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]

Brachiostoma/Amphioxus

Branchiostoma/Amphioxus.

Sing along with Sam Hinton here. (BTW, since 1961, something like Amphy--perhaps Pikaia--is back in and those sea squirts are back out of the vertebrate ancestry.)

Anyway, it's something to do on this thread while we're waiting for Dr. Jonathan Sarfati to get in tomorrow and answer his mailbox.

[VadeRetro]

Second try on the real-audio link. (Sam Hinton, 1961)

[Con X-Poser]

<< 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. >>

Nothing? Not even Faker Haeckel, who faked not only his embryo drawings, but the non-existent "speechless ape", his skeletal drawings, and inspired Huxley to fake his monera drawings. Those don't go away either, though you sure tried to get past them as casually as possible.

If some embryos resemble others, so what? That's no different than grown animals resembling one another so far as proving evolution (it does nothing to prove evolution). I look like my brother, but he is not evolving into me (as much as he'd like to ;-)

All it shows is the Creator used a common design plan. If none of them looked alike, you'd complain that God was inefficient.

How come six month preemies aren't born some kind of ape, if they are undergoing the evolutionary stages during gestation? Six months is only 67% through the gestation, they shouldn't even be apes yet, *if* they are going through evolutionary stages. But they are born humans, every time. Your suggestion of embryonic recapitulation is absurd.

[Celtman]

I sympathize with the student, but no one has a legal right to a letter of recommendation from anyone.

      However, a student of a state university (an arm of government) has a right to equal treatment, regardless of his religious beliefs.  And a state university professor, acting as an agent of the state does not have the right to impose his own religious beliefs (humanistic evolution is a religion).

[VadeRetro]

So you're never exactly an ape and you're never exactly a fish. (But you do have structures that look a lot like gill slits.) Everything I said in 758 is still true. All you have is a "nothing means anything until I want it to" shrug.

Haeckelian recapitulation--what Haeckel attempted to propoose as a law of biology--is dead. But try a Yahoo! or a Google on "evolutionary developmental biology." It has a lot to do with why hatchling horshoe crabs are called "trilobite larvae."

And even if there were still trilobites somewhere, that wouldn't have made Young-Earth Creationism's problems with the geologic column go away.

As we've seen, however, probable in situ benthic fossils and fossil assemblages are hardly restricted to the Mesozoic. Instead, they occur in sediments attributed to all of the Phanerozoic systems.

Fossils and the Flood.

Flood geology theories popularized by young-earth creationists are nonbiblical doctrines. They are not demanded, or even suggested, by the text of Genesis...

As a scientific theory, flood geology is hopelessly at odds with the evidence. There is little concensus amongst flood geologists on basic questions such as Which processes have produced which deposits, Where are the boundaries between flood and pre/post flood strata, Why are fossil groups thus distributed in the geologic record, etc.

Evaluating the "Noah's Flood" Hypothesis.

Last but not least, Glenn Kuban responds to Bible.CA. Dinos and man coexisted all over the earth but only Carl Baugh and Don Patton can see it. Oh, yeah!

[Con X-Poser]

<< (But you do have structures that look a lot like gill slits.) >>

But they are NOT gill slits, and they never function as gill slits. People with double-chins still have structures that look like gill slits - but they don't breathe with their chin.

A black person's hair might look like the hair of a poodle. Does that mean one is evolving into the other?

<< Haeckelian recapitulation--what Haeckel attempted to propoose as a law of biology--is dead. But try a Yahoo! or a Google on "evolutionary developmental biology." >>

You guys refuse to give up even your most disproved theories. You just repackage them and rename them, and pretend like they are something else. Spontaneous generation becomes abiogenesis. Ether becomes quantum. Haeckel's law of recapitulation becomes "evolutionary developmental biology". If you call garbage, "refuse", it still should go on the curb to be picked up.

<< It has a lot to do with why hatchling horshoe crabs are called "trilobite larvae." >>

The fact that horseshoe crabs most resemble trilobites, of any well-known living creature, has more to do with it. They can CALL it whatever they want, that doesn't change the FACT that they ARE horseshoe crab hatchlings. They are not trilobites that become crabs.

Calling a fish a "tiger shark" doesn't mean it was born like a tiger and became a shark.

<< Flood geology theories popularized by young-earth creationists are nonbiblical doctrines. They are not demanded, or even suggested, by the text of Genesis... >>

Now the guy who doesn't believe the Bible is going to be the expert on what is biblical :-(

<< As a scientific theory, flood geology is hopelessly at odds with the evidence. >>

Flood geology would expect fossils, produced by water, all over the earth. Maybe even sea fossils on mountains. That's exactly what we find.

<< Last but not least, Glenn Kuban responds to Bible.CA. Dinos and man coexisted all over the earth but only Carl Baugh and Don Patton can see it. Oh, yeah! >>

Compare the link I gave to Kuban's baloney. Kuban would prove that the footprint you made in your backyard couldn't possibly have been made by a human.

All this verbiage (going on 800 posts) and you have yet to indicate that abiogenesis can happen (without a start, evolution dies before it begins). You have yet to establish that creatures become other kinds of creatures. You have yet to show that similarity means common ancestry rather than common design. You have yet to indicate any transitionals except that some things might *look* alike. You have yet to establish that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages as opposed to a common design plan.

All you've offered is smoke and feathers (but no dino feathers) :-( mixed with generous helping of "beter arguments" (personal insults).

[VadeRetro]

All this verbiage (going on 800 posts) and you have yet to indicate that abiogenesis can happen (without a start, evolution dies before it begins). You have yet to establish that creatures become other kinds of creatures. You have yet to show that similarity means common ancestry rather than common design. You have yet to indicate any transitionals except that some things might *look* alike. You have yet to establish that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages as opposed to a common design plan.

You have yet to show that you have any sort of evidence beyond your refusal to see or (Shudder!) make any sort of inference at all. I'll jump in again when you say something particularly amusing, but don't expect me to keep pointing out the extreme intellectual poverty of your argument.

[Con X-Poser]

All this verbiage (going on 800 posts) and you have yet to indicate that abiogenesis can happen (without a start, evolution dies before it begins). You have yet to establish that creatures become other kinds of creatures. You have yet to show that similarity means common ancestry rather than common design. You have yet to indicate any transitionals except that some things might *look* alike. You have yet to establish that embryos go through actual evolutionary stages as opposed to a common design plan.

<< You have yet to show that you have any sort of evidence beyond your refusal to see or (Shudder!) make any sort of inference at all. >>

Thank you for admitting that the evolutionary story is "inference" and not science.

<< I'll jump in again when you say something particularly amusing, >>

(Yawn!) I've heard that from you before.

<< but don't expect me to keep pointing out the extreme intellectual poverty of your argument. >>

You haven't pointed out any intellectual poverty in anything except to verify that evolution isn't science.

[Con X-Poser]

Human evolution going the WRONG WAY!

7 MY old creature more man-like than many *younger* alleged ape-men

A NEW APE IN THE TREE?

Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology - July 16, 2002

The discovery of Sahelanthropus tchadensis from the desert country of Chad threatens to “fundamentally change the way we reconstruct the tree of life” according to anthropologist Bernard Wood. Commenting about the find, which consists of cranium, a lower jaw fragment, and several teeth, Dr. Wood summarizes, “from the back it looks like a chimpanzee, whereas from the front it could pass for a 1.75 million year old advanced australopith”. This is not a flattering appraisal. Nevertheless, an australopithecine resemblance, however slight, is sufficient to convince most anthropologists that the creature was a habitual upright walker, and thus, a relative to humans. Without so much as a single bone from the neck down, however, one might be forgiven for being skeptical. The claim that the specimen came from strata of 6-7 million years in age only serves to heighten the fervor to embrace this as the “oldest member of the human family” (surpassing the oldest yet `hominid' by a million years).

Let's look at these claims more closely. First, the most noteworthy features of “Toumai” (the nickname given to S. tchadensis) include a relatively flat face, lacking in a pronounced prognathus, or forward jaw jut, and moderately sized canine teeth with wear only at the tip of the crown. Such features contribute to an australopithecine-like resemblance, which most anthropologists automatically equate with an upright posture. But how rock-solid is the case that australopithecines walked upright? Of the dozens of australopithecines recovered so far, only one has ever been claimed to offer confirming evidence for this (Lucy, the A. afarensis). Furthermore, a great number of experts are convinced that Lucy's skeleton did not lend itself to habitual upright walking but was far better equipped for swinging in trees. Among these doubters are leading anatomists. If there is any validity to their work, then the significance of Toumai as a human ancestor quickly fades to zero.

As for the new view of the `family tree' that emerges, Dr. Wood uses terms like “complex”, “difficult”, “bushy”, “untidy”, “mosaic”, “clade” and “homoplasy”. This is not good news for all evolutionists. He even goes so far as to compare the `new picture' for human evolution with the intractable problem of how the major animal phyla of the `Cambrian explosion' emerged from the enigmatic Burgess Shale fauna! The “tidy” straight-line evolution from ape to human is being discarded. In its place is the new, “untidy” view, in which it is necessary to first assume biological evolution to be true, in order to rightly discern the complex evolutionary pattern in the fossils. If this sounds circular or confusing, there is another conclusion that can be drawn: We are seeing an acknowledgement that no independent proof exists in the fossil record for human evolution.

As for the age-date, the strata in which the skull was found correlate with strata from other parts of Africa, where interbedded ash beds have yielded two `absolute dates' of “about 6 million” and “between 5.3-7.4 million”. Such imprecise dating has long troubled paleoanthropologists, and newer methods always seem to offer great promise for better precision, yet never seem to deliver. Some qualified scientists question whether or not such dates are even in the right ballpark. There is probably no good reason to believe the fossil to be any older than several thousand years in age.

In summary S. tchadensis is rightly regarded as “australopithecine-like”. This is not the same as saying it is “human like,” however. Toumai adds to our appreciation of the diversity of apes that once lived in the not so distant past but are now extinct. To go any further than this, and especially, to claim Toumai as a human ancestor, seems entirely unwarranted at this time.

[Alamo-Girl]

I’ve been doing some research to figure out how natural selection could evolve aging. I found an article which theorizes that “aging is a non-adaptive process in which the genes that influence the rate of aging either do not affect fitness or have been selected due to beneficial effects early in life.”

Another website, The International Longevity Organization (pdf) declares that “Most gerontologists believe there is no such gene (that causes aging) in most species, because a gene that promotes aging would most likely decrease reproductive fitness and therefore would be subject to negative selection.” On the website, they waive the p53 gene off as a tumor suppressing gene.

However, the Boston University website (pdf) has a very different view and suggests a genetic biological clock (telomere length, telomerase function) and various classes of aging genes, including the p53. But it doesn’t suggest how such genes might have been naturally selected.

There is also this website’s explanation for the evolution of aging and death:

Now, if you are likely to die around the age of 25 by external causes, there is little advantage in spending a lot of resources on combating the effects of aging, so that you might theoretically live for 1000 years. That is why we might expect that in the trade-off between early reproduction and long-time survival the genes would tend towards the former pole, making sure that sufficient off-spring is generated by the age of 25, rather than trying to extend the maximal age beyond 120 years (the apparent maximum for humans). And that of course ties the aging genes to reproduction, directing the explanation to resisting the effects of aging instead of what is causing it. They use a fruit fly experiment as an example where delaying reproduction causes longer life.

So much for my research. I’m curious now what your position is as to how aging and death evolved by natural selection and what we should expect to see in the fossil record to substantiate it.

[VadeRetro]

Some class notes on the subject I found a year or two back helped clear up a lot for me. The "For Dummies soundbite" answer is that after you reproduce yourself a few times, you personally are irrelevant because there are other copies of your genes out there.

[Con X-Poser]

EVOLUTION IS UN-AMERICAN

America's founding document, the Unanimous Declaration of the States (often wrongly called the Declaration of Independence) is very clear that America's foundation includes a belief in the Creation account of the Bible. "We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF EVIDENT that all men are *CREATED* equal, and that they are endowed by their *CREATOR* with certain unalienable rights ...".

If you are an evolutionist, you are un-American. You have no foundation for the rights we enjoy because they were endowed on us by our Creator. If you have no Creator, you have no unalienable rights. The Creator said, "Thou shalt not kill", therefore killing is wrong and we have the right to life. The Creator said, "Thou shalt not steal", therefore stealing is wrong and we have the right to private property. Our other rights are likewise based on the word of our Creator.

If you deny creation by the Creator, you deny the basis for your rights as an American. George Washington, the "Father of our Country", knew better than that. He recognized God as the literal Creator according to the Genesis account,

"It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being."

Of course, he made it clear in other comments, exactly who that Supreme Being was, and what attributes He possessed.

Our Constitution assumes the "self-evident" truths of the Declaration concluding with, "In the year of our Lord...". A certain reference to their Christian outlook, their very calendar (and ours) is based on Jesus Christ.

[VadeRetro]

America's founding document, the Unanimous Declaration of the States (often wrongly called the Declaration of Independence) is very clear that America's foundation includes a belief in the Creation account of the Bible.

The universe had already done what it had done to create the state of affairs in place then so the point wasn't really negotiable.

[Con X-Poser]

X: America's founding document, the Unanimous Declaration of the States (often wrongly called the Declaration of Independence) is very clear that America's foundation includes a belief in the Creation account of the Bible.

Vade: The universe had already done what it had done to create the state of affairs in place then so the point wasn't really negotiable.

Whatever. Evolution is still anti-American and still a denial of the source of the rights Americans enjoy.

Whatever source gave you your rights can legitimately take them away. That means any human who tries to usurp my rights does so illegitimately. So what is the source of YOUR rights? Public opinion of the day? Your rights can be taken legitimately if the wind of society changes direction. Your rights are not unalienable. Mine are.

Aren't you supposed to be conservative?

[VadeRetro]

Being an American and a conservative does not require me to become anti-science, which is the same as being anti-reality. Get real! (And I mean that at several levels in your case.)

My rights--whether or not I peg them to a fairy story--to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are as "unalienable" as yours so long as I'm willing to insist. I and my buddies Sam (Colt) and Lee (Enfield) do so insist.

[general_re]

If you are an evolutionist, you are un-American.

More bombast and attacks in place of argument, I see. Dunno why anyone should expect differently any more...

[VadeRetro]

A mailing list? People get "booted" from mailing lists? How do you get judged "not up to membership standards" for a mailing list?

[Con X-Poser]

<< My rights--whether or not I peg them to a fairy story--to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are as "unalienable" as yours so long as I'm willing to insist. I and my buddies Sam (Colt) and Lee (Enfield) do so insist. >>

Your right to own a Colt (I like Browning), can be legitimately taken away tomorrow if whoever gave you that right changes his/her/its mind. I got my right (and responsibility) to protect my family from the Creator. It's unalienable. You got yours from a fairy story. Whoever wrote your fairy story (Darwin?) can legitimately take away your rights tomorrow.

[Con X-Poser]

(Why did you get booted from the "Free Catholic" mailing list? We're all dying to know...)

Because we did not agree doctrinally. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

[general_re]

Because we did not agree doctrinally. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

I'm going to give you until the morning to "revise and extend" your remarks, as the congresscritters say, with the reminder that the Eighth Commandment does not mention waivers for those purportedly doing the Lord's work. You do know that the Free Catholic list is archived for the entire world to see, don't you?

Funny how someone as agitated about objective morality as you claim to be appears to be so ready to discard the tenets of that morality when they prove inconvenient...