Posted on 10/06/2002 8:16:21 AM PDT by hispanarepublicana
Professor rigid on evolution </MCC HEAD>
By SEBASTIAN KITCHEN </MCC BYLINE1>
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL </MCC BYLINE2>
• Criteria for letters of recommendation: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/ letters.htm
• Michael Dini's Web page:
http://www2.tltc.ttu. edu/dini/
On the Net
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.
Edwards said Dini admits in the statement that the details are not all known.
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.
"It is appalling," he 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.
Academic freedom should be extended to students, Edwards 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.
"Skepticism is also a very basic part of scientific study," he 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.
skitchen@lubbockonline.com 766-8753
Simple, the same guy that made giraffes made people using the same system, carbon based organic-chemistry controlled by dna. I point that giraffes have the same number of vertebra in their necks as you, yet the DNA of a green tree frog is numerically closer that that of a chimpanzee to human. By judging from the outside evolutionists thought the warm blooded chimpanzee is closer to humans genetically than the cold blooded frog. Since their entire belief structure is being shaken by modern science they are left with faith in the face of reality, and their arguments are getting more shrill than real, unlike creation science which is being augmented by science more in these modern times.
It just goes to show you science should be based on observation and study rather than the evolutionary religion of Darwin or faith.
No comprehende?
No it does not. I'd call you a liar, but I doubt that you actually are able to understand the insane babble that you post here.
95 posted on 10/6/02 1:31 PM Pacific by Dimensio
Evolution teaches everything 'hatched' out of a mudball!
Interesting flushing of eductaional contingencies, at best.
OBVIOUSLY, based on your logic, we ought to pardon Walker Lindh et al and give them scholarships or some such--perhaps throwing in their own national talk shows--OH, I KNOW--!!!WITH!!! BILLDO AND SHRILLERY--who obviously in this scheme of things should be immediately crowned co-kings for life!!!
I really do not understand what makes this so difficult for such a bright person. Is it some lurking hard heartedness? Puzzling.
That would be all of the creos. If you gave a quiz: "Evolution is random. True or false?" how many creos would pass it? Not many. Declaiming against "randomness" is built into many of the stock speeches, never mind that you can't converge toward fitness randomly. (The mutations are random, natural selection culls non-randomly.) The investment in the canned speeches sitting on the shelf, guarantees that "Evolution is random" cannot be unlearned. It would be too inconvenient.
Not learning or remembering too much is part and parcel of the game. But they have Morton's Demon to help them with the filtering.
Hmm. Does that mean Nov 2-3 or Nov 9-10 is the next time we do this? BTW, thanks for your service.
For an even better overall summary, I suggest the next time you're in a library you read an article in Scientific American's May 2002 issue, The Mammals that Conquered the Sea. Unfortunately, that one's not on their web site. It gives you a somewhat less skewed version than you get from asking the slimy lawyer for one side.
Maybe I shouldn't exactly use that characterization. Everyone assumes Andrew doesn't believe in evolution. In the incident of the Abuse Button, he was trying to use that instrument to stop me from outing him before God's Traveler, who satteth at the right hand of God but gotteth banned anyway. "Out" him, how? Andrew's theistic evolution is only barely microscopically removed from Junior's. In Andrew's version, God or God's design lurk somewhere down in the cell machinery producing non-random mutations. Above that level, it all looks the same. Common descent, natural selection, evolution.
You wouldn't know that, would you? It's a big secret. He's like a closet homosexual who runs about yelling "Faggot! Queer!" Thus it is necessary to keep the discussion away from what he actually believes, at least until he's taking too much flack for dodging.
But I digress. The telling point was the finding of the post-cranial Pakicetus bones--paleontological evidence. And Mesonychus with its cetacean-looking skull is still under consideration. One thing that would decide the question one way or the other are the ankle bones of an older Mesonychid or a likely near-ancestor of Mesonychids--more paleontological evidence.
The issue is really quite simple: Should someone be recommended for advanced scientific studies when he willfully sweeps aside a rational explanation of the evidence (perhaps even sweeping aside the evidence itself) and instead prefers to believe in miracles as providing a better account for the phenomenon in question? To me, anyone is free to believe anything he wants, but a successful career in science requires a rational mindset.
Am I right?
Dan
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.