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]

Creationist humor:

Jael: [Why] do school textbooks still use them?

Sisera: Are these the same school textbooks that are "still using Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man?"

"Sisera?" So I'm supposed to die by treachery at the hands of Jael?

We're supposed to be getting the "real science" from you guys? You're living some kind of Dungeons and Dragons fantasy.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome! I'm glad it was helpful to you!

[Aracelis]

The creation week was compared directly to our work week.

You certainly are free to believe whatever you wish. As I have stated before, a belief in either Creationism or Evolution is NOT a point of salvation. As for me, I'll continue to opine that the Universe is over 15 billion years old, and that Natural Selection was, is, and will continue to be the driving force behind the diversity of life we enjoy.

[Aracelis]

So plants existed for thousands or millions of years before the sun was made? And lasted all that time without insects to do the pollination?

As I said before, I believe the Creation Myth to be allegory, just as sections of the Book of Revelation are considered to be symbolic.

[vaudine]

I couldn't access the link, but think your analysis may be in error. While nobody may be legally entitled to a recommendation, it would certainly be discriminatory if a prof. withheld a recommendation solely because of a students religious beliefs. Did he downgrade the student because of his beliefs?

Suppose that a student used good scientific methods but simply equated differently and thus came to another conclusion from the prof. There are several highly placed profs. and scientists who come to the conclusion that the Creation theory is supported.

This arrogant prof. is essentially saying he is right, period. Speaking of legality (everything today seems to boil down to that) is a prof. entitled to give bad grades and refuse recommendations on the basis that a student does not share his personal beliefs?

Good grief!

vaudine

[Aracelis]

Jesus clearly spoke as if He took Genesis literally, referring to Adam of Eve being created and Noah's flood being actual, among other things. I can't perceive how one could trust Jesus as their Saviour while believing He was a liar.

Jesus instructed often by parable. If the people in His parables were not real individuals, then was Jesus lying?

There is a clear danger in taking the entire Bible literally. There is no way to reconcile the evidence that supports the idea of evolution, while believing the Creation Myth to be literally true. However, salvation does not depend on believing that Adam and Eve were real people. Neither has God said that we must accept that Creation was accomplished during 1-terrestrial week.

This is the root of the Creationist's frantic angst: the Genesis account of Creation must be proven and defended at all costs, for to do otherwise would allow the uncomfortable thought that we humans are not the only sentient life God created. It must be frightening indeed to consider that we are not the center of God's Universe. The Creationist declares that God physically molded Adam from clay and then breathed into his nostrils. After a time, God removed one of Adam's ribs in order fashion a suitable mate. The story implies that God didn't realize ahead of time that Adam would be lonely. Is this the "omnipotent" God that Creationists defend with such vigor and vitriol? One who has to tweak His creation from time-to-time because He didn't get it right the first time?

Or...was the God of all Creation indeed almighty, and fashioned the entire Universe during the first milliseconds after the Big Bang...knowing ultimately that a tiny planet encircling a third-rate star would be teeming with life billions of years in the future.

Thanks, but if the Universe requires a God, I'll take my version.

[Con X-Poser]

<< Regarding the Futuyma book, I was immediately suspicious since Futuyma is too much the leading light to be so out of touch. So I Yahoo!ed around and it didn't take long. The charge seems to have have a lot of life in creationist publications. Jonathan Wells said it prominently in Icons of Evolution, and that was wrong. >>

*** *** *** *** ***

I decided to check with a friend who has Futuyma's book as well as the one who penned the accusation. Here are their responses:

*** *** *** *** ***

Haeckel's embryo drawings DO appear in the 3rd edition of Evolutionary Biology on p. 653. Haeckel is treated as a pioneer who has been mostly but not completely disproven. No mention of fraud is made or even hinted at. Here is the summary paragraph (also on p. 653):

There are, to be sure, many cases in which certain features of an ancestor are recapitulated in the ontogeny of a decendant; for example, the metatarsals of a bird, as we saw above, at first develop separately (the ancestral condition) before becoming fused together. Still, the biogenetic law [ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny] is honored more often in the breach than in the observance, and it is certainly not an infallible guide to phylogenetic history.

Regards, Dan

*** *** *** *** ***

The message you sent included the following:

<< the primary issue surrounding Haeckel in textbooks, which has always been to debunk Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" oversimplification, is in fact admirably discussed in all three editions. >>

Debunking Haeckel's Biogenetic Law ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") is a commonly used diversion in Darwinian writings. The real problem is not the Biogenetic Law, but the fact that Haeckel's drawings continue to be used as "evidence" for the common ancestry of vertebrates -- though they are often falsely attributed (as in Futuyma's third edition) to von Baer, who was a better embryologist than Haeckel and vehemently anti-Darwin.

By debunking the Biogenetic Law, Darwinists give the appearance of having recognized the error of their ways, when in fact they are still mired in it. At least once a year some article written by a Darwinist explains the presence of some feature by recourse to the Biogenetic Law (though of course without calling it that). Like eugenics, the Biogenetic Law is driven by the inner logic of Darwin's theory; Darwinists can deny both as much as they like, but both will continue to rise from the ashes until Darwin's theory is dead.

Jonathan

So Vade's source is proven to be a "liar for Darwin". The end justifies the means. Anything for the cause.

[Con X-Poser]

<< Jesus instructed often by parable. If the people in His parables were not real individuals, then was Jesus lying >>

Who says they weren't real? A parable is not the same thing as a fable. A PARable is a story to comPARe something with another, usually an earthly story to express a spiritual truth.

<< There is no way to reconcile the evidence that supports the idea of evolution, while believing the Creation Myth to be literally true. >>

I agree there's no way to reconcile evolution (THAT'S the MYTH) with the Bible.

<< However, salvation does not depend on believing that Adam and Eve were real people. >>

But to call Jesus a liar is hardly receiving Him as Saviour.

<< Neither has God said that we must accept that Creation was accomplished during 1-terrestrial week. >>

Apparently you missed the scripture verses I gave.

<< It must be frightening indeed to consider that we are not the center of God's Universe. >>

It's the planet Jesus came to, was born of a virgin, died on the cross to atone for our sins, and rise from the dead. It's also th planet He's returning to to all up his bride. It's also the planet He will set up His 1,000 year Millennial kingdom on.

<< Thanks, but if the Universe requires a God, I'll take my version. >>

Like it or not, you'll get GOD'S version of God, not yours.

[general_re]

The end justifies the means. Anything for the cause.

So it would seem.

From: "Charles T. Smith, Jr."
Subject: Teno forging headers
Date: 1998/03/07
Message-ID: <009C2D58.116BD20C.55@star-nets.com>#1/1
Sender: Free Catholic Mailing List
Comments: ********************************************************
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic

FYI -

I found a number of emails in my mailbox this morning, with headers purporting to be from the mailing list,

I take a very dim view of spoofing mail headers. In particular, this message, and presumably several others like it claim to come from catholic@american.edu. There are several mistakes you make in this; first of all, the mailing list does not send me any traffic to this address.

> From: MX%"tdg@vbe.com" "Teno Groppi" 7-MAR-1998 01:29:14.35
> To: MX%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
> CC:
> Subj: Good Friday?

Secondly, the headers clearly show that the traffic did not pass through American.edu, which is a forgery:

> Return-Path:
> Received: from serv1.vbe.com (206.242.16.3) by star-nets.com (MX V5.0) with
> ESMTP; Sat, 7 Mar 1998 01:29:10 -0500
> Received: from Teno (dial100.vbe.com [206.242.16.100]) by serv1.vbe.com
> (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA28524; Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:37:10 -0600
> (CST)
> Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980306233246.00687054@mail.vbe.com>
> X-Sender: tdg@mail.vbe.com (Unverified)
> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 23:36:12 -0600
> To: CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU
> From: Teno Groppi
> Subject: Good Friday?
> MIME-Version: 1.0

[text deleted]

Two things:

1) I'm not interested in recieving any more mail from you purporting to be from any of the lists I run. You may, however, send such messages to me or any member of my list for a per message charge of $995.00. Your sending of such a message is acceptance of these terms. You will be invoiced on a per message basis, and collection activity will be agressive.

2) Any further mail header spoofing will result in your provider being notified. If they take no action, your providers provider will be notified, and possibly law enforcement as well.

Should you wish to discuss this, or the reason for your removal from the catholic@american.edu list, you may mail me directly, with a message not containing spoofed headers and reasonable subject line for this express purpose.

Any other communication will be considered as billable use of StarNet's email resources, billable at $995 per occurance. Your acceptance of these terms is the mailing of such an email message.

Charles Smith
President, StarNet Inc.

[VadeRetro]

So Sarfati's I-Want-to-be-a-Sock-Puppet-for-creationism service doesn't like evolutionary developmental biology, or "evo-devo." It's a hot area whether the YEC crowd thinks it's Haeckel Redux or not.

You have not shown that Futyma's college-level textbook is misrepresenting Haeckel's drawings, only that they "DO" appear there. Many sources on Haeckel do not accuse him of fraud. Creationists can be relied upon to do so, but creationists are lousy sources for history or science. It is very hard to prove intent even when someone consistently distorts. I often wonder how many creationists know better (i.e, are dishonest), versus how many are just nuts.

[Jael]

They are still using the fraud Haeckel drawings and you think that is just fine and dandy. What a laugh riot. No science there.

[VadeRetro]

When a guy cartoons himself as charging around with a sword, you have yourself a Holy Warrior. In war, one may sabotage the enemy.

[VadeRetro]

As I suspected, the book in question is discussing Haeckel the historical character, his contribution and subsequent history. It is not a high school text and is not using his drawings as the current word on the subject.

The question for me is whether you understand this yourself.

[Jael]

There is a clear danger in taking the entire Bible literally.

Actually, the danger is in not taking it literally.

John 5:39
 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


John 12:48  He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

And it is evolutionist who defend their fairy tale with lies and frauds. Creationist simply believe God.

[general_re]

Presumably the qualification for that statement was omitted - the end justifies the means, but only when you do it in God's name.

Actually, I'm recalling how the use of the term "liars for Christ" got a particular poster (jlogajan, IIRC) into hot water, and musing over the use of the term "liar for Darwin". Not that I'll hit the abuse button, but the juxtaposition is interesting nonetheless....

[Jael]

Here is your problem. You might have found some internet site that makes some kind of claims about someone named Wyatt. I never heard of the guy. But here is the rub, whatever it is he is saying certainly is not being taught to innocent school children. The frauds of evolution are.

Knowingly.

[Jael]

As far as I am concerned, that makes him worth ridiculing.

And that makes me sad. To think that you actually feel that way about another human.

[Jael]

Good point X-Man!!! Notice how evolutionist avoid questions like that one. And just what was the Beaver before it was the beaver!

[Jael]

Let me get this stright.......... you are attacking the guy because a bunch of catholics whined about what he was saying and kicked him off an email list?

Puuuulease!!!!!!!!

[Jael]

Dungeons and Dragons

I would NEVER play that game.