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.

[Dimensio]

Its simply expression of pre-existing DNA code.

Mutation implies a change in the DNA code. That means that something that wasn't there before shows up. That means that it is not pre-existing.

[IYAS9YAS]

One bite at a time.

[70times7]

You can't change a closed mind

You are quite consistent in supporting this statement

...This is why I won't waste my time debating creationists

I'm having trouble verifying this one, though. Perhaps if I read more of your posts...

[Polycarp]

That means that it is not pre-existing.

Fine. Show me non pre-existing bacterial DNA codes that have spontaneously evolved since the advent of anti-biotics.

[f.Christian]

No pre cambrian fossils .. .. ..

massive flooding // 'volcanic' sediment layering from above .. .. ..

and sub terranean layering from below -- -- --

young earth = = = all the time for erosian // evolution is gone . . .

evolution ===== hoax // scam !

Main Entry: sub·ter·ra·nean
Pronunciation: "s&b-t&-'rA-nE-&n, -ny&n
Variant(s): also sub·ter·ra·neous /-nE-&s, -ny&s/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin subterraneus, from sub- + terra earth -- more at THIRST
Date: 1603
1 : being, lying, or operating under the surface of the earth
2 : existing or working in secret : HIDDEN
- sub·ter·ra·nean·ly also sub·ter·ra·neous·ly adverb

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Mutation implies a change in the DNA code. That means that something that wasn't there before shows up. That means that it is not pre-existing.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that "something that wasn't there before shows up". Very often, a mutation can entail a loss of an existing genetic trait. For example, in the case of the Staphylococcus bacteria...

Experiments in suitable growing conditions have shown that occasionally bacteria lose their cell wall and produce a mutant or degenerate L form. These L forms are less tolerant to change than the normal form and can only function under certain conditions. Compared to the normal bacteria, they are misshapen and have poor tolerance against attack. Except, that is, against attack from penicillin! Having no cell walls it is of little concern to them if penicillin is present or not. These forms reproduce more slowly than normal bacteria and are therefore usually less of a threat to health than other types of bacteria, but the point to be made is that - they cannot normally be treated with penicillin. ~~ (Creation Ex Nihilo, November 1980)

However, such genetic information loss can hardly be proposed as a suitable mechanism for "evolution". Eventually, the organism would "evolve" itself completely out of genes to eliminate and is... well, "it's dead, Jim"; not to put too fine a point on it.

Now, let me cut the inevitable counter-argument off at the pass: No, I am not saying that such penicillin-resistant "information loss" is the only sort of bacteriological mutation out there. I am, however, pointing out that once we eliminate all cases of "resistance by pre-existing trait" (Polycarp's on/off gene switches) and "resistance by genetic evasion" (net information loss, but which removes the vulnerable gene)... which, if we are being scientifically rigorous, we must do...

...then at that point the "pool" of Evolutionist "examples" which may be even arguably asserted in support of his imaginary "just-so" stories, just got a vastly smaller.

[Right Wing Professor]

However, expression of latent genes and or gene swapping IS NOT EVOLUTION!

Read the paragraph about vertical evolution again.

[Dataman]

Me: What is observable about the big bang

YOU: Remnants, evidence.

Remnants would be the results of the event, not the event itself. Therefore the event remains unobserved. But you make a good point. It's all about the interpretation of the evidence.

I'm not aware of any leading scientific theories on "the beginning of time". In fact, from what I've seen most scientific principles break down once you get into Plank time, and as such there's no way to discern what happened 'before' that, much less whether or not there was a 'beginning'.

Cosmologists and theologians both believe time had a beginning. It was, however, unobserved.

Secular cosmologists have a couple of difficulties with the origin of time and matter that creationists do not have:

The origin of matter from a materialist viewpoint is a difficulty because the materialist believes matter and its motion are all there is. Logically, matter was either created or it always existed. The creation option is ruled out a priori because it interferes with the materialist's presuppositions. Therefore the materialist is forced to defend eternal matter; matter that existed before there was time. Now this is a logical contradiction for the materialist because something cannot exist before time since the concept of before requires time. Why is it contradictory? First, it calls for the attribute of eternal without an eternity. Second, all we know about matter and physics has to be suspended in order to explain the big bang. That takes the natural out of naturalism and makes it supernaturalism.

Now the biggest difference between your supernaturalism and my supernaturalism is that your supernaturalism happened without a God.

[Dimensio]

Cosmologists and theologians both believe time had a beginning. It was, however, unobserved.

All cosmologists and all theologians? Surely you're not speaking for everyone with such a sweeping generalization.

I've never heard of any reputable cosmologist coming up with a naturalistic hypothesis on the 'beginning of time'. As for theologians...their work is not science. Inventing a creator deity because you don't have a better explanation is not science, and it's not the same thing as 'evidence'.

[Glock22]

From personal experience I can say that belief in evolution is irrelevant to the practice of medicine. I have had many beleiving and nonbeieving colleagues of excellent caliber.

Evolution is a theory. Therefore skepticism is not irrational, as with all theories. Insistence that skepticism about evolution is unscientific is itself contrary to the practice of science. If you can't tolerate having a theory questioned, you aren't much of a scientist.

[Right Wing Professor]

Evolution is a theory. Therefore skepticism is not irrational, as with all theories. Insistence that skepticism about evolution is unscientific is itself contrary to the practice of science. If you can't tolerate having a theory questioned, you aren't much of a scientist.

What other scientific theories are you skeptical about? Universal gravitation? Conservation of mass/energy? The second law of thermodynamics?

[ChemistCat]

It's not the same as believing in the "Watchmaker God" who creates and sends forth creation, and stays uninvolved after that, though. The physical universe is adequate to its divine purpose and so rarely does He need to intervene that many people can't even see how miraculous it all is.

The quantity of mass in an electron and its exact charge suffice to prove God's existence. There is infinite intelligence in the elegance of design at every level, and even random chance--isn't.

[ml/nj]

I have many difficulties with "evolution." This is the one I was referring to in my earlier post on this thread.

I asked the professor whether he believed that evolution occurred gradually over long periods of time, or rather was the result of some sudden change. He, like most, answered that it was the result of imperceptible changes over a long period of time.

I then asked if he believed in genetics and, more specifically if he believed in chromosomes. And of course he did.

I pointed out that humans (capable of reproducing anyway) have 23 chromosome pairs, and that at sometime we must have "evolved" from some animal with 22 pairs, or possibly some other number. But since the simplest animals have just one pair end we evolved from them we must have made the jump to 23 pairs at some point along the way. I asked him how this could be done gradually. He didn't have an answer. (The conversation was a little more detailed than this, but that's the gist of it.)

ML/NJ

[Glock22]

Prof, you missed the point. Open inquiry and skepticism are essential to the scientific method. Insulting those who question a theory you believe in ain't science.

Or, to put it better, your response isn't right....it isn't even wrong.

[Dataman]

I've never heard of any reputable cosmologist coming up with a naturalistic hypothesis on the 'beginning of time'.

here's some help for you.

exerpt: Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang

exerpt: Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant.

I guess you weren't very informed on this matter. No problem. You can still argue against it.

Inventing a creator deity because you don't have a better explanation is not science, and it's not the same thing as 'evidence'

Of course you must realize that the denial of a creator deity is not science, and it's not the same thing as evidence.

[Pharmboy]

Evolution is central to the study and understanding of biophenomena. End of story.

[ChemistCat]

You betcha sweet bippy I'm a wolf. Just look at my pedigree. Wolf on BOTH sides.

[matthew_the_brain]

I was discussing this subject with a high school biology teacher friend of mine......he still believes Haeckel and his Embryos are proof of evolution.....


Keep your kids out of government controlled schools.

[Dimensio]

And from that page:
Science tells us nothing about the way space, time and matter behaved in our universe's earliest instant, from the time of the Big Bang to 10^-43 seconds later. Space was certainly expanding--violently--and from this expansion of space was formed a highly energetic soup of particles and antiparticles.

The page gives a very simplistic general summary of the overall hypothesis, explained in layman's terms. The fact is that cosmologists don't have a theory for how time 'began' because they cannot speculate on how it would happen because of the breakdown in scientific laws at Plank time.

Of course you must realize that the denial of a creator deity is not science, and it's not the same thing as evidence.

I never claimed as much. I simply lack belief in a creator deity due to lack of evidence.

[Dimensio]

The quantity of mass in an electron and its exact charge suffice to prove God's existence.

Does it really? And does it prove anything apart from this "God"'s existence, such as fundamental attributes of this entity?