Biology Professor Refuses to Recommend Students Who Don't Believe in Evolution

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:

You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me.

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.

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

Ewald, P.W. 1993. Evolution of infectious disease. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 298.

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. so how do we determine the distance to the stars 10,000 light years away? A fixed observer on a rotating planet, with assumption of relative displacement between measurements and attempting to measure a frequency shift as Earth rotates towards the star and from rotating away from the star?

Sounds like a good way to me :) How much error would you expect, based on this method?

Again we make an assumption of the properties of space in deep space, behavior of light in far galaxies and intermediate spans, if even such terms are meaningful beyond our locality.

True. It's possible that we have something other than a vacuum between us and the star. If it's a vacuum, the speed of light is the usual 299,792,458 m/sec. If it's not a vacuum, the speed of light is less than 299,792,458 m/sec, which means we're underestimating the amount of time it took to get here. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and agree that it's all vacuum, thus making the universe a youthful 10 billion years old, give or take a billion.

It may also be the case that evolution as identified and defined by current scientific trends is merely a functional subset of a Scriptural literal timeline.

Or it may not - You're right, we don't know. At any rate, if you remove the word "literal" I will wholeheartedly agree with you, despite our admitted mutual uncertainty :) Otherwise, we're back to the fact that we cannot simply brush aside the matter of interpretation. We would be rash to do so with any other great piece of literature, after all.

All digressions and jargon aside, however, I'm talking about the distance to the stars right now, not evolution. I'm making a case for the world being (much) more than 10,000 years old, contrary to the seemingly unsupported assumption of a literal scriptural timeline.

We agree that the astronomical measurements referred to are necessarily inexact. Can we make a strong case that our measurements of the distance to deep-space objects are off by a factor of a million?

On the contrary, there are spiritual phenomenon wherein space and time do not seem to be limited by the speed of light.

Absolutely correct, the descriptions we have of such phenomenon imply exactly that! Another excellent reason to invoke the idea of metaphor in religious texts. Again, I'm glad we're on the same wavelength here (no pun intended).

Thanks for reading,

DFS

>> 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 like the example, but even you concede that it may or may not be considered evolution. I've even looked at the basic arguments on genetic material exchange, etc. If there is not a concrete example of evolution as a required belief, there are much better biologically sound traits a physician must possess.

As a scientist, Dini should be shamed into using those, if he cannot give a concrete example of necessity. Thoroughness of lab behavior, accuracy ability to identify structures, ability to absorb relevent material (belief is not required) all would seem to be more appropriate tests of the biological components of being ready to be a physician.

When the litmus test of agreement with the professor's theories or beliefs are required, science suffers. I would liken it to political science professors that only give good evals to those that parrot their every word. Science was supposed to be skeptical.

>>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.<<

I would change this because, much to the surprise of many, I am not a creationist. You are studying religions at a public college. A professor prints up on his web page that he teaches The Philosopy of Christianity. If you want to get a positive letter of recommendation I will ask you: "Do you believe in Christ?" Belief is a central issue in the true understanding of Christian philosophy, and no one can really understand without it.

There is something left off of both. The ability to have a discussion of the merits of that belief. When discussion ends, so does the scientific method.

DK

"The scientific method" is about more than just human origin.

You got it! If the application of the scientific method were only relevant to the origin of the species, we would only need to hold people to such a high standard of scientific objectivity when studying the origins of man - We could neglect doing so in all other scientific endeavours, and Dr. Dini's test would be largely irrelevant.

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.

Again, absolutely right! The personal opinions and beliefs of a good scientist should never affect that scientist's ability to properly and objectively apply the scientific method to any problem.

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."

...while it may seem like this, depending on your reading, I think it's only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. His wording is very careful - He correctly describes evolution as a theory (automatically implying that it may be disproven, with proper evidence), even when referring to it as a unifying principle of biology, and asks for the "scientific answer" - not the "Truth". Granted, his attitudes on the topic are clear - I will not ignore that - And he also goes so far as to say "...that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution...", based on a preponderance of physical evidence.

I believe that he means this in the same sense as one would refer to the theory of gravity as a "fact", because a preponderance of physical evidence supports it - Strictly speaking, though it is only a theory. In the strictest sense, there are no facts in science, only our best available theories. Some are more flawed than others, of course, which is how controversy arises - This typically means we work to improve them and address the inconsistencies, however, rather than scrapping them entirely.

Colloquially, we often blur the line between theory and fact. The "laws" of thermodynamics are not really laws, in the strictest sense - Stephen Hawking once postulated that one of them could be broken inside a black whole, for instance, and he was not the first to postulate a counter-example. His postulate, though, like all others that contradict the "laws" of thermodynamics, was eventually disproven. We have yet to find a counterexample for the "laws" of thermodynamics. This does not mean we can be 100% certain that we never will - Such is the nature of open-minded scientific inquiry, and proper application of the scientific method - But on the other hand, people do tend to accept those principles of thermodynamics as "laws" or "fact", because it certainly appears that we won't find anything to contradict them. That doesn't mean I agree with the practice, and we must be careful of believing that a theory is a fact - But on the other hand the practice is definitely understandable, in general; we know what people mean, when they talk about the law of gravity.

Clearly, Dr. Dini feels the same way about the theory of evolution. I recognize that not everyone will agree with him, and there are legitimate scientific grips with the theory. Again, however, take the case of Galileo - His observations were based on Newton's "Laws" of motion, an admittedly imperfect set of theoretical predictions (no relativity). At the same time, however, the idea that the earth went around the sun so offended the religious sensibilities of many people at the time that, even though he was eventually proven to be absolutely right, people would not accept it. I really don't want to offend anyone here, but we can't completely neglect the parallels between the two situations - What seems totally obvious to us now was at least as controversial to equally decent religious people in Galileo's time.

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.

In the strictest sense, you're absolutely right - As a scientist I cannot know anything, without any shred of doubt - For that level of faith, only religion serves.

With that said, however, let's not kid ourselves. This is Texas Tech :) I grew up in the South, and there are a lot of deeply religious people there. This man has been teaching at Texas Tech. for 10 years. He's seen a lot of students go by. I think we can agree that it is exceedingly likely that Christians have passed his test, and that some of them have accepted the theory of evolution while also believing in the biblical Creation. I will be happy to ask him, though, if you want to know for sure.

Now, with that said, let's assume I am wrong about that, because I am certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. That does not detract from the underlying point, and this is something I am positive of:

There are people who could pass his test and accept the theory of evolution, while at the same time believing in the idea of the biblical Creation.

I know this, because some of them are friends of mine :) Nice folks, too.

Thanks for reading, and sorry about the length!

DFS

I like the example, but even you concede that it may or may not be considered evolution.

"Even me" - LOL! I'm honored to be the gold standard :)

Let's be clear, though - I recognize that not everyone will consider this to be evidence of the same kind of evolution that is held to have resulted in the origin of man. I think you can make a very good case, however, and once you admit that evolution occurs, you're on a slippery slope to proving that it only occurs under certain specific circumstances that would have never ever affected our supposed progenitors. I and many others accept this example as being a good example of evolution taking place, and so far I've found counterarguments to this being a form of evolution somewhat lacking. Doesn't mean there's not a good counterargument, mind you, or there never will be - But I'm not convinced.

Consider the PCBs example, by the way - We also have bacteria that eat PCBs at the bottom of the Hudson river. Those chemicals didn't exist before the 20th century, and neither did those bacteria. That's a more substantial leap than antibiotic reistance, in my opinion, and it happened. What are we to conclude? Well, unicellular reproduction is much faster, so presumably evolution, if it's happening, must be much faster as well, since it depends on reproduction to pass on the valuable traits. Hence the problem with "observing evolution" in multicellular animals - As I said before, we don't live long enough to see such jumps as a hypothetical equivalent of the PCB thing, something like humans "suddenly" (that's a matter of perspective BTW; was the PCB thing "sudden" to the bacteria?) being able live off of eating synthetic plastics (yummy!)...

I've even looked at the basic arguments on genetic material exchange, etc. If there is not a concrete example of evolution as a required belief, there are much better biologically sound traits a physician must possess.

Sorry for being dense - I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here... I think it's along the lines that there are better metrics to judge someone by, when determining whether they will be a suitable physician or not...? ...and that this is because you've examined some evidence for evolution, and reached the conclusion that the case is not clear-cut? I'll go with that - Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Second point first. I think it's safe to say that the majority of scientists familiar with evolutionary theory accept it. We can make an argument that they're all heavily biased fools, but this is slightly prejudicial :) Just as it would be prejudicial to declare all people who believe in Creation, according to the Bible, to be ignorant or uneducated. I think it's a lot more fair to say that, while some of the scientists are biased, close-minded, and intolerant of counterarguments, as are some of the folks who believe in Creation, most of them are not (and, in addition, that these two ideas need not be contradictory). So with that said, I am inclined to accept both the evidence that I have seen for evolution, as well as the scientific opinions of the majority of those people most qualified to judge, as I don't think that all (or even most) of them are bad scientists (and that's basically what we're saying otherwise).

First point. You're right, there are better ways of judging someone's suitability with respect to being a physician. Surgeons, for instance, should have steady hands, and a high tolerance for gore :) But, to reiterate: Dr. Dini is not training physicians. He only teaches biology, and he is training people in the scientific method, as applied to the biological sciences. They are definitely related to medicine, but he's not training doctors. He has been hired to train scientists to be as objective as possible, and I believe he is trying to do just that. His opinions on physicians we can readily disagree with, absolutely. This does not at all detract from the fact that science only functions when scientists are objective, even when the conclusions they read are unexpected or unpleasant, and that he, as a science teacher, is being paid to do his best to convince people of this.

When the litmus test of agreement with the professor's theories or beliefs are required, science suffers. I would liken it to political science professors that only give good evals to those that parrot their every word. Science was supposed to be skeptical.

Absolutely right. I don't think he's doing this, however, and at any rate there's certainly an out - If you can present reasonable scientific evidence to support whatever your answer is to that question, as a scientist he should accept it - Or he is a bad scientist. If he is, by all means, he should be ashamed of himself, and people would have every right to complain about him being unfair. If no one can present such a case, no matter what we think of the man we cannot argue with the standard. Science is supposed to be skeptical, yes, but I think it's fair to say that we also have to prioritize. In the grand scheme of things, what is the least likely to be accurate, and what is the most? I wouldn't waste much skepticism on gravity, for instance - There are better things I could be doing with my time.

Now, back to the out I discuss above - I have yet to see such evidence myself, and so while I am not saying it will never exist, I will still need some serious convincing to believe that the universe is really less than 10,000 years old and that all life was created in a few days. I can believe that God set in motion the events to create all life, and I can believe that 1 day for God is not the same as a day for us, but right now, that's as far as I'm willing to go. But to reiterate, I am totally prepared to believe someone who can show me otherwise - I have no vested interest in accepting any particular theory, other than the one that best explains the world we live in.

I would change this because, much to the surprise of many, I am not a creationist.

My GOD! (Sorry, oh Lord ;)

OK, caught my breath. Well, this may come as an anti-climax, since you beat me to the punch, but I'm not an evolutionist, either. I'm a complicated man, and no one understands me but my...well, nevermind. At any rate, I applaud your resistance to being labeled, because all that ever accomplishes in most discussions is to separate people who might otherwise actually agree on something - Life is not so simple.

You are studying religions at a public college.

I never said it was public :) That could cause some problems. Even at private schools though, they often get state funding in some way or another, so it's still tricky, for sure.

A professor prints up on his web page that he teaches The Philosopy of Christianity. If you want to get a positive letter of recommendation I will ask you: "Do you believe in Christ?" Belief is a central issue in the true understanding of Christian philosophy, and no one can really understand without it.

And Dr. Dini holds that evolutionary biology is a central issue in the true understanding of the biological sciences, and no one can really understand without it.

There is something left off of both. The ability to have a discussion of the merits of that belief. When discussion ends, so does the scientific method.

Absolutely! But the man doesn't want a dissertation :) He's not arguing against our right or ability to discuss the theory of evolution and its merits and shortcomings - Of which there are both, it's certainly not perfect (nor does he claim it is) - He's simply asking the student what the best scientific explanation for things is, to date, based on the evidence. Since he's asking for a scientific explanation, if we don't give him one we have only ourselves to blame. The scientific answer does not deny the religious answer, or vice-versa. And anyway, if you went into his office and wanted to have that discussion about evolution, I would be shocked if he wouldn't engage you, assuming he had the time. I can't speak for his patience in the face of a theory that states that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, but if you wanted to discuss the shortcomings of evolution, I seriously date he would claim that there weren't any.

Thanks for reading,

DFS

>> Consider the PCBs example, by the way - We also have bacteria that eat PCBs at the bottom of the Hudson river. Those chemicals didn't exist before the 20th century, and neither did those bacteria. That's a more substantial leap than antibiotic reistance, in my opinion, and it happened. What are we to conclude? Well, unicellular reproduction is much faster, so presumably evolution, if it's happening, must be much faster as well, since it depends on reproduction to pass on the valuable traits. Hence the problem with "observing evolution" in multicellular animals - As I said before, we don't live long enough to see such jumps as a hypothetical equivalent of the PCB thing, something like humans "suddenly" (that's a matter of perspective BTW; was the PCB thing "sudden" to the bacteria?) being able live off of eating synthetic plastics (yummy!)... <<

How do we know that those type ob bacteria, did not just develope a liking to PCBs, similar to those that developed a "resistance" to antibiotics, and had really been around "forever"?

Don't you think that the more relevent tests of whether a future physician would be good, as it relates to biology as a science (this is the important part) on an undergraduate level would be aspects their abilities like: the ability to be thorough in labs, the ability to describe the structures in flora and fauna, ability to assimilitate seemingly random data and form good judgements based on possibly limited information. As an educator, in this regard, he is held to a higher standard for evaluating his students. If he does not use the most appropriate tests for his recommendations he is not doing his job. If he knows physicians, especially teaching physicians, he has a duty to find out what the charactaristics they find important to a prospective physician that come from biology. They might suprise me with what they come up with. Dr. Dini should not be surprised, he should already have asked that question.

If the recommendation is for grad school in biology we are in a different academic world.

>>I would change this because, much to the surprise of many, I am not a creationist.

My GOD! (Sorry, oh Lord ;)

OK, caught my breath. Well, this may come as an anti-climax, since you beat me to the punch, but I'm not an evolutionist, either. I'm a complicated man, and no one understands me but my...well, nevermind. <<

There is an incredible amount of acrimony in any thread that says either the evil evo... or crea... words. I've been told that my creationist beliefs are...and I've never made the claim nor even put up the arguments. But if I even say one thing that a creationist has talked about, the label comes up. I've been told that they did not want to convince me, just discredit me. Hardly the scientific method.

>>And Dr. Dini holds that evolutionary biology is a central issue in the true understanding of the biological sciences, and no one can really understand without it. <<

Does an undergraduate have to have faith in evolution, to have a true understanding of it? Can he know the meaning of each concept, be able to descibe in detail and apply it when necessary, without having to believe?

There are 34 other profs in biology that can give the required recommendation. I kind of wonder if they have any similar requirements, or if this is common in the biology field. If not, then he really is out there by himself, which is kind of sad for both the student that finds himself in the class and the prof that has just his reputation battered in public. Freepers will probably disagree, but most people just read the headlines. Name+ "Bad Feeling"=Dini Whatever the result of discussion.

DK

You are the gold standard. When you put up an example, you not only gave it, but also it's shortcomings. Don't you think that kind of levels the intellectual playing field from poker to chess?

Um, think you're "walkin" on the wrong end of the change function there hoss!

Right you are - Sorry about that, I didn't realize the goof 'til after I'd already posted it... At any rate, you have to admit, it's pretty funny :)

And more seriously, it also shows us how crazy things get when we change the speed of light by a factor of a million.

So let me now consider the appropriate case, then - Again, sorry for the confusion, I'd just gotten up wasn't thinking straight.

If we want to deal with light from objects that currently appear to be 10 billion light years away (based on our current estimation of the speed of light in a vacuum), and we want to consider that the light has actually been travelling for only 10,000, the light would need to move a million times faster, not slower.

First question - Is increasing the speed of light by at least six orders of magnitude reasonable / supportable?

Second question - Assuming it is, what happens?

Let's look into that. In order to have the same energy, the radiation currently emitted from stars, in the form of visible light, would need a wavelength a million times longer, in order to make up for the increase in the speed of light.

This means that stars would cease to emit visible light, and instead would emit mostly radio waves!

Let's look at that in a Biblical context (KJV, BTW :).

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

OK, so unless you believe in biblical metaphor and allow for "light" to mean any form of electromagnetic radiation, we're talking about visible light here.

"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness."

"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

OK, so not only is the light visible, but it is the same light that gives us day and night - Which, as we all know, comes from the sun, one of many stars. This means that, on the first day of Creation, we have stars that are emitting visible light.

Therefore, the speed of light from then on must have been close to what we know it to be now, or there wouldn't have been any day or night, because our sun would've been emitting almost no visible light, since visible light would've had to have at least a million times more energy then, than it does now.

Unless, that is, you also want to make an argument for arbitrarily changing the nuclear binding energy of all of the atoms in the universe. We can go round and round like this, but it really isn't necessary. Consider:

God must be pretty darn smart, right? Divinely smart, even. So He knew about all of this stuff we're talking about, and more, from day one - He understood the mechanisms behind all the processes in the universe, having created them. But He also knew that, if He went and tried to explain astrophysics to everybody a couple thousand years ago, that it would simply confuse people and obscure His central message. It's like giving a good talk - You want to keep things simple, to the point, and at an appropriate level for your audience. So He uses metaphor to explain what happened. What's the problem?

Since God is, by definition, perfect, He must therefore be the perfect scientist, and be perfectly able to apply the scientific method in all cases. If Dr. Dini wants us to do the same, then, why is this then so problematic?

This doesn't need to be "us vs. them", or one "side" proving the other "side" to be wrong. We really can reconcile the two! The best hypothesis is the most consistent with the moth information. So if we can be consistent with the Bible, as written, as well as with all of our scientific observations, we're all set - And the ideas I'm presenting here should allow us to do just that! I personally find that very cool, as I much would rather live in a world where science and religion need not be enemies. Religion was responsible for saving most of the scientific knowledge we have these days, during the Dark Ages, and thank God! Clearly, there's some value there that we can all agree on :)

Thanks for reading - And for catching my mistake! I appreciate it.

DFS

Cvengr, I gotta apologize, my initial logic was wrong, so don't waste your time arguing against it - See here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/832645/posts?page=293#293

Neither of us caught it at the time, but the speed of light needs to be much faster, not much slower. Think about it some more, read what I've written, and you'll see what I mean.

With that said, of course small errors are magnified when you involve exponentials, and of course more variables complicate things. Einstein's hidden-variable hypothesis, making the universe deterministic, has been pretty effectively refuted, however, and with respcet to the speed of light, a change of at least six orders of magnitude cannot be so easily dismissed. At any rate, as I try to ahow i the above link, this idea of the speed of light being that much faster contradicts Genesis anyway, so the point is moot.

Likewise, and I'll say it again, we cannot so easily brush aside the matter of intrepretation. There are numerous clear examples in the Bible where the descriptions given, when taken literally, are physically inaccurate, and demonstrably so. This does not invalidate the Bible! But when we talk about the Flood, and how "all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and all the windows of the heavens were opened", we know that this is a metaphor for one heck of a lot of rain! That doesn't literally mean that Heaven above is full of water, and that God in Heaven dumped it on us, does it?

More examples here of why it is dangerous to take the Bible completely literally:

http://users.pipeline.com.au/groucho/Documents/The_biblical_flat_earth.PDF

This doesn't mean we shouldn't take some things literally - "Thou shalt not kill," for instance, I take pretty literally. But it is very clear that A.) metaphor is used often in the Bible and B.) that we must therefore address the matter of interpretation.

As for you not seeing incontrovertible arguments to override the Scripture, I agree! We're saying the same thing - The idea that the universe is 10-20 billion years old does not override the Scripture - The two are consistent, when one recognizes the use of metaphor. This is a simple matter of the best hypothesis fitting all of the observations.

I have observed many academics who have virtually no grasp of Scripture and worse have insisted upon ignorance of Scripture in order to satisfy arrogant beliefs of self importance.

I believe you! That's irrelevant to the argument, though; there are plenty of religious folks who have insisted on ignorance of science in order to satisfy those same sorts of beliefs. I do not believe that either of us could be described as such people, however - I'm certainly willing to gives folks the benefit of the doubt, until such time as things are proven otherwise. It's not fair of me to assume anything about you or anyone else here, since I don't know you.

Why should any student respect a 'professor' who lacks the academic discipline to even read the Bible.

LOL! As someone here once told me, "with all due respect, there's no way you could possibly know that." In addition, I will quote you this excerpt from Dr. Dini's autobiographical sketch (found here):

"My education has taken place almost entirely in Roman Catholic schools...Though accepted to UCLA, I instead chose to enter a Roman Catholic order of teaching brothers (the Brothers of the Christian Schools, known in the U.S. simply as the Christian Brothers). As a young brother, I majored in biology and minored in religious studies at St. Mary's College, Moraga, California. I graduated magna cum laude in 1977 and was assigned by my religious superiors to teach at La Salle High School in Pasadena, California, where I remained for 4 years, teaching various courses in biology and religion and earning a California Secondary Teaching Credential. In 1981, I was assigned to Justin-Siena High School in Napa, California, where I again taught various courses in biology and religion."

So unless he's a complete liar, there's basically no way that he went to Roman Catholic school and didn't study the bible. The man even taught religion. This is a good example of why it's dangerous to jump to conclusions, or rush to judge people.

Such a trait lays testimony to academia's lack of trustworthiness in a truthful quest of knowledge.

Wait a minute - You're condemning the whole of academic studies, and everyone in it, because of a few unpleasant people / bad scientists? Wow. I really hope you don't believe that.

I can only say that I am glad people aren't typically so prejudiced versus Christians (despite the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition, etc., etc.), or religious persecution would be a way of life, and no one would benefit from the teachings of Christ, and the world would be a lot worse off!!

Please tell me you don't really think this way.

Thanks for reading,

DFS

How do we know that those type ob bacteria, did not just develope a liking to PCBs, similar to those that developed a "resistance" to antibiotics, and had really been around "forever"?

If they only eat PCBs, and PCBs have never been around before, we can draw the conclusion that, therefore, these bacteria have never been around before. Now, how significant people think that is, in the grand scheme of things, is another matter, but it doesn't seem that there's much room for argument here, regarding the basic conclusions...

Don't you think that the more relevent tests of whether a future physician would be good, as it relates to biology as a science (this is the important part) on an undergraduate level would be aspects their abilities like: the ability to be thorough in labs, the ability to describe the structures in flora and fauna, ability to assimilitate seemingly random data and form good judgements based on possibly limited information.

I think those are all relevant tests, absolutely! It's harder to objectively judge one to be more relevant than another, but I think he addresses all of these issues in some form in his requirements:

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

If we give him the benefit of the doubt, with respect to him teaching biology properly, than earning an "A" in his class (Criterion #1) is likely relevant to a lot of those criteria you've mentioned, as are things like being in his Honor's section, meeting with him regularly to discuss biology, or serving as a TA, or on the Biology Advisory Committee (Criterion #2). In addition, what you wrote at the end is very significant: ...ability to assimilitate seemingly random data and form good judgements based on possibly limited information.

This is exactly what Criterion #3 is about! We have seemingly random and limited information on the origin of the species, and he is asking for the best scientific judgement the student can offer (not to be confused with "The Truth"). I'm glad you agree that this is a relevant criterion!

If the recommendation is for grad school in biology we are in a different academic world.

Sure, but holding different students to different standards based on their eventual career goals (which can readily change, I should add) would be discrimination. He has to have a uniform standard, and it has to be relevant to what he is teaching, not what jobs his students may or may not get in the future.

There is an incredible amount of acrimony in any thread that says either the evil evo... or crea... words.

Absolutely right - And you and I clearly agree that it has no place in the debate, because it helps no one.

I've been told that my creationist beliefs are...and I've never made the claim nor even put up the arguments. But if I even say one thing that a creationist has talked about, the label comes up. I've been told that they did not want to convince me, just discredit me. Hardly the scientific method.

That's true, this would absolutely not constitute a proper application of the scientific method. All I can say is that I'm sorry you've had bad experiences in the past - And that I don't want to see them repeated, for you or anyone else here :) No one deserves to be personally attacked, and it should never be a matter of malice, or labeling as a means of dismissing someone's reasoning, or distracting people from the issues at hand. I hope I have not done that, but if I have, I apologize, and I assure you it was not intentional. I'd much rather have us agree than disagree, and attacking people only ensures that we will never reach common ground.

Does an undergraduate have to have faith in evolution, to have a true understanding of it?

Absolutely not! In fact, they should not have "faith" in it, or any other scientific theory. Rather, they should accept or reject a theory, as you said, based on their "ability to assimilitate seemingly random data and form good judgements based on possibly limited information," and in accordance with the scientific method. Again, I don't believe Dr. Dini is asking for faith, since faith in scientific matters prevents you from being skeptical (faith implying an absolute belief appropriate to spritual, not scientific matters), and skepticism is necessary for good science. Rather, he is asking for the best scientific answer, based on the ability you rightly described as being a relevant criterion.

There are 34 other profs in biology that can give the required recommendation. I kind of wonder if they have any similar requirements, or if this is common in the biology field.

Maybe, maybe not - And you're absolutely right, he could be alone in this, and it could screw up his reputation, and make him many enemies.

Would this really change the nature of the debate? If it really is a good criterion, should he drop it anyway, for fear of the consequences? That would make him a very poor scientist indeed...

You are the gold standard. When you put up an example, you not only gave it, but also it's shortcomings.

IMHO it's the only proper way to do things, if we're trying to be fair, so we gotta try - We may not always succeed, but that's life as an imperfect being... In my experience it seems that people are a lot more likely to reach an understanding when they are shown that people are willing to give their views due consideration, even if an agreement is not reached... At any rate, I really do appreciate that!! Thanks :)

Don't you think that kind of levels the intellectual playing field from poker to chess?

:) I hope so. Thanks for reading,

DFS

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.