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]

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

Mr Glock, I asked if you were skeptical about three other named scientific theories. Maybe you should ask yourself why you consider this question an insult?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Horses and donkeys don't have the same number of chromosomes, but they do mate.

Humans often have an extra chromsome, (for example, Al Gore pointed out that Republicans have an extra Y chromosome.)

Plants (and some amphibians) often exhibit polyploidy.

[Dark Knight]

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

You've have hit the proverbial nail on the head! Theories are being confused with basic principles. And skeptics of theories are being treated like skeptics of basic principles.

If I were to say I had a theory that violates the second law of thermodymics, after you rolled your eyes, you would dismiss me out of hand. If I could show it, you would demand extraordinary proof, and that would be reasonable.

On the other hand, if I have a theory, one that does not violate any accepted principles, all I have to show is that it describes reality better than the current theory, or it does it just as well and is simpler.

Evolution is being treated like a principle when questioned, and like a theory when changes to it are needed.

Evolution may eventually elevate itself to a principle, but it has to answer a lot more questions, and show a lot more stability before it becomes one.

DK

[Dimensio]

Doing a search on Google with 'human "chromosome pair" evolution' gave me a number of hits that I could probably explore for a much more thorough debunking, but here's a sample from one selected page:

"...some organisms maintain genetic barriers that basically result from a change in the overall number of pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans all have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Since these ape species are our closest primate relatives, we can conclude that the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans had 24 pairs chromosomes, and that two pairs of chromosomes became fused at some point during the evolution of the human branch of the ape tree."

I would assume that chromosome seperation would allow for an increase in chromosomes (I'll dig up some more web pages if you want), but it's safe to say that your 'refutation' falls a bit flat (especially when your claim puts humans as being 'more simple' than chimpanzees, since they have more chromosome pairs).

[Right Wing Professor]

Evolution is being treated like a principle when questioned, and like a theory when changes to it are needed.

I disagree. The principle that evolution proceeds by variation and natural selection has been unchanged for 100 years. The graduated v. punctuated evolution debate, the relative emphasis given to individuals vs. populations, the role of sexual selection, none of these really change the core premise; and one could equally say that the second law was radically altered by the elucidation of the principles of statistical mechanics, gravitation by relativity, and the conservation laws by the discovery of equivalence of mass and energy.

Evolution is to biology as the second law is to thermodynamics.

[Polycarp]

Read the paragraph about vertical evolution again.

You read it again. I minored in evolutionary theory in pre-med. I understand the supposed mechanism quite well.

a spontaneous mutation in the bacterial chromosome imparts resistance to a member of the bacterial population.

This is the theory. For instance, most gram positive bacteria such as Staph Aureus have a gene for an inducible beta-lactamase. Use of penicillins induced the expression of this beta lactamase. So researchers added a sulbactim to drugs such as Augmentin and Unisyn to fake out the beta-lactamase so the penicillin derivative drug to still kill the bug. However, strep strains do not possess a beta lactamase, and thus the penicillins are still the DOC for strep throat.

But again, this is a pre-existing DNA sequence. It is not a spontaneous mutation in the bacterial chromosome.

I'm asking for a specific example of a spontaneous mutation in the bacterial chromosome itself, not a theory about vertical evolution. Its easy to claim it in theory. Proving it in practice is a little different.

By the way, I am not a creationism nor an intelligent design advocate. But I have had enough evoltionary and micro bio and organic bio courses to admit there are major problems in Darwinian evolutionary claims.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm asking for a specific example of a spontaneous mutation in the bacterial chromosome itself, not a theory about vertical evolution. Its easy to claim it in theory. Proving it in practice is a little different

I did a quick medline search using 'mutation evolution antibiotic resistance'. I came up with 32 hits, including an extensive series of papers on the TEM beta lactamase, in which it was shown both in vitro and in vivo that antibiotic resistance to cefotaxime, cefuroxime, ceftazadime, and aztreonam evolved by single amino-acid substitutions from an ancestral penicillinase gene. The authors conclusion (and I quote) "The authors take this result as evidence that their in vitro evolution technique accurately mimics natural evolution and can therefore be used to predict the results of natural evolutionary processes. "

Predicting evolutionary potential: In vitro evolution accurately reproduces natural evolution of the TEM b-lactamase. Barlow, Miriam; Hall, Barry G. Biology Department, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. Genetics (2002), 160(3), 823-832.

I can post lots more refs and abstracts if you like. I have no idea what else you think vertical evolution might be; no one is suggesting antibiotic resistance involves production of a de novo protein; it's nearly always going to be by modification of an existing enzyme activity.

[Polycarp]

"The authors take this result as evidence that their in vitro evolution technique accurately mimics natural evolution and can therefore be used to predict the results of natural evolutionary processes. "

Nice assumptions.

[Dark Knight]

>>Evolution is to biology as the second law is to thermodynamics.<<

I have a black cat in my house. Make an evolutionary prediction.

I have a refrigerator in my house. I predict that it will be cold.

That's why biology is not taken seriously as a hard science. My appologies to all those molecular biologists and other specialites in biology that this does not apply to, but I'm sure everyone gets my meaning.

Considering all the fraud biologists have fallen for over the years, I'm surprised evolution hasn't degraded to a proposition.

Evolution is to Biology as goo is to concrete (kind of a mess when you put'em together with force)

DK

[cogitator]

Not a single transitional fossil has ever been documented.

Are you going to provide criteria by which the transitional nature of a fossil can be evaluated, or not? If not, then your claim above has no validity.

[Dataman]

But who would explain the jokes?

It would have to be something like Charlie McCarthy: You tell the joke and have Charlie explain it to the already dulled minds.

[Right Wing Professor]

I have a black cat in my house. Make an evolutionary prediction.

I have a single particle in an ion trap; make a thermodynamic prediction.

I have a single nucleus of U-238. Tell me when it will decay.

It's perfectly possible to make predictions, e.g., about future discoveries, guided by evolution. Popper was the originator of the 'evolution isn't predictive' line, but he abandoned it later in his career.

That's why biology is not taken seriously as a hard science.

By whom? You and the boys down the local bar? Biology isn't a 'hard science'; but it is a science, and an increasingly quantitative one.

I'm sure everyone gets my meaning.

What I'm getting is largely ignorant prejudice. I doubt that's what you want me to get. But sweeping attacks on the integrity of a successful scientific field do that to me.

[Right Wing Professor]

Nice assumptions.

Nope. Conclusions. Assumptions come at the beginning, conclusions at the end.

Anyway, you're paying games here. You said you wanted evidence of vertical evolution. This is published peer reviewed evidence of vertical evolution of antibiotic resistance; and there are several recent papers on this same system. It directly contradicts your assertions.

[Pharmboy]

Well, while ontogeny doesn't REALLY recapitulate phylogeny, the stages of embryonic development do not dissuade one from evolution.

[Dark Knight]

Did you notice that you did not make any prediction. Not even an attempt? You did not say my cat would die (thank you) or that she would get fleas (thanks again). You immediately asked questions about the second law. The Second Law is not very controversial. It is well described and most of the effects are well described. But if you insist on answers here they are:

>>I have a single particle in an ion trap; make a thermodynamic prediction.<<

I predict that you don't. Faulty basis.

>>I have a single nucleus of U-238. Tell me when it will decay.<<

I predict that you still don't have one.

But I do have a cat, and she is black.

Evolutionists have faith by tautology. Truth by definition. Easy but hardly useful or virtuous (it requires nothing). I've asked for the tools that evolution gives you, to do something. And you still cannot even convince a group of fairly smart individuals that evolution is more than a proposition.

You have not owned up to the frauds that plagued biology for decades, many of which were used as "proof" of the theory.

Ignorant? Gee Mr. Wizard, maybe people would be more open to the idea of evolution if biologists (previous exception of molecular biology etc. in force) would do more hard studies instead of spouting unproven claptrap. How many skulls were biologists fooled by? How many bird studies were incredibly flawed? How many times was speciation the word of the day?

As a scientist you compare the second law of thermodynamics to evolution as a principle? What bar have you been hanging out in? Darwin's?

You said that
" ...The principle that evolution proceeds by variation and natural selection has been unchanged for 100 years."
and then you immediately talked about the disagreements in it application and mechanism. Not a good candidate for a principle yet, eh?

If I said out loud in a bar "Nothing is 100% efficient." I doubt that I would get a rousing cheer. But I think everyone one under 0.04% would understand.

But if you went into a bar and said "Monkeys and man had common ancesters." They'd reply, "Maybe on your mother's side,".

Einstein talked about second law violations when he was in the patent office. "Show me."

That's why biology is not taken seriously as a hard science.

>>By whom? You and the boys down the local bar? Biology isn't a 'hard science'; but it is a science, and an increasingly quantitative one.<<

Guess what Doc, the guys at the local bar are not interested in biology. Not evolutionary biology, not molecular biology, possibly human biology, but that is not a shock. You have here a real audience. One that does not depend on you for their grades or prestige. If you would like to retreat to the safety of a class where everyone will parrot your view, 'til you feel like a king, have at it. If you remember, that what this thread is about. Real science will wait you out.

>>What I'm getting is largely ignorant prejudice. I doubt that's what you want me to get. But sweeping attacks on the integrity of a successful scientific field do that to me.<<

You can't even acknowledge the frauds, how can you possibly hope to convince a bunch of skeptics? I am curious about how you can mistake informed disbelief with ignorant prejudice.

Kind of funny how that works out with word games, isn't it. You know, theory, principle, and proposition. Never had that problem with an Engineer, or a Chemist but it does show up in Politicians, and Theoretical Mathematicians(sometimes).

If you are a real professor, then it is your job to convince people and help them understand stuff. I'm not asking you to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, just cut the crap.

DK

[Kuksool]

I see this case as a freedom of association issue. Professors should be free to make favorable recommendations for students they feel comfortable with. A christian student asking for a recommendation from Dini is like a College Freeper asking Michael Dukakis, who is now a MA college professor, for a recommendation for law school. Even if the creationists students win their case, Dini isn't required to write a favorable recommendation for the students. No recommendation is better than a bad one.

However to ensure christian students's civil rights are not disinfranchised at Texas Tech , a gov't institution, the school should make sure that christian honor students receive favorable recommendations from someone in the faculty or the administration. Also, Dini ought to be disciplined for making hateful comments about creationists. He should be made to apologize and attend sensitivity training on christian civil rights. On a final note Dini deserves to be freeped.

[Dan Day]

you should read what you post:

I do. It's not clear that you have however.

"There are still no known species-species transitions, and the "chain of genera" is not complete..."

Yes, so? Such gaps are extremely small -- the hoofed mammal to whale transition is very well filled nonetheless, and consists of a dozen transitional forms ("missing links") that creationists can't explain *at all*, but which undeniably maps out a gradual evolutionary transition from hoofed land mammals to sea-dwelling whales.

If you ran an animation sequence of the fossils, in chronological order, you'd see an unimistakable transformation from primitive cow-like animal to a whale. Only the most dogmatically obstinate would deny it. This is exactly what creationists have asked for when they've gone, "so where are the transitions, huh, huh?"

Deal with it. Or keep your eyes tightly closed, it matters not to me.

Note for the astute reader: Creationists will insist on a transitional fossil between A and B, then when you find one for them (or even a sequence of a dozen), they'll whine that you haven't filled the "new" gaps between the transitions and each other, or the now much tinier gaps near A and B...

Given the speed of species-to-species transitions (from a geological standpoint, anyway), and the fact that they happen in localized areas, and the fact that the species-to-species transitions of modern whales happened within the past couple million years, we're unlikely to find any of their species-to-species transitional fossils unless we start digging up most of the ocean floor. But creationists will continue to say, "oh, sure, you found 20,000 other transitional fossils, but since you didn't find *that* particular one, it's still just a theory..." Sigh.

Look, face it -- according to creationist, there shouldn't be a single transitional fossil between land-dwelling mammals and whales. According to evolution, there should be. What do we find when we look at the fossil record? Transitional fossils, like whales with legs, whales with notrils still on the end of their noses, land animals with many whale-like features and seal-like lifestyles, etc. -- and transitions between the transitions. So which theory is vindicated? Oh, right -- there *aren't* any transitional fossils, I forgot. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, it must simply be denied, right?

So, what were you saying again about me being a liar?

I repeat the charge, and add to it that you're a clumsy dodger. There are transitional fossils. There are thousands of them. When you claim that there aren't, you lie. When shown transitional fossils, you evade dealing with the issue, you dodge.

You must really have alot invested in this theory of yours to be so blinded by it.

Not at all, I just use my eyes to see where the evidence leads. Unlike, um, some other people, who have to pretend (and even falsely claim) that transitional fossils don't exist, when there are literally thousands. How will God view your dishonesty?

You falsely claimed that there were no transitional fossils. Instead, there are thousands. I showed you a dozen in a particular lineage. Should I post another few hundred for you? Or will you just look away again and continue the lies?

I'll pray for you, friend.

I think you need it more than I.

[Dan Day]

"Yet more ignorance from an anti-evolutionist..."

Yet more grace dripping from the lips of an evolutionist.

Gee, that's pretty funny coming from a guy who, on another thread, hit people with things like, and I quote, 'hypocritical', 'dishonest', 'biased', 'unscientific', 'illogical', 'manifest paranoia', 'superstitious', 'impervious to reason', 'no training in logic whatsoever', 'absurd', 'sophomoric', 'intellectually cowardly'...

Oh, here's one of my favorites:

"This is so entirely typical of you evos. Mouth, mouth, mouth, switch off brain, pass judgement. Small minded folks like you don't simply ignore the truth, you suppress the truth."

And then you made the amusing assertion that, "Claiming that darwinists have difficulty with logic is not a personal insult." Hell, by that criterion, neither was my remark, I was just commenting on the quality of his data...

Don't presume to lecture me on manners, Hypocrite. I was responding to someone who started his post with, "This is absolute garbage" -- I was responding to him in kind.

Are you *trying* to make yourself a laughingstock? If so, you're succeeding.

[DFSchmidt]

It's funny how someone is so easily declared "Anti-Christian". I checked Dr. Dini's homepage:

http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/autobiog.htm

...and he spent 14 years in a (Christian) religious order. Of course, it's _possible_ that he's now a baby-eating devil worshiper - Anything is possible - But we shouldn't jump to conclusions so readily. And as for being liberal, well, all I can say is, he chose to live in Texas, so if he _is_ a liberal, he may have chosen poorly...

DFS

[Blood of Tyrants]

Being in a "Christian order" doesn't make one a Christian any more than walking into a garage makes one a mechanic. Evolution is totally incompatable with Christianity.