Biology Professor Refuses to Recommend Students Who Don't Believe in Evolution

Texas Tech ^ | January 29, 2003 | Michael Dini

[matthew_the_brain]

Letters of Recommendation

Before you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences, there are several criteria that must be met. The request for a letter is best made by making an appointment to discuss the matter with me after considering these three criteria:

Criterion 1

You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me.

Criterion 2

I should know you fairly well. Merely earning an "A" in a lower-division class that enrolls 500 students does not guarantee that I know you. In such a situation, all I would be able to provide is a very generic letter that would not be of much help in getting you into the school of your choice. You should allow me to become better acquainted with you. This can be done in several ways:

1) by meeting with me regularly during my office hours to discuss biological questions. 2) by enrolling in an Honors’ section taught by me. 3) by enrolling in my section of BIOL 4301 and serving as an undergraduate TA (enrollment is by invitation only). 4) by serving as the chairman or secretary of the Biology Advisory Committee.

Criterion 3

If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.

Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. 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? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.

Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet 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. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?

If you still want to make an appointment, you can do so in person during office hours (M-Th, 3:30-4:00), or by phoning my office at 742-2729, or by e-mailing me at michael.dini@ttacs.ttu.edu

Citations

Ewald, P.W. 1993. Evolution of infectious disease. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 298.

Ewald, P.W. 1993. The evolution of virulence. Scientific American 268:86-98.

Morgan, E. 1990. The scars of evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 196.

Myers, J.H. and L.E. Rothman. 1995. Virulence and transmission of infectious diseases in humans and insects: evolutionary and demographic patterns. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(5):194-198.

Nesse, R.M. and G.C. Williams. 1994. Why we get sick. Times Books, New York, pp. 291.

_____1997. Evolutionary biology in the medical curriculum -- what every physician should know. BioScience 47(10):664-666.

Rose, Michael. 1998. Darwin's Spectre. Princeton University Press, Princteon, NJ. pp. 233.

Seachrist, L. 1996. Only the strong survive: the evolution of a tumor favors the meanest, most aggressive cells. Science News 49:216-217.

Stearns, S.C. (ed.) 1999. Evolution in Health and Disease. Oxford University Press. pp. 328.

Trevathan, W.R., Smith, E.O. and J.J. McKenna (eds.). 1999. Evolutionary Medicine. Oxford University Press. pp. 480.

Williams, G.C. and R.M. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66:1-22.

[Right Wing Professor]

You haven't demonstrated that the bacteria evolved. Only that it had taken on a resistance to penicillin after it's structure was artifically altered.

First off, how do you know the mutagen was artificial?

The inheritable properties of the bacterial colony changed in response to a change in the environment. That's an example of evolution. You don't seriously expect to be allowed to define something you don't believe in, do you?

Looks to me that your bacteria in the control dish (the ones that died) couldn't evolve without outside influence even though there was a definite need.

Evolution says there has to be variability in the population. The rate of spontaneous mutation was too low to create such variability. No variability, no evolution, just as nice Mr. Darwin proposed.

You have once again proven the Intelligent Creator theory.

This is why I won't waste my time debating creationists. You can't change a closed mind.

[freedomcrusader]

Medicine isn't religion, religion isn't medicine.

I'd choose my doctor on how well they diagnose and treat disease, regardless of their personal beliefs. Evolution isn't relevant to how well they diagnose or treat patients, so what a doctor believes about evolution is irrelevant to how well he will diagnose and treat me.

If you choose a doctor on the basis of their acceptance of a theory irrelvant to how well they practice medicine, that's your choice, but it's hardly logical.

Your analogy to priesthood is flawed. There's no science behind religion. And faith in evolution doesn't a better doctor make.

[Dimensio]

In a previous thread I asked for examples of speciation, a central tenent of evolution. You know, a case of a new species coming from old. I was given one example. Goat's beard. All of biology can give one example. One.

No, you were given one example. I've seen others, such as speciation within mice in recent history.

[NativeNewYorker]

your mystical belief that Evolutionism "improves" the practice of Medicine

I made no such statement.

BTW, it would be a very interesting study to survey medical students/doctors on this topic, and then empirically examine how they perform.

[Right Wing Professor]

Lions and tigers, according to Gorre3000 and others, are the same species. So there should be no problem with that.

[Dataman]

Is a belief in G-d "useful" but necessary to, for example, celebrate Mass? Or is command of Latin and ritual all that's necessary?

DK's analogy is better. Once again, here is why your analogy does not work:

Evolution and biology are two different disciplines. Claiming otherwise does not change that fact. Evolution depends on biology but biology does not depend on evolution.

Evolution is not science. Claiming otherwise does nothing to change that fact. It is an attempt, employing many flawed presuppositions, to explain the origin of life. That's all it is: an attempt to explain.

[Right Wing Professor]

Evolution depends on biology but biology does not depend on evolution.

Repeating this over and over again doesn't make it any truer. The core principle of modern biology is evolution.

[NativeNewYorker]

Evolution isn't relevant to how well they diagnose or treat patients

It might bear on their grasp of biology. As I just said above, an empirical study of medical personnel, their "take" on evolution, and competence measures, would be interesting.

[Dark Knight]

Is a belief in G-d "useful" but necessary to, for example, celebrate Mass? Or is command of Latin and ritual all that's necessary?

Yes, a belief in G-d is "useful" in the exercise of one's faith. If you are saying the evolution is taken on faith, I agree.

DK

[sleepy_hollow]

Interesting how you continue to assert thigs as true and false. Where do these notions of yours come from, do you think? Can't be from evolution, could it? What are the evolutionists 10 commandments? Is that permitted? Can the notion of permission co-exist with evolutionism? You folks really have some thought problems to evolve out of. Best of luck. You'll never do it. No wonder you resort to personal attacks. Survival of the fittest I guess....

[Dimensio]

You haven't demonstrated that the bacteria evolved. Only that it had taken on a resistance to penicillin after it's structure was artifically altered.

The environment was altered. The most effective driving force for evolution is an alteration in the environment. It has been observed that environments can change without any 'intelligent' intervention. His experiment involved deliberately altering the environment to create a specific selection, but that does not prove that natural changes in an environment cannot accomplish the same result.

Evolution states that an organism will evolve as the "need" arises.

No, it does not. It states that alelle frequencies change over time. If no organism in a population has a mutation that allows them to survive in an otherwise lethal environment, they will all die out rather than 'evolve'.

You have once again proven the Intelligent Creator theory. Thanks!

No theory in science can be proven. Are you claiming that Intelligent Creator Theory is not scientific?

[f.Christian]

Do me a favor...

everytime you back up // driving---

think of this !

If you see yourself in the mirror...

you're not driving // thinking safely (( gonna crash ))

you're going to have to adjust // angle the mirrors---

in the direction you're going (( not circles // spirals // flips // spins // rolls )) !

[Blood of Tyrants]

And I suppose that your mind is open to ideas other than evolution? Hah!

RWP, the difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to know all the answers and that I admit that my theory requires faith.

[ChemistCat]

It is difficult for a religious person to also be well-educated in the sciences, but then it is difficult for atheists to be well-educated in the sciences. You have to work at religion to understand it too. In my opinion, only a person well-educated in both subjects can discuss it intelligently--and so there is NO POINT in trying to prove *anything* on this topic to someone who is unqualified in one respect or the other. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing--as Heinlein said, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

The more I learn about science, the more I learn about my Creator. There is no genuine conflict between religion and natural truths, only gaps in our understanding. Man can TRY to set pi to something more convenient, but it'll still stay an irrational number, and if you need it, you'd better seek it out properly, and use as much of it as your purposes require.

I think humanity was slipped into a species that was purposefully evolved toward that end. When our ancestors were ready for an Adam and an Eve to appear among them, that pair were endowed with human reason, naturally AND by divine power, because there really is no difference. The mechanism whereby they were produced was elegant and complicated, too complicated to explain in the introductory book to the Bible to a bunch of tribal primitives who were, you know, their time's intellectual giants, but not ready for biochemistry.

It's like the chicken and the egg argument. At some point, something that was not quite yet a chicken laid an egg that contained a chicken, and when that critter started to breed, its offspring were chickens.

Truth is what is left when you've thrown away absolutely everything that is false. Some people are ready to throw away everything that is not in the Bible, and won't throw away even gross translation errors in the Bible. Just try to get them to admit that translation errors exist! It threatens their religion, somehow, if some guy dead hundreds of years since confused the Hebrew for "poisoner" for the word "witch." Yet some of these same people believe Jesus turned water to grape juice for a wedding celebration. I've seen people spraying spittle defending that notion.

I believe in chemistry and physics and the laws of conservation of energy, and I see ample evidence that God made things this way for a reason. I believe that kinetic energy is half the product of mass times velocity squared. The Bible isn't a science text and was never meant to tell us the details of how the universe was made. The Bible has as its twofold purpose to relate a history and to morally educate God's children. He figured we could apply our reason and get the rest on our own, from our notes as we attend a 24 hour a day lecture in real life. THERE WILL BE A CUMULATIVE FINAL.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is not science. Claiming otherwise does nothing to change that fact. It is an attempt, employing many flawed presuppositions, to explain the origin of life.

Actually, it's a theory to explain the diversity of species. Evolution theory makes no statements as to the ultimate origin of life.

[NativeNewYorker]

As long as you are free to exercise your beliefs, and I am free to exercise mine, we have no quarrel.

[Dataman]

Given that creationists don't really understand biology I don't see why a biology professor ought to write them a letter of recomendation.

Given that many evos don't understand ontology, empiricism or epistemology, should sharp things be kept out of their reach?

[Right Wing Professor]

At present, we have only the haziest idea of how life arose. Evolution explains the history of life after it arose; for example, the genetic and morphological relationships between animals, plants, etc.

[the_doc]

In medical school, many of the profs (mostly the basic-science PhDs, rather than the MDs) try to insert evolutionary ideas into their lectures pretty often.

IMHO, it contributes nothing whatsoever to the practice of medicine. (It actually made me rather embarrassed, for the sake of those scientists, to realize that I was sitting in lectures which stubbornly invoked evolution as a kind of god to explain things which evolution obviously can't even begin to explain. I wanted scientific discipline, not anti-Christian fluff which was by its nature weirdly irrelevant anyway.)

[Dimensio]

I don't look in the mirror when reversing my car, I turn and look out the back window. My rear-view mirror does provide an adequate viewing angle for safe reversing.