Posted on 01/30/2003 9:33:28 AM PST by 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? Lets 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 ones 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.
OK, here's the problem: That's not what Dr. Dini is "insisting" the student do. To be fair, he's not insisting anything - You can do whatever you want, and he may or may not give you a recommendation - Which is his right, and something I would like to see protected a little more around this place. If he is forced to give a recommendation to someone he does not want to give it to, it has no meaning.
Dr. Dini's statement is here:
http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm
The statement asks the student to give a scientific answer to the question, "How do you think the human species originated?"
He is asking the student to be scientifically objective. Yes, evolution is a theory, and yes, scientifically there's no such thing as 100% certainty (thank you, Heisenberg :) Of course, if you apply the same standards to religion, well, you have a problem. I'm not saying you should, but let's be consistent here - We can't really prove anything, in the strictest scientific sense, but we know not to apply those same standards to religion and spirituality. If we did, they would cease to exist, because the idea of faith contradicts the idea of constant uncertainty. Thus we have these two ideas coexisting in separate spheres. So be fair about it! We can't apply one standard to the other. Doing so will either negate the idea of objective science, on the one hand, or preclude all religious faith and human spirituality, on the other, and I am not going to argue the value of doing either, because I don't believe we should.
Back to the question at hand, however. If we are going to be scientifically objective here (which is relevant, since the man is teaching science, and training his students to be scientists - That's what he's paid to do, and we can hardly fault him for doing things too well), the preponderance of evidence that is out there, while admittedly imperfect, indicates that the theory of natural selection and evolution is the most reasonable explanation for what we see, fossils and all, based on the evidence we have available to us, and especially when compared to the idea that he earth is 8,000 years old and that the Christian God (i.e. the only True God, PS - Death to the unbelievers ;) created everything - Or any variation on this extremely literalist theme.
Being scientifically objective, and making the judgement based on the scientific method, the man is trying to show that there is, based on current evidence, only one logical conclusion consistent with that methodology appropriate to the sciences he is teaching and his students are studying, and that, if you cannot get past your beliefs to the contrary, you cannot be expected to be a truly objective scientist in all situations.
Period.
With that said, I would hope that, if this man or any other scientist, myself included (PhD in 3 months, God willing), were presented with significant and convincing evidence that shows that evolution cannot be the cause of what we see now, that we would then adjust our theories accordingly. And let's be clear, there's a big difference between contradicting some small element of a theory and disproving the whole thing. Newton's Laws of motion are wrong. They do not hold at relativistic speeds. That does not mean we should scrap them, or stop using them in the regimes where they apply. A good theory expands on the supportable elements of the theory it replaces, and discards those elements that cannot be supported by available observations. At any rate, an adjustment to our theories on the origin of the species would, in the evidence of significant evidence to contradict evolution, would be the only appropriate and objective thing to do, and I believe that scientists, on the whole (and there are plenty of deeply religious scientists out there) would be able to see that, and act accordingly. In fact, I believe that insinuations to the contrary are an insult to the intelligence and convictions of all people, religious or otherwise, who also happen to be trained in the scientific method. Scientists or no, none of us should ever become so wedded to a viewpoint that we cannot change our minds. The problem is that, to my knowledge (and feel free to prove otherwise), there isn't any smoking gun, any overwhelming scientific evidence that shows that we should scrap the theory of evolution as a whole. Again I stress the word scientific - The existence of the Bible or your personal faith in Jesus Christ is insufficient evidence to contradict the theory of evolution (especially for those who do not share said beliefs - Yes, we have to consider them too), because the two are judged by wholly different standards, and ne'er the two shall meet.
Dr. Dini's standard is a high one - He's asking people to put scientific objectivity ahead of religious beliefs, for the sake of applying the scientific method. This method is important, however, in that it is all we can rely on in order to ensure that we do good science. This is asking a lot for some people, and I do not fault them for that. If the argument is that this standard is too high, feel free to make it, but that's not what I'm hearing here. If the argument is that scientists should not strive to be objective in all situations, that's simply not supportable - You can't ask someone who is in the sciences and who is training scientists to say, "that's OK, in this one case you don't need to be objective, don't worry about the scientific method". In your personal life, fine, outside of your work, fine, but if you're going to be a scientist (that includes doctors, yes), that's a slippery slope - We have to be as objective as possible. What is written below is a good example of two things - How you can be a great scientist, lose your objectivity, and be wrong, AND how you can still be a great scientist while occasionally losing your objectivity (note the spin in either case :)
Einstein was a brilliant man. He was also noted for having said, as a counter-argument to quantum mechanics, that "God does not play dice". This was not due to scientific evidence, but to his beliefs. And he was wrong. The evidence is here:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Does this make Einstein any less brilliant? No. But could it have lessened his contributions to science? Yes. If he had been able to accept quantum mechanics and had applied his intellect to that problem as well, who knows where we'd be nowadays. Therefore, we have to try to be as objective as possible, or science will suffer, and that's not good for anyone, religious or otherwise.
In addition, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out a few other things:
- Science and religion need not be at odds here. You can believe in the Biblical creation, in a metaphorical sense, and at the same time accept the theory of evolution. Perhaps 7 days to God is not 7 days to us. Perhaps God did not "create" man just like that, but did it gradually. Perhaps we should not be reading religious documents that have been edited and politicized for thousands of years _quite_ so literally. The lessons contained therein are definitely of value, but it pays to take them in the right way. I'm not saying I'm in sole possession of the truth here - Just that we have to leave some room for interpretation, or it's again a matter of being so wedded to your own personal take on things that you cannot change your mind. I've seen that in science and religion, and in both cases it's simply not helpful to the discussion.
- To reiterate, regarding the difference between "belief" and "acceptance" - I do not believe in the theory of evolution, as some mystical, unchanging truth. What I should probably say, to make the distinction (though this is typically what someone means when they say that they believe such and such a theory) is that I accept it, based on the presence of significant supporting evidence. Lacking that evidence, I do not. Belief is a very loaded word, implying something unchanging, and science is constantly evolving in its attempts to get closer to the natural laws governing the universe, so it is bound to be closer at some times than it is at others.
- From the standpoint of conservative politics, which is what the Free Republic is about, censoring this man or in any way punishing him for what he has done is wrong. He is not doing anything illegal, and he is not even discriminating on the basis of religion. You can be of any religion (or no religion) and pass his test - Or fail it. I guarantee you that many Christians have passed that test and gotten his recommendation, and that at least some of them have believed in Creation and accepted the theory of evolution.
- Denial is not a good tactic here, for anyone involved in this discussion. Prayer may indeed have some benefits for sick folks (though it's a big leap to say that that's due to God healing someone, rather than simple psychological support, for instance). Likewise, there are bacteria at the bottom of the Hudson river that eat PCBs. There weren't any PCBs down there 'til GE dumped 'em there in the 50s. Clearly, those little buggers did something in order to get to where that was dinner.
- Life from non-life? Well, they recently synthesized polio from "off the shelf reagents":
http://www.sunysb.edu/ovprpub/tsc/polio.html
...which, in my book, is pretty damn impressive, even if polio is a very simple virus, and virii and just borderline alive anyway, as they need a host to reproduce in. What about a bacteria? I know, crazy right? So was synthesizing the polio virus, a hundred years ago, so let's not get ahead of ourselves - It could happen. It's already been shown that you can get organic precursors to proteins and DNA in solutions that, we think, are something like the prebiotic environment of the earth. Given enough time, anything with a non-zero probability of happening will happen, guaranteed, so even if you think this reaction is a long shot, just remember, this place is pretty big, and pretty old...
- Macro vs. micro? It's all relative - We're seeing things from the standpoint of our lifetimes. This is why you won't see a video of a species evolving into another species - If it's happening, and I accept that it has, in the past, it would generally take so long that you wouldn't notice. That doesn't mean it's not happening. I can't see an electron, but I can see evidence of it. Anyone who doesn't think electrons exist is welcome to play golf in a lightning storm ;) If we lived to be 100,000 years old, we would be having a very different discussion. Too bad oak trees can't talk, some of those live oaks I grew up around are nearly a thousand years old and might have actually witnessed this sort of thing, with small critters anyway, maybe some plants or microbes or something... Maybe it happened gradually, maybe it happened by leaps and bounds - Probably some of both. We also know that genetic mutations are a given, and that we share 99+% of our DNA with monkeys - Which, for me, puts things in perspective. If I had a typewriter instead of this stupid computer, I might even try my hand at Hamlet 2: The Revenge. Ah well, so little time...
Finally, sorry for the length - I read through all ~200 other posts first, and I got a lot of ideas, this post basically sums them all up, and rather than shotgunning you folks with a hundred messages, I figured this was best. Please read it carefully before responding, if you care to, because I may have addressed your points in here somewhere, and please give me the benefit of the doubt if it sounds like I've said something stupid, because it's quite possible that I did, and didn't mean it - We all make mistakes.
Thanks all, for reading, and please don't kill each other over this. It's really not worth it.
DFS
BoT, I agree with you 100%. Do you agree that there are true Christians who also accept the theory of evolution?
...or do their heads explode first? ;)
...but seriously, I'm very curious as to why you believe (important point, it's your opinion) the two are mutually exclusive. I say anyone with a grasp on the concept of metaphor can deal, no problem - It's just a matter of not taking the Bible (or your religious text of choice) so literally. Of course, you can prove me wrong on this - I wait, with bated breath...
DFS
:)
DFS
Yes. There are also Christians who vote for clintoon and support abortion and homosexual rights and any number of wrong causes. It is not up to me to judge their salvation, but I can judge their beliefs and actions because the Bible guides me.
Why is evolution incompatible with Christianity? Because it says that the Bible is not true. When you start denying the truth in the Bible, like in claiming that the meaning of "day" might be 400 million years, (no, a day means a day), then you invite the denial of other parts as well.
The spread of the idea of evolution is absolutely crucial in the destruction of Christianity as it attacks the very basis ofJudism and Christianity; that God created.
Besides, I have seen much more evidence of a worldwide flood than evolution. I have seen too much circular logic in evolution. I have seen outright deception and lies. I have seen the evolutionists simply ignore any evidence that didn't fit in the right place. I have seen evolutionists denounce and sneer at anyone who places their faith in God rather than men. I have seen mathematical evidence for the argument of a young earth.
I simply choose to believe God.
I thought we were discussing evolution, or scientific laws, but in fact we were just following some weird pattern of free association known only to you personally. My mistake.
I have a single nucleus of U-238. Tell me when it will decay.
I predict that you still don't have one.
You're wrong. In fact, I hav 10^20 or so such atoms on a shelf in my lab, in a bottle of uranyl nitrate. Evolutionists have faith by tautology. Truth by definition
This is just uncorroborated assertion on your part. Evolution is supported by a vast weight of observational evidence; it can be demonstrated in the lab and outside it. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la' won't make it go away.
And you still cannot even convince a group of fairly smart individuals that evolution is more than a proposition.
I'm sorry, are you referrring to creationists? Ha ha ha.
You have not owned up to the frauds that plagued biology for decades, many of which were used as "proof" of the theory.
Biology has been no more plagued by fraud than any other field; scientific fraud, while deplorable, has had little overall influence on the progress of science. If the results are important, they're checked; if they're not, who cares?
As a scientist you compare the second law of thermodynamics to evolution as a principle?
Yes. And you haven't been able to come up with an argument why they should not be compared, so you're ranting.
" ...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?
Do you know the difference between a principle and its applications?
Einstein talked about second law violations when he was in the patent office. "Show me."
A wise man, was Einstein. Show me evidence of creation. Got photographs?
That's why biology is not taken seriously as a hard science.
...by you and the lads down in the bar. Otherwise this is an attempt by proof by repeated assertion. On the contrary, I can point to the massive funding of biological research by the NIH, NSF and drug companies; the mmebership of scores of eminent biologists in the National Academy of Sciences; the worldwide importance of biological research to the global economy.
You can't even acknowledge the frauds, how can you possibly hope to convince a bunch of skeptics?
Creationists are not skeptics, they're self-blinded ignorant zealots.
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.
First of all, I am eternally thankful that it's not up you to tell me my job. Second, I can't teach people who are not willing to learn; nor am I willing to waste my time trying. I don't want to convince you. I want to discredit you. People who go around claiming that evolution is on the run, on the say-so of a group of crackpots on a web site in Seattle, when a trip to the library or to a journal web page will show them the literally hundreds of papers per year that are now using molecular means to fill in the details of evolution (and no, repeat no, research biologist of any standing disputes the principle.), are way beyond convincing.
Wake up, and peel the tinfoil off your skull.
LOL
This was said by you guys about a fellow freeper. Comments were also made about his parents. I was responding to your vacuous ad hominem attacks. Therefore I wrote:
"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 it is typical, is it not? I noticed your first comment on this thread was an ad hominem. Usually one warms up a bit before throwing the insults. When someone starts insulting a person's parents or upbringing because his clip is empty, it's time for that person to go back to the druggie threads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.