Professor Refuses Letters of Recommendation to Creationist Students

AP Breaking News ^

[governsleastgovernsbest]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-evolution-dispute0130jan30,0,713004.story

Professor's Letter Refusal Causes Probe By LISA FALKENBERG Associated Press Writer

January 30, 2003, 9:50 AM EST

DALLAS -- A biology professor who refuses to write letters of recommendation for his students if they don't believe in evolution is being accused of religious discrimination, and federal officials are investigating, the school said.

The legal complaint was filed against Texas Tech University and professor Michael Dini by a student and the Liberty Legal Institute, a religious freedom group that calls Dini's policy "open religious bigotry."

[VadeRetro]

There's more, but this is tedious. I think he's clearly sticking to his policy, but he's being far more diplomatic about it.

Diplomacy is good. I should back off from using words like "nuts," except as the plural of a certain food item. "Delusional" would be better, although the word still has an emotional loading. "Possessing a low coefficient of reality-friction" might be slicker yet.

[Always Right]

Oh, so Dini has made it simpler for you to lie.

What lie. A student can tell the professor the scientific explaination of the origin of humans. Since there is no affirmation or requirement that the student must actually believe the scientific explaination, then there is no lying involved.

[longshadow]

A student can tell the professor the scientific explaination of the origin of humans. Since there is no affirmation or requirement that the student must actually believe the scientific explaination, then there is no lying involved.

Not so fast....

The professor's revised question is: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?"

Not: "How does SCIENCE account for [it]...." He specifically asks the student how HE accounts for it. If the student responds with an answer which does not represent how HE accounts for it, he's not being truthful. Whether or not the answer is affirmed is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the answer given.

[PatrickHenry]

"Possessing a low coefficient of reality-friction" might be slicker yet.

Like acronyms? Try Fantasy Upholding Creationist Kook.

[Nebullis]

What lie.

Dini's question is, "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?"

A scientific explanation is an affirmation that there is a scientific origin of the human species. A truthful answer would be something like "I don't believe there is a scientific origin of the human species."

Using your logic, only Peter's third and last denial of Christ was a lie.

[Heartlander]

Anyone who doubts (but understands) the ‘theory of common descent’ is not competent for a job as a physician.

Is this statement true?

[VadeRetro]

The "I'll-see-evidence-when-the-voices-command-me" crowd.

[PatrickHenry]

Dead thread placemarker.

[Always Right]

Dini's question is, "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" A scientific explanation is an affirmation that there is a scientific origin of the human species.

Not all creationists completely discount evolution. Unlike the old question, the new question specifically askes for the scientific origin, so any discussion of religious beliefs is to be excluded. You are probably correct that the question still may poise some difficulty for a young-earth creationists to answer without running afoul of the professor. It will be interesting to see how the Justice Department responds. Too me, it went from black and white to grey. It would have been better if the professor was a little more clear with his question, but I think most creationists could at least answer the question without lying. A young earth creationists could probably prefix their answer with "According the the theory of evolution...." That would probably work unless the professor asked tem if that is what they believe? I still hope the Justice Department will act until the Professor clears up even the impression of his bigotry.

[wgeorge2001]

"I sympathize with the student, but no one has a legal right to a letter of recommendation from anyone. In this specific instance, the professor might simply think that a supporter of creationism is not upholding rigorous scientific standards."


If the "good"(sarcasm)professor believes that science does not support creationism and will not study all the facts; he then makes himself a closed minded man. He has the right.However,by not giving an open minded student (he listened to the drivel the professor taught) he violates the students first constitutional rights and the professor is then guilty of bigotry.
He should not give ANYONE a letter of recommendation if he will not give EVERYONE a letter of recommendation he otherwise would have.Guilty of religious bigotry that may affect the students future;guilty of predjudice,guilty of arrogance by shoving his secular humanism down another persons throat.

[wgeorge2001]

To: Con X-Poser

"We see, not just human death, but death itself, came by Adam's sin. Adam's fall affected the whole creation. So Rover and Steggie die because of man's sin."


Read the book of Roman's, it may end your search for the truth, the whole truth.

"Wherefore,as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"(Ro.5:12)

"For if by one man's offence (Adam) death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation;even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."(Ro5:17&18).

"What shall we say then that Abraham our faather, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath wherof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for rightiousness." Ro4:2,3,4,5.

[VadeRetro]

Con X-Poser: We see, not just human death, but death itself, came by Adam's sin. Adam's fall affected the whole creation. So Rover and Steggie die because of man's sin.

Lurking Libertarian: As a Jew, I find that belief not only illogical and unjust, but also unbiblical. As Ezekiel says (Ez. 18:20): "It is the person that sins that will die; a son will not bear responsibility for his father's guilt, nor a father for his son's. The righteous person will have his own righteousness placed to his account, and the wicked person his own wickedness."

What all the non-YECs are laughing behind their hands about is the absurdity of supposing that all the Steggies were anything but dead, dead, dead and fossilized by the time there was man. Not to mention that all the trilobites had been long dead by the time the Steggies showed up.

[Aside to the creos: Please do not bother to tell me that Carl Baugh, Dr. Don Patton, and Bible.CA are still telling people that there are man tracks and dinosaur tracks together in Paluxy River, TX. There's lots of wishful misinterpretation and a little fraud going on there, nothing more.]

[Con X-Poser]

<< Again, I must ask, since I don't believe in your version of the christian god, and the bible is nothing more to me than an intersting allegorical semi-history with some nice poetry in it; and since I have never committed a crime (misdemeanor, felony, or otherwise) am I of higher moral fiber than you, >>

Crime? What's a crime? You have no standard to determine what a crime is. Owning a gun is now considered a crime in some places, but it wasn't before. Protesting near an abortuary is now considered a crime - it wasn't in the past. Opining against homosexuality is now considered a "hate crime", it wasn't before. So are those things crimes or are they not? Or is crime something decided arbitrarily? Perhaps posting a free-speech opinion in Free Republic will be considered a crime someday.

How do you determine what constitutes "higher moral fiber"? Your opinion? The way the wind blows today?

Someone who kills pre-born babies for a living is not of high moral fiber, according to the Bible, but he's committed no "crime" in today's society. Would you consider such a person to be of high moral fiber?

[whattajoke]

You have no standard to determine what a crime is

Say it with me slowly... "The Constitution. The laws of our country, my state, and my town." These laws determine what is considered a crime.

How do you determine what constitutes "higher moral fiber"? Your opinion? The way the wind blows today?

Must I really take the time to give you the a few of the archaic, ridiculous, violent, bloodsoaked "laws" from your bible? Please, save face and let it go.

[balrog666]

Placemarker.

[Con X-Poser]

X: You have no standard to determine what a crime is

Joke: Say it with me slowly... "The Constitution. The laws of our country, my state, and my town." These laws determine what is considered a crime.

The Constitution is not a definition or list of crimes. The Constitution is primarily a document that limits the intrusive power of government.

By appealing to the Constitution, you walked right into some of the examples I gave. I can hardly believe you read this with both eyes open and responded with both hemispheres of your brain.

The Constitution guarantees me the right to keep and BEAR arms. It states that right shall not be inFRINGEd. A fringe is something marginal, periphery, or on the border. That would include such things as registration, magazine limits, semi-autos, permits, etc.

So why can't I legally buy an automatic Uzi today if I wanted? Why would that make me a criminal when the Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Also, do you know what a "standard" is? If what's legal and illegal changes faster than you change your underwear, that's hardly standard.

Not long ago abortion and homosexuality were crimes, now they are not. Well, are they right or wrong? Does your "standard" of morality change so drastically that these things are not *always* one or the other? You call that a standard for morality? Is it a crime to exercise free-speech and protest peacefully on public property near an abortion chamber? How did free-speech become a crime?

When Hillary gets into office and enacts the rest of her "child rights" program, and the age of consent is lowered - will that make what the Catholic priests are doing to their altar boys suddenly acceptable? Is what they've done right or wrong? How can you possibly say it's wrong now, but might be right in a few years? That's a "standard"?

If some future progressive Congress adds rape to the list of alternative orientations, and declares that it is a violation of their civil rights to inhibit their sexual-preference - will that suddenly make rape right and good?

Is your system of morality so unstable that you cannot know if murder, pedophilia, and rape are right or wrong each day without checking the Congressional Review and Supreme Court rulings each morning? (Not to mention gun rights or free speech).

If you bring the Bible into this, just remember, we are not the OT nation of Israel, which God gave some commands for specific purposes, that do not have universal application. The things you will mention, no doubt, are specific things God told specific people for a specific purpose. No doubt you will try to give them universal application. I would trust God's morality before I would trust yours.

[Con X-Poser]

Lurking Libertarian: As a Jew, I find that belief not only illogical and unjust, but also unbiblical. As Ezekiel says (Ez. 18:20): "It is the person that sins that will die; a son will not bear responsibility for his father's guilt, nor a father for his son's. The righteous person will have his own righteousness placed to his account, and the wicked person his own wickedness."

---

If you give Exodus an honest read, you will see it applies to physical, national, civil law - not one's standing before God as a sinner. As descendents of Adam, every one of us has tainted blood.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

<< Not to mention that all the trilobites had been long dead by the time the Steggies showed up. >>

Oops! Someone forget to tell these fellahs:

http://www.omniology.com/Apus-LivingTrilobite.html

http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/museum_tour/meister/meister.html

[Aside to the creos: Please do not bother to tell me that Carl Baugh, Dr. Don Patton, and Bible.CA are still telling people that there are man tracks and dinosaur tracks together in Paluxy River, TX. There's lots of wishful misinterpretation and a little fraud going on there, nothing more.]

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/burdick-track.htm

Read the evidence and make up your own mind. Notice how some of the tracks were destroyed, and ask yourself who was perpetrating the fraud there.

[VadeRetro]

"The various stages through which apus passes before reaching maturity look very like horseshoe crabs, which in turn resemble Trilobites."

How about that? Which reminds me of how immature lampreys resemble primitive cephalochordates like Brachiostoma/Amphioxus. That in turn reminds me that baby frogs look like fish. Hmmm. You know, baby insects look like worms. Baby humans at different stages look like protozoans, primitive colonials, chordates, vertebrates, etc.

There's also a funny wrinkle in mammalian embryology.

In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.

From Is Evolution Science?

For more on the fossil record part of that, anyone who followed the links in 401 of this thread read it here.

Now you're going to scream "Haeckel faked his drawings!" and everything I've just said will be understood to go away. If we're all stupid, that is. Nothing goes away.

[balrog666]

Trying to teach a Young-Earth-Creationist about science leads to the same end as trying to teach a pig to sing. Good luck.

[VadeRetro]

The pig isn't really that committed against singing, actually. He just doesn't have the concept or the voice.

Give the pig the notion that he's going to Hell if he ever gets any good at this singing business, then you'd have this thread.