Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)
The Lubbock Avalanche Journal ^ | 10/6/02 | Sebastian Kitchen

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>

On the Net

• 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/

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: academia; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 1,261-1,265 next last
To: AndrewC
Thank you so much for the table! Hugs!
601 posted on 10/09/2002 7:43:20 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
What are you talking about?
602 posted on 10/09/2002 7:45:07 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
You still fail logic.

Either support that statement or you can say "Good-bye" to the Jelly of the Month Club subscription I was going to buy you!

603 posted on 10/09/2002 7:45:07 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
An atheist cannot heal the sick.

You have documentation that the attentions of an atheist doctor have never been successful? Or are you using your own definition of atheist that seems to be totally different than any normally used definition wherein people (like Junior) who actually express belief in a deity are still branded as 'atheist' for reasons that only you seem to fully understand?
604 posted on 10/09/2002 7:45:30 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

It's not about me. It's about your data.

605 posted on 10/09/2002 7:46:40 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Exactly. Nitpick science!

So what do you believe? How do your posts support your beliefs? How is your behavior not hypocritical?
606 posted on 10/09/2002 7:46:54 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
What are you talking about?

What? Your foolish situation from post#590.

You posted it 10 minutes ago, have you forgotten it already? Are you playing with a full deck?

607 posted on 10/09/2002 7:47:20 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):
attacking the person instead of attacking his argument.

608 posted on 10/09/2002 7:47:58 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 603 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I have previously pointed out the exact lines you quoted

You mean....[gasp!]...he's SEEN THAT BEFORE!?! And persisted as usual?

Whew... I'm gonna need a minute to assimilate that one...

609 posted on 10/09/2002 7:49:05 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
"Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. "

The reason why the above is misinterpreted is because of the big word 'epiphenomenon' which has a very specific philosophical meaning:

epiphenomeon: a secondary phenomenon accompanying another and caused by it.

Now let's insert the meaning of the word for the word itself and see how it reads:

"Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere [secondary phenomenon accompanying it and caused by] this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. "

610 posted on 10/09/2002 7:50:20 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
So what do you believe?

I believe you can't answer the questions I pose and are attempting to make me the subject. You've failed.

I remember worms also. Do you still hold that they are evidence of rapid speciation?

611 posted on 10/09/2002 7:50:25 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
What is this waving of pictures like they were crucifixes in front of vampires? You have no story to supplant evolution so you adopt a cheap knockoff which is supported by the same evidence if not Occam's Razor.

Does the AndrewC version of evolution not demand a fossil history of transitionals leading to modern whales? Do we not now have exactly that?

How does crowing over remaining gaps and puzzles--"Where exactly does Mesonychus fit in now?--accord with AndrewC's professed beliefs about what is true, what really happened back then?

612 posted on 10/09/2002 7:50:41 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I believe you can't answer the questions I pose and are attempting to make me the subject. You've failed.

I warned you before. Put your crap in my reply cue and you will be asked to explain yourself. So explain yourself!

613 posted on 10/09/2002 7:51:46 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; gore3000
...attacking the person instead of attacking his argument.

Of course, if you posted an argument, you would have to defend it (and probably be outta here in about 5 mintues). Posts of pictures of fossils (AC) or living creatures (g3k) are literally pointless. They demonstrate NOTHING to anyone here without some explanation or discussion.

So, why waste the time and bandwidth?

614 posted on 10/09/2002 7:52:27 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I remember worms also. Do you still hold that they are evidence of rapid speciation?

Look it up. I'm sure you have my last posts on the subject. Or try another diversion.

615 posted on 10/09/2002 7:52:32 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Or try another diversion.

That is hilarious. You're trying to make me the diversion to your lack of integrity.

616 posted on 10/09/2002 7:53:40 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Well, with gore3000's pictures, the explanation is that they are examples of irreducable complexity. For example, the bat's echolocation is supposed to be something that is irreducably complex -- something that could not have evolved gradually.

That there are alraeady theories to explain the development of echolocation is irrelevant. Gore3000 has made a habit of ignoring things that undermine his agenda. This includes ignoring segments of quotes so that he can pretend that someone's words meant something other than what they actually said.
617 posted on 10/09/2002 7:55:03 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
You posted yet another picture of Mesonychus, which the ignorant are invited to understand as some kind of anti-E crucifix. Answer 612 and quit bitching.
618 posted on 10/09/2002 7:56:59 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
I was having trouble figuring out the relevance of your post to my post. There's people on the thread saying someone who doesn't believe in evolution is not qualified to pursue the study of medicine because they lack a "scientific mindset", in the same way that someone who doesn't believe 2+2=4 isn't qualified to study math. Since the people above don't believe evolution, they must not be qualified to study science.

I guess your interpretation of it is, they're only not qualified to study the life sciences, which misses the point it seems to me. If evolution is like 2+2=4, it's difficult to see why their specialty matters. However, I could post a list consisting entirely of people in the life sciences area, such as Maciej Giertych who I mentioned.

619 posted on 10/09/2002 7:57:26 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): attacking the person instead of attacking his argument.

Yep. That's what I said. Here's what you said:

Nowhere in your definition do I see any mention of "attention" or centers thereof. I do, however, find this enlightening:

hypocrisy:

Say it ain't so!

620 posted on 10/09/2002 7:57:34 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 1,261-1,265 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson