls**t. If you profess to be a believer, then you either believe.........or you don't. This guy wants it both ways, like too many other self-proclaimed "Christians" these days.

[PhilipFreneau]

I am Christian -- have been all my life. But I have always had problems understanding Genesis the way it is commonly preached.

For example, it is written that God created the "Day" and the "Night" on the first "day". But he did not create the "greater and lesser" lights (the Sun and the Moon) to give light upon the earth until the fourth "day", the same day he created the stars. Therefore, the first three "days" had no 24 hour clock as we know it (the Sun). Those "days" could have been any length of time - even millions or billions of years.

Therefore, it is easy to assume that a "day" with the Lord is not the same as a "day" with man. It is just as easy to assume that when, on the fifth "day", God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven . . . etc., that God could have taken millions of years for that event, also.

That said, assume that on the sixth "day", when he said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind" . . . etc. , that event could have also taken millions of years.

Later on the sixth "day", God created Adam, the Son of God, in his likeness, along with his wife, Eve. Adam is referred to as the "Son of God" in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke, which ends with this passage: ". . . Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." -- Luke 3:38

Now, that event (the creation of Adam) could have been instantaneous; and we all know that Adam had a son named Cain. Cain married a woman from the east of Eden (the land of Nod), and I assume she was not his sister. So it is possible there were other "men" and "women" on the earth at that time.

My conclusion? The other "men" (those from whom Cain's wife was born) evolved, either from the "waters" as many scientists believe (with the evolution beginning on the fifth day), or from the earth (on the sixth day). But God created Adam, the Son of God, directly, and in his own likeness. And from Adam came both Israel, and Jesus, our Lord and Savior. That is, there are two distinct sources of "mankind": the descendents of Adam and Eve who were created directly by God, and the descendents of man who evolved. This is easier to believe if you read this verse: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." -- Genesis 6:1-2

And then there is this: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen --1 Timothy 6:20-21

Finally, I bolded the above words "open firmament of heaven" for another purpose. I believe Heaven to be the earth's lower atmosphere -- the air we breath -- the air where the "fowls" fly (see Genesis 1:20) -- that which separates the waters above the heaven (the clouds) from the waters below the heaven (the lakes, rivers, and seas) (see Genesis 1:7).

And, of course, with God, all things are possible.

[CCWoody]

Here, xzins, is the investigation to which I alluded.

[Voice in your head]

"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."

This is from the professor's Web site:

Criterion 1

You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me.

Criterion 2

I should know you fairly well.

[Terriergal]

A biology professor who insists that his students accept the tenets of human evolution has found himself the subject of Justice Department scrutiny.

It's about time. Evolution is philosophy, not science.

[Terriergal]

"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?"

The biggest heap of manure in the article. Get everyone to believe that and then redefining "scientific" is easy!