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.

Exactly! We are making the same observation, just using different jargon.

You are both correct. FWIW, I write programs or scripts daily (hence the screen name), although it's been ~20 years since I've written something in BASIC.

I agree that the program is meaningless.

Not only is the program poorly structured (as even BASIC can can be written somewhat intelligently), the program is not at all random in its purpose - it most definitely has an agenda. What's sad is some folks may actually buy the agenda and not realize the program in no way mimicks what we see in nature. In a very short time I could write a program that would generate this post, and make it look like the post was randomly generated. Just my $.02 in beating a dead horse.

Is Pezosiren portelli a likely real ancestor of modern sirenians or are you frantically combing the literature to undermine yet another new piece of evidence for what you accepted long ago?

I choose to what I comment. But your link provides this

This reconstruction is a composite, including bones from several individuals. Most elements of the skeleton are represented by actual fossils, except for the following: jugal (= zygomatic), atlas, most of the caudal vertebrae, xiphisternum, fibulae, carpals, tarsals, most metapodials, and most phalanges. The bones painted a lighter color are restored based on their shape in related animals.

"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. "

How could the Catholic Church hierarchy---head/leader accept a belief/theory that is a step down from abortion?

Abortion is mostly physical/soul death!

Evolution is soul/physical death...

abortion of the mind/soul---intellect...

spirit/society too!

Zombie hell/magic...thankfully---all are not deceived!

The skull series.... What do fossils really tell us? Wolfram writes, "If one looks at species today, and at the fossil record of past species, then one of the most striking features is just how much is in common across vast ranges of different organisms. The basic body plans for animals, for example, have been almost the same for hundreds of millions of years, and many organs and developmental pathways are probably even still older."

So you have a skull, you can carbon date it. Then you have another skull, and you can date that one, too; and find it's more recent than the first one. Gee. They look similar -- but slightly different. How do we get from this simple, direct observation, to the conclusion that the Skull One Creature was the predecessor (ancestor) of the Skull Two Creature, say a million years ago? We have the skulls; but we have little real idea of what the respective creatures were actually like. To say that the first was the ancestor of the second would be to make a supposition for which there is no currently available direct evidence. The best we can say under the circumstances would be: Well, it looks like the first might be the ancestor of the second. But hypothetically at least, our supposition may have nothing to rest on more solid than structural similarities that Wolfram says may be quite common "across vast ranges of different organisms." This is a long way from "proof."

We are basing our conclusion that Skull Two Creature "descended" from Skull One Creature, based on a rather arbitrary identification of what these long dead creatures actually were. To me there's a problem here: The sufficiency of our conclusion depends on how we identify what can no longer be identified. In other words, on our subjective perception. Or to put it yet another way: The sufficiency of our conclusion depends on the accuracy and adequacy of our definitions which are no longer subject to direct test.

Just playing "devil's advocate" here ... for the sheer delight of kibbutzing with you guys....

I know you have doubts. We all have doubts. Yet, the Pope said this, and I think he's accepting the theory of biological evolution

PH, believe this if you like; but to do so is to ignore who the Pope is. His greatest responsibility on earth as the Vicar of Christ is to preserve and transmit the deposit of the faith, which is biblically based. For him to argue against special creation would mean he'd be required to excommunicate himself. :^)

This reconstruction is a composite, including bones from several individuals. Most elements of the skeleton are represented by actual fossils, except for the following: jugal (= zygomatic), atlas, most of the caudal vertebrae, xiphisternum, fibulae, carpals, tarsals, most metapodials, and most phalanges. The bones painted a lighter color are restored based on their shape in related animals.

As expected, a one-sided analysis, an attempt to undermine. You can get an idea of how much white there is from looking at the picture. So, is it a legged sirenian or not? There's no question it had legs. If it's a sirenian, you can add another vertebrate transitional to Kathleen Hunt's list.

So what do you believe accounts for the diversity of life on Earth? Would this something have produced the fossil record we have so far?

What is the frantic haste to discredit the evidence for what you believe? Do you really accept what you "believe?" Clarify, please!

So you have a skull, you can carbon date it. Then you have another skull, and you can date that one, too; and find it's more recent than the first one. Gee. They look similar -- but slightly different. How do we get from this simple, direct observation, to the conclusion that the Skull One Creature was the predecessor (ancestor) of the Skull Two Creature, say a million years ago? We have the skulls; but we have little real idea of what the respective creatures were actually like. To say that the first was the ancestor of the second would be to make a supposition for which there is no currently available direct evidence. The best we can say under the circumstances would be: Well, it looks like the first might be the ancestor of the second. But hypothetically at least, our supposition may have nothing to rest on more solid than structural similarities that Wolfram says may be quite common "across vast ranges of different organisms." This is a long way from "proof."

Right, it's not proof. It's evidence. And the evidence is consistent with the theory of common descent. The theory of evolution actually predicted that such "ancestral links" existed, and whatdaya know ... the evidence was discovered. A theory that predicts the existence of evidence which had until then not even been suspected to exist is a theory which is held in high regard. The skull series is very powerful evidence indeed.

Of course it's not actual proof. There will never be such proof. There are no FBI survailence tapes. No one saw those furry critters humping and jumping and producing their mutated offspring. But with the evidence at hand, it's a very reasonable assumption that those skulls are all related. As you say, they certainly look related. What DNA evidence exists confirms this. What else would one conclude?

As I've often said, there is no other scientific theory that explains this evidence. The theory of evolution stands alone, amid all the "competing" accounts of man's origin, as the sole scientific explanation of the evidence. It doesn't get any better than that.

This is a long way from "proof."

Proof is for geometry class, and maybe philosophers.

It isn't just that there's this series progression. They're in chronological order by appearance, except that the leftmost is a modern chimp. So when Homo habilis first appears, it's the most advanced thing going. There's nothing more advanced that is also in sediments as old. Ditto for Homo erectus, etc. You can't find "modern" humans going back much more than 100K years. Even the ones from the end of the last ice age are 10-15 percent more robust in their features than truly modern humans.

You're bending over backward to avoid inferring the obvious. Scientists have to be allowed to notice the obvious. If they can't do that, how will they do the hard stuff?

PH, believe this if you like [Yet, the Pope said this, and I think he's accepting the theory of biological evolution]; but to do so is to ignore who the Pope is. His greatest responsibility on earth as the Vicar of Christ is to preserve and transmit the deposit of the faith, which is biblically based. For him to argue against special creation would mean he'd be required to excommunicate himself. :^)

Well, we've both read what he said. Here's another link if anyone wants to look again: Message from the Pope, 1996.

At this point, I'm obviously not going to persuade you. There are many commentaries you can find on the web. Just put "Pope 1996 evolution" into your favorite search engine and you'll get a zillion hits. In my opinion, the Pope performed brilliantly. On the one hand, he must preserve the revealed truth about God and man's spiritual nature. And he did that.

On the other hand, he didn't want to preside over "another Galileo mess" and thus bring intellectual scorn upon the church which it is his duty to preserve. He did that too. He said, in effect: "Science is okay with me; but the spriritual realm belongs to religion." Think about it some more. The Pope wants his church to stay abreast of, and be relevant to, the ongoing discoveries about the physical world. He doesn't want the church to become another Flat Earth Society. He's doing what must be done. One might even say he's done an inspired job.

Dan.12
[1] And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
[2] And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
[3] And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
[4] But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
[5] Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.
[6] And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
[7] And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
[8] And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
[9] And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
[10] Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
[11] And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
[12] Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
[13] But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

"No one doubts the improbability of events. Your existence is highly improbable. So is mine. Think of all the events in just the past 100 generations which could have caused any of our ancestors to behave differently than they did. Yet all the past events happened, naturally, step by step, and here we are, so mere improbability is not much of an issue."

"The facts upon which evolution theory is based are rather well established. Mutations happen. They really do. And new species appear over time, really. And they appear in form and DNA to be related to pre-existing species. No joke, that's the evidence. In every generation, those best suited for the game of life are most likely to breed the next generation. Mutation and natural selection. And time, lots of time. They're the stuff of evolution."

"The results are always going to be seen as improbable in retrospect, but that's how things happen. It's such a reasonable explanation that there's no need to wave it all away and grasp instead for an external "designer" for whom there is no evidence at all.

"So I don't see ID as an "honest attempt" to deal with improbability. Rather, it's a clever attempt to confuse the poorly trained public with slick (but unscientific) patter."

353 posted on 9/19/02 2:24 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry

"Mutation and natural selection. And time, lots of time. They're the stuff of evolution."

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.