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
Turnaround...'fair' play!
technology/science is derived---
woven...a tapestry from knowledge/philosophy---existence/creation(reality)...
evolution is 'science' fiction/fantasy---ideology/bias---spin/yarn(warp)...no woof!
Yeah...evolution is a persian carpet with no knots---LINT!
As for the gold, I still have to ask: Why do you assume the hills were 4500 feet tall when the gold was deposited crosswise over them? In between the original shallow sea and the current upthrusted 4500 foot canyon walls, there were many different intermediate states - including hilly intertidal areas, etc.Well you got me there. If you can move mountains at any point to any level then anypoint on earth could have been anywhere at any time. There is no zero on the ruler, no reference. So in return how do you know there was not a flood if every moutain top has fossils?
Well sure, if you assume there's a supernatural God out there who regularly puts His hand on the scale, then no evidence we ever saw about anything in the past could ever be trusted, even in principle. As for marine fossils on top of mountains, you just went into great detail earlier about how subtle geological details in the gold-filled canyons imply there was a flood! Maybe you should try prospecting in the foothills of Nepal. :-)
Then of course there's the earth dam that burst & let in the Mediterranean into the Black Sea, likely giving rise to a certain myth about a guy named Noah...
Uh, myth? Myths dont create fossils. Nor do bodies of things laying around. That creates stink. I have seen a lot of dead deer and other critters in water and out of it. Never saw a fossil in progress, just maggots. You know maggots stir feathers? What ever makes fossils is faster than maggots or keeps flys away.
What are you talking about? There are plenty of cases of local flash floods, lahars, local lava & ash flows, not to mention anoxic bottoms of lakes with slow & steady silt deposition gently covering up the dead bodies that sunk there. That's what happened to Archaeopteryx, IIRC.
OH THANKS A LOT. If it works, you will be hearing from my lawyer! >:-O
NO NO NO! First do the leg length test and if one is SHORT let me know. Trying to curse someone in Gods name is like trying to fly with lead baloons. Don't work, never will.
Seriously, if you think you're getting consistent results with faith healing, then I can point you to someone who could set up a blind test. They're offering a million $$$ if you can show results.
Hmmm, I think they should try to go see it happen themselves, would be much cheaper.
It sounds like it is a progressive process that starts off in just that way. Whattajoke already mentioned it's the Randi Foudation challenge. You can read all about the procedure here.
I don't have much use for a million bucks, but what is the point? Is it to heal someone or to put a silly test on God? If it is to play with Gods mind I don't think it would work, I or the child were not the healers, we were just the messengers. I don't like trying to force God's hand. He lets me sometimes when I am being stupid, but you have to understand that I love God. This is not a game to me, and I feel pretty bad if I misuse his grace. Kinda like finding out you took advantage of someone you love. You feel loved but feel icky at the same time. I don't like icky.God is pretty smart, don't think anybody has ever pulled the wool over his eyes. There is a lot of healing in the Church, it seems the person who is willing to risk a million bucks at this point is a pretty even bet that they got heart problems that would prevent them from using their eyes to see. My bet is that it is a waste of time.
I'm very disappointed with where you're going here. This is also the standard rationalization of every psuedoscientific quack science claim: No double-blind test ever seems to work, because of the presence of skeptical people messing up the "energy field", etc.
Look: If you've found the methodology that makes faith healing work (commanding the demons out in Jesus' name instead of asking Jesus to remove the demons, etc.), then you've found something that should become standard medical practice. It should, because real people are living miserable lives because of their maladies, right now as we type! But modern medicine does not follow therapies that aren't verifiable thru some kind of objective criteria. If such an amazingly powerful healing practice as yours will utterly fail if your motivation for performing the healing is the least bit tainted by any intention of objectively verifying that this is a true phenomenon and not some kind of psuedoscientific delusion, then that would be a great pity. (And it wouldn't say much for the personality of God either!)
Here's an example you really should read about: Several years ago there was a movement among caregivers of autistic & CP sufferers called Facilitated Communication (FC). An assistant would lightly guide the patient's hand around a keyboard, and lo & behold, the severely autistic person was able to type coherent sentences! (Sometimes more coherent than F. Christian's!) Parents were overjoyed to discover that their child had a normal intelligence beneath that frustrating blank exterior. Some patients went to regular schools, with their facilitators, & IIRC even college in some cases.
It wasn't until years later that controlled experiments by dispassionate researchers were done on these people & their facilitators, and they proved that it was usually the facilitators, not the patients, who were doing the communicating. The facilitators were devastated - they were completely sincere in their desire to help the patients, and completely sincere in their conviction that they really were being neutral and merely helping the patients communicate their own thoughts.
You could approach a controlled experiment of your healing powers from a defensive posture if you want, but if you really want to help people you should approach it from a genuine desire to find out the truth.
(Off topic? Eh, I guess so. But that's all I have to say about your faith healing. If you continue to be convinced that it works, I sincerely think the world would be served by you putting it to an objective test as above.)
Of course you could. You could think God made them that way. How is it that creationists like Duane Gish have been accomplished biochemists? Understanding how the sequences work is distinct from a theory of where they came from anyway, isn't it?
'God made them that way' has no predictive value. Let's say we sequence the genome of a new species. We know nothing about the biochemistry of this species (this is happening more and more; gene sequencing is so powerful and classical biochemistry so slow the former now almost always leads the latter). We'd like to identify the genes as far as we can. So what do we do? We compare them with genes from a better known species, one as closely related as possible, and infer that what codes for a serine kinase, say, in species 1, is probably also a serine kinase in organism 2. That works if we believe in evolution. However, if we don't believe in evolution, we start with a tabula rasa in every new case. Why, after all, should the creator have used a set of common blueprints? Why would he use similar genes for a serine kinase in two birds, and a different one in a tunicate?
(Of course, what would really happen is the hypothetical creationist would use the same relationships to assign the gene products, denying to himself that he was implictly accepting species 1 and species 2 had a recent common ancestor)
Or we could beleive that God was deliberately making the entire genome of every species deceptively suggest an evolutionary origin, in order to test our faith. And in rebuttal to that, I can only quote Einstein: Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber Boshaft ist Er nicht.
BTW, I was wondering why I hadn't heard of an 'accomplished biochemist' by the name of Duane Gish. So I did a SciFinder search. As far as I can trace, Gish wrote between 25 and 30 papers over a 20 year period, between 1952 and 1972, long before the era of genomics. A publication rate of a tad over 1 paper a year for 20 years stretches the definition of 'accomplished' - he wouldn't get tenure these days. Since then all he appears to have done is run this Creationist institute racket. So the answer is, he was able to survive before genomics; it would be far more of an obstacle today.
Evilution algebra---calculus---logic---LAWS(license)!
You're asking the wrong person. I said this was an issue for the Med. School admissions committee, not a scientist writing a recommendation. Contrary to Gore 3000, who believes atheists can't be doctors (!), I'm not at all sure what, beyond anatomy, physiology and pharmacology, an MD needs to know. An MD when practising medicine is not a scientist, IMO his relationship to biology is like an engineer's relationship to physics. An engineer can believe the earth is flat and still be a competent engineer.
My greater concern would be that if a potential student adopts a Weltanschaung that is antithetical to reason and science, what other problems does he have?
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason < the logic of war >
cult evolution/politics---ideology!
polite rejection---
nice paint job---bondo/chrome/blown engine...
totalled endlessly...bad rebuilds/recycles---WRECKS/relics!
Real cruizer(on blocks/cartoons)
---govt b-52 video---only the scences-lies(background) move!
All the trophies are fake...never had a start---track record!
Clowns---jason(jerks)!
biggest cult of oxy-moonie-morons---art bells!
Latest evo gem--artist...
Sure. All domesticated animal husbandry is proof of evolution but in the case of planned animal husbandry, man, rather than environmental influences, play the role of selectivity. Try to think this through, which, I realize, may not be easy. If you cross a poodle to a poodle, do you get a wolf? (Knock, Knock)
Now: Do you care to give me scientific proof that God exists?
I'm not kidding. You people amaze me.
294 posted on 8/25/02 12:02 PM Pacific by AllSmiles
More...
Like FR 'patrickhenry'...
"search for the creator via evolution"---
"total--only evolution" too---
Now...latest---"NO COMPETITION"!
The papal encyclical rightwingprofessor-whack thinks/interprets---"professes evolution"...
could abortion be next???
Nebullis..."preschool evolution---INTENSIVELY"---
donh..."if the sun can create crystals-snowflakes...human life would certainly follow"---
(Why, if the sun can create crystals and snowflakes, can't it create life?)
(How much different is my paraphase of your rhetorical question---statement!)
also by donh...Hitler and nazi germany were all Christians---creationists!
(With this statement we can safely say bankrobbers/murderers are auditors/morticians!)
dominick harr..."just like a ball bouncing down the stairs----evolution created everything"---
jennyp..."anarchist evolutionary(natural) capitalism---Christianity(manmade) is communism"---
and patrickhenry doesn't know..."if prior to darwin---if science existed"...
SkyRat...Divine hammer-retribution from above via evolution!
exdemmom...evolution is the "lug wrench" that fixes science--biology/life!
...snip---
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.