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? 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.
The Fossil Hominid FAQ of The Talk.Origins Archive has several pages on creationist misquotations on human evolution:Here are some other pages of The Talk.Origins Archive that are about creationist misquotes: The following articles from The Talk.Origins Archive that that, in part, address creationist misquotations:
- Creationist Arguments: Misquotes (Many specific examples are provided.)
- Duane Gish quote about ER 1470
- Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote
- Rear view of Sinanthropus
Would you care to hear how many frauds, fakes, and errors creationists have been caught using to "support" their arguments?
We could start with the "Paluxy man tracks", of course. Then our tour would move on to Duane Gish's false claims about a non-existent chicken protein. Then there's the mythical "90 foot plum tree with fruit" in a glacier. There would be a whole wing in the museum for creationist false claims of evolutionary fraud, including their numerous false accusations against Archeopteryx. Then there's Kent Hovind's false claim that no one has ever taken him up on his debate challenge. How about the whopper about the dust accumulation on the Moon? The "Polonium halos"? The specious "decay" of the Earth's magnetic field? "Flash frozen" mammoths? Woodmorappe's various errors about radiometric dating? Need I go on?
"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?
No, it isn't. I note, however, that your own passage above is pretty typical for *you*. As I've already documented, you have no reluctance to let loose with such things as, 'hypocritical', 'dishonest', 'biased', 'unscientific', 'illogical', 'manifest paranoia', 'superstitious', 'impervious to reason', 'no training in logic whatsoever', 'absurd', 'sophomoric', 'intellectually cowardly'...
The list goes on. But these debates generally get pretty spirited and personal, on *both* sides. If you can't stand the heat without starting to whine about how mean people are being, go find a nice thread about Mel Gibson or something -- because you're only looking silly when you complain about folks making jabs, because you're one of the most enthusiastic namecallers.
If you were a model of patient restraint and understanding, then you might have some moral high ground to complain about anyone else. But since you're not -- since you're one of the more self-righteous namecallers I've seen on other threads -- I'm not about to sit here and accept any abuse from you for my using the word "ignorance".
And I'm not about to let you get away with this little bit of transparent disingenuousness:
I noticed your first comment on this thread was an ad hominem.
Oddly enough, your powers of observation weren't good enough to note that the PERSON I WAS RESPONDING TO had been less than polite, and I was responding exactly in kind -- partly as a way to suggest that he reconsider his tone.
Furthermore, your amazing powers of observation failed to grasp that EVEN AFTER I POINTED IT OUT TO YOU in my previous post, and I quote:
I was responding to someone who started his post with, "This is absolute garbage" -- I was responding to him in kind.So, how did you manage to spot my "ad hominem" (technically not correct, I was describing his claims as "ignorance" just as he described other claims as "garbage", both are a comment on what was said, not the person specifically), but failed to spot *his*? And why do you seem blissfully unaware of your own track record of flinging slurs?
Usually one warms up a bit before throwing the insults.
I got warmed up when I read a post that incorrectly described something as "garbage" -- but you've missed that *twice* now.
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.
If I ever do that, let me know. Until then, take your straw man and your misplaced smug self-righteousness elsewhere. I will not be lectured on my manners by a hypocrite who himself has a hair-trigger for insulting putdowns.
If Creationists were to come forward with a rock bed with both prehistoric and modern fossils we would probably listen to you.
But until you ditch the crackpot arguments like trying to prove humans and dinosaurs co-existed based on cave drawings or harping the garbage that was discredited more than 100 years and pointing us to charlatans with inkjet PhD's you clowns can count on being ignored. How can you expected to be taken seriously when what you are essentially doing is holding up a green crayon and insisting it is purple.
What reaction exactly were you expecting?
If all of humanity were constrained by the complete disregard for science that plagues most religious fundamentalists the entire world would look like Taliban Afghanistan, we would be squatting in the bushes, hunting animals with pointed sticks and we would probably still have half the population being killed every few years by the plague or starvation
If one looks at history the one thing that has always been a barrier to progress is religious fundamentalists. The only thing fundamentalists of any flavor have ever contributed to humanity is violence, ignorance and chaos. When it comes to science over the last 500 years I am sorry to report you fundamentalists don’t have a very good track record – infact your batting average remains 0.0
Lets look at the most contentious issue of the 16th Century. The configuration of the solar system. You see this godless liberal by the name of Copernicus kinda noticed that the planets Venus and Mercury seemed to disappear behind the sun for long periods of time and that meant that the solar system was orbiting the sun and not earth.
Well when a godless liberals professor who taught at Oxford by the name Bruno Giordano advanced Copernicus’s theory further you fundies were pretty pissed off about it. I mean how dare the guy point out the painfully obvious. What do you think Mercury and Venus were doing back there?
Well, he got burned at the stake for that and the fundies rejoiced. And even after Galileo discovered Io, Europa, Ganymede and Calisto orbiting Jupiter offering further proof not everything orbited the sun, the fundies again went insane and tried to get Galileo killed – unfortunately the evil godless scientist was spared. By the godless liberals of the catholic church
Fortunately for Darwin by the time he was walking the earth much of civilization had gloriously left the 16th Century and when Darwin made his theory public the fundies had their usually anti-science temper tantrum, however they couldn’t get him killed.
Now, when Darwin made his theory known there were a lot of blanks in the evidence that had to be filled in, and like Jupiter’s moons discovered by Galileo. No amount of evidence will convince the fundies.
You were wrong on the solar system and your wrong on evolution too, you charlatans have no credibility on which to launch your anti-science campaign, because throughout history on every single occasion you have been wrong.
No one is going to take you seriously when you are going against the fossil record and DNA and the entire disciplines of biology, geology and chemistry with cave drawings and 4000 year old biblical parables
You are so right. It has absolutely no relevance whatsoever in our daily lives. It's ridiculous to suggest that agreement with or rejection of Darwinism is an indicator of medical competence or diagnostic skill.
What the professor really means to say, IMHO, is that only atheists and agnostics apply for his recommendation.
Hey, wait a minute -- isn't that discrimination? Oops! I forgot. It's anti-religious discrimination, so it's OK.
Are we to believe that intellectual honesty comes from someone prone to such broad, reckless, and overdramatic generalizations?
People wanted to hang John Scopes, and they would have given the chance
Prove it.
Take more vitamin C. Experiments suggest that it conjugates with beta-3-ghostagoblin thereby inhibiting renal excretion.
True, no one can force Dini to endorse someone he doesn't believe in. But Dini's proposition is equally preposterous. His lack of faith in people who don't buy into evolution is arbitrary and personal, with no basis in potential real-life situations whatsoever. From what I read, this is about nothing but his naked contempt for people who reject Darwinism even if they have been fine enough students to receive his highest grade.
They have, actually excavating the evidence from under the layers of rock in front of witnesses. What was the response of evolutionists? Exactly what you accuse "fundamentalists" of doing: Fingers in the ears, eyes squinted closed, and running home to tell mom.
But until you ditch the crackpot arguments like trying to prove humans and dinosaurs co-existed based on cave drawings or harping the garbage that was discredited more than 100 years and pointing us to charlatans with inkjet PhD's you clowns can count on being ignored.
Ignored? Is that why there are so many c/e threads? Would you say Duane Gish is an inkjet PHD?
Duane Gish, Ph.D. earned a B.S. degree in chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from UC-Berkeley. He spent 18 years in biochemical research, including three years at Cornell University Medical College, four years at the Virus Laboratory, UC-Berkeley, and eleven years with the Upjohn Company. Since 1971 he has served with the Institute for Creation Research, Santee California, and is presently the Senior Vice President. He is a member of the American Chemical Society and a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemists.
Since he has solid credentials, how will you wave your hand and make him go away?
If all of humanity were constrained by the complete disregard for science that plagues most religious fundamentalists the entire world would look like Taliban Afghanistan, we would be squatting in the bushes, hunting animals with pointed sticks and we would probably still have half the population being killed every few years by the plague or starvation
All Christians.
If one looks at history the one thing that has always been a barrier to progress is religious fundamentalists.
To make such an uninformed generalization is to embarrass yourself.
The only thing fundamentalists of any flavor have ever contributed to humanity is violence, ignorance and chaos.
I suggest you do some research concerning fundamentalism. You will find that Christian fundamentalism is only about 100 years old and originated in America as a reaction to (I'll let you discover this for yourself). Perhaps you classify Jesus as a fundamentalist.
When it comes to science over the last 500 years I am sorry to report you fundamentalists don’t have a very good track record – infact your batting average remains 0.0
I just listed Christian scientists of which you were obviously unaware. You are also unaware that the Christian fundamentalist movement is barely a century old. Only two explanations can account for your mistakes:
Either you were genuinely ignorant
or
you deliberately distorted the truth.
Which is it? If it is simple ignorance, that can be corrected. If it is a deliberate distortion, I'd like to know why. I don't expect most FR evolutionists to be truthful -- although some are genuinely honest and fair in their approach -- because their presuppositions allow them to fabricate if it suits their purpose. But if evolution is true, then why to lies have to be told about its opponents and why does evidence have to be manufactured to support it?
Lets look at the most contentious issue of the 16th Century. The configuration of the solar system. You see this godless liberal by the name of Copernicus kinda noticed that the planets Venus and Mercury seemed to disappear behind the sun for long periods of time and that meant that the solar system was orbiting the sun and not earth.
This is another embarrassing mistake on your part: Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic Canon for 40 years, not a godless liberal. (Again, if your system is true, why do you need to lie?)
Well, he got burned at the stake for that and the fundies rejoiced.
I'm glad you caught one mistake on this one. There were, however, no "fundies" then. Can you tell me if there were even Protestants at the time of Copernicus?
when Darwin made his theory public the fundies had their usually anti-science temper tantrum, however they couldn’t get him killed.
Do you have some evidence that the non-existent "fundies" tried to kill Darwin?
No amount of evidence will convince the fundies.
Yes, you can convince the fundies. It's easy. You just have to know how:
Next point: Get your facts straight. You missed quite a few things in your rant above.
Next, admit it when the opponent makes a good point or when he raises a question you can't answer. Calling a good question stupid only assures us that you don't even know the answer yourself. How can you expect us to believe something you yourself cannot defend?
Every single occasion? Do you believe in absolutes?
No one is going to take you seriously when you are going against the fossil record and DNA and the entire disciplines of biology, geology and chemistry with cave drawings and 4000 year old biblical parables
If no one will take creationists seriously, then why are you still debating? Aaah- but your mind tells you the opposite of what you wrote! So again I ask you, if the truth is on your side, why do you have to fabricate?
244 posted on 02/01/2003 3:59 AM CST by ContentiousObjector
Solar system or evolution is not matter of belief but of scientific facts or theory. Belief in science is called scientism and it is common among semi-educated people.
I know excellent medical scientists (not speaking about good doctors) who do not belive in evolution (or interpret it in a way which would put you in a spin). You could be surprised but even you can be a good astronomer and see solar system as a reflection of the unknown in the human mind, while time and space as necessary charateristics of same mind. Some greatest physisists or astronomers could think so, have you ever heard about subjective idealism or Kant?
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.