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.
It was almost comical she would teach a chapter and say "we believe that it happened this way..we have no evidence but ..."
So she had set the bar higher for her students than for her own material..
I did not read one book or do one assignment. I simply answered all the tests question with her answers .."We were taught..then XYZ..." So I got my A and she got to believe she was shaping minds..
The sword cuts both ways ya know??
Is a theory that may explain how we, as humans, exist in the first place relevant to our daily existance?
It's ridiculous to suggest that agreement with or rejection of Darwinism is an indicator of medical competence or diagnostic skill.
It's a test of someone's ability to apply the scientific method, even when the results make him or her uncomfortable. Granted, it's a high standard, but the man is being paid to train scientists, after all, and is only doing his job. He cannot simply tell people that it's OK to only apply the scientific method of reasoning when they feel like it. That makes for bad science.
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.
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.
To imply that being a Christian automatically precludes someone from being able to apply the scientific method is an insult to Christians everywhere.
DFS
You got it. And we haven't evolved too much since then, sadly - That was less than a hundred years ago.
DFS
No, it's about being able to apply the scientific method even when the results make you uncomfortable.
DFS
What medical procedure or clinical practice depends on a belief in evolution?
Did you see an answer here somewhere.
DK, this is an excellent point - I'll do my best to address it.
First, let me try to answer your question.
One answer that is often given is the idea that bacteria evolve a resistance to antibiotics over time. If a physician did not accept this idea, he or she might be inclined to overuse antibiotics, increasing the number of resistant bacteria. That is the clearest example I have seen, though not everyone agrees that this constitutes evolution, or the right kind of evolution, etc., etc.
I personally believe it's an effective example, but on the other hand I also believe that you can be a good doctor and make sound medical decisions in the vast majority of cases, while not accepting the theory of evolution. I do not want to get into a debate on this, because this distracts us from the more fundamental issue, which, in my view, is this one:
Is this the question we should be asking, in order to justify Dr. Dini's policy?
Dr. Dini is teaching the science of biology. He is training people to think about biology in a scientific way. Based on the scientific evidence currently available, it appears reasonable to accept the theory of evolution, while imperfect, as our current explanation for the biological origins of man. Dr. Dini's question is meant to address the matter of whether the student asking for a recommendation can succesfully apply the scientific method, even when the results might make him or her uncomfortable. While this is a high standard, it is relevant to any scientific pursuit; when scientists fail to apply the scientific method, science fails, and this benefits no one, religious or otherwise. If new and credible scientific evidence was produced discounting the theory of evolution, Dr. Dini and all good scientists would again be required to apply the scientific method, come to the conclusion that the theory was flawed, and modify it accordingly. Scientists must not be allowed to pick and choose when we apply the scientific method, if they hope to produce valid results.
Dr. Dini has been hired to train scientists, to the best of his abilities, so we should expect no less of him.
In short, I believe that we should be asking a different question than the one posed above.
Please take a look at what I wrote here (I know, it's long):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/832645/posts?page=202#202"
...if you want a more complete treatment of the issue. I really don't think the man is being anti-Christian or anti-religious, I think he means well and is simply trying to train good scientists. Likewise, accepting the theory of evolution in no way detracts from the central message of Christianity - Nor does accepting the theory that the earth is spherical, and yet look what happened to Galileo. We have to learn from past mistakes.
Thanks for reading!
DFS
Cvengr, here's something I thought up in the shower a few mornings ago (sorry if that's too much information for folks :) to explain why the universe must be older than this - It's good 'cause it relies directly on what we can see. Check it out:
We can see, either with the naked eye or with telescopes, light from stars and other celestial objects that are more than 10,000 light years away.
Even if God created those objects at that distance and moving in such a way as to fool us into extrapolating the Big Bang, we would not see their light yet, unless we are prepared to challenge the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum is a fixed 299,792,458 m/sec.
Granted, this does not address the issue of fossil dating, which I'm not going to get into right now, since others are already covering that, but I hope everyone can see that this makes a reasonable case for the world being more than ~10,000 years old :)
Again, the core principles of Christianity remain untouched.
Thanks for reading,
DFS
This isn't discrimination based on religious beliefs. You can believe anything you want; you simply need to show your ability to apply the scientific method in a situation where the answer may surprise or upset you.
Consistant application of the scientific method is the only way we can advance science and inform and benefit humanity with the knowledge so gained. Doing otherwise would result in bad science, which would be bad for all of us, Christians or otherwise.
In addition, it's not the school that is making the judgement, it's Dr. Dini, and the students aren't being denied their reight to education, they're being denied his personal recommendation, which is his and his alone to give, for whatever reasons he chooses.
Finally, if we don't agree with his reasons, of course we are free to argue with and condemn him, to avoid his classes and to ask other professors for recommendations instead. We cannot pursue legal action, however, because, no matter how much we may dislike it, what he is doing is not in any way illegal.
The sword cuts both ways ya know??
Absolutely right. Consider this hypothetical criterion, for a professor of religious studies, writing recommendations for people who want to become (Christian) clergy:
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 Christian answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further work in the field of (Christian) religion.
Would this cause the same level of outrage?
Would there be a federal investigation?
Does anyone here have a problem with that question?
It's the professor's right. There's only one answer, from the Christian standpoint, and that's what he's asking for.
In addition it's relevant, because this is a criterion for a letter of recommendation for (Christian) religious work. If it were a criterion for a letter of recommendation in the field of the biomedical sciences, then we would have a problem.
Thanks for reading,
DFS
Absolutely correct!
They never have been.
Not truly, no, though it's fair to say that what happened to Galileo, for instance, was the result of inflexible religious dogma being incompatible with new scientific findings (sound familiar? :) - But that is not the same thing as science and religion being incompatible.
Only the evolutionists frame this debate as religion vs. science.
I think it would be fairer to say that there are some people on both sides of the argument who do this, and some who do not. I, myself, currently accept the theory of evolution, as I know of scientific evidence supporting it but have not encountered scientific evidence refuting it - But I also believe in the value of the core principles of Christianity. I don't find it helpful for anyone to frame the debate in this way - Hopefully you will see that from looking at my other posts.
In short - Don't give up on the "evolutionists" :) Though actually it's also not helpful to refer to people as either evolutionists or creationists, because this again raises an artificial division between people that need not be there. I do not think there's malice here, or that people are trying to hurt one another, for the most part - We're just trying to figure things out, and we don't always have the same ways of doing it. Which is why we must be tolerant and keep an open mind...
DFS
your personal ignorance doesn't mean something didn't happen
Care to back that one up with something that isn't as discredited as alchemy?
Duane Gish,
He was a creationist before he became a chemist and he still is a creationist and his arguments for creationism have been discredited just like all the others
Galileo Galilei- father of modern astronomy,
It's ironic that you mention him consitering it was your kind that was so horney to burn him at the stake
All Christians.
This has nothing to do with Christianity, and it is the worst type of slander to suggest any of those scientists would have been creationists.
Creationism is ignorance it is an insult to Christians the world over to try to link the two.
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?)
If you didn't catch the obvious contempt, you need to work on your reading comprehension
If no one will take creationists seriously, then why are you still debating?
The same reason kids like to beat up the retarded kid on the playground, on some sick politically incorrect level it’s fun to point and laugh at the ignorant and pathetic.
Creationist freepers are a fun target
The general theory of relativity says that the speed of light would be constant to all observers at any one time. It did not say that the speed of light would be constant through out all time. A speed of light that is changing with respect to time has already been postulated.
"The scientific method" is about more than just human origin. I find it difficult to believe that there is a realistic scenario in which a biochemist's opinion of Peking Man factors into the accuracy of tests for a cure for diabetes.
Granted, it's a high standard, but the man is being paid to train scientists, after all, and is only doing his job. He cannot simply tell people that it's OK to only apply the scientific method of reasoning when they feel like it. That makes for bad science.
Dini wrapped up by saying the following:
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?
Dini does a neat little weasel act when he haughtily asserts that the standard Darwin answer to the question of human origin is "fact," and then suggests that people who discount or reject the "fact" have "committed malpractice."
Without access to the references at the bottom of his page, it is impossible to know whether or not Dini has a leg to stand on when asserting that discounting Darwinism as "theory" and not "fact" has resulted in "bad clinical decisions" that have resulted in a "crisis in antibiotic resistance."
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.
With all due respect, there is no way you could possibly know that.
To imply that being a Christian automatically precludes someone from being able to apply the scientific method is an insult to Christians everywhere.
I wholeheartedly agree. And that is what Dini has done.
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.