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

Texas Tech ^ | January 29, 2003 | Michael Dini

[matthew_the_brain]

Letters of Recommendation

Before you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences, there are several criteria that must be met. The request for a letter is best made by making an appointment to discuss the matter with me after considering these three criteria:

Criterion 1

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

Criterion 2

I should know you fairly well. Merely earning an "A" in a lower-division class that enrolls 500 students does not guarantee that I know you. In such a situation, all I would be able to provide is a very generic letter that would not be of much help in getting you into the school of your choice. You should allow me to become better acquainted with you. This can be done in several ways:

1) by meeting with me regularly during my office hours to discuss biological questions. 2) by enrolling in an Honors’ section taught by me. 3) by enrolling in my section of BIOL 4301 and serving as an undergraduate TA (enrollment is by invitation only). 4) by serving as the chairman or secretary of the Biology Advisory Committee.

Criterion 3

If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.

Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.

Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?

If you still want to make an appointment, you can do so in person during office hours (M-Th, 3:30-4:00), or by phoning my office at 742-2729, or by e-mailing me at michael.dini@ttacs.ttu.edu

Citations

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

Ewald, P.W. 1993. The evolution of virulence. Scientific American 268:86-98.

Morgan, E. 1990. The scars of evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 196.

Myers, J.H. and L.E. Rothman. 1995. Virulence and transmission of infectious diseases in humans and insects: evolutionary and demographic patterns. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(5):194-198.

Nesse, R.M. and G.C. Williams. 1994. Why we get sick. Times Books, New York, pp. 291.

_____1997. Evolutionary biology in the medical curriculum -- what every physician should know. BioScience 47(10):664-666.

Rose, Michael. 1998. Darwin's Spectre. Princeton University Press, Princteon, NJ. pp. 233.

Seachrist, L. 1996. Only the strong survive: the evolution of a tumor favors the meanest, most aggressive cells. Science News 49:216-217.

Stearns, S.C. (ed.) 1999. Evolution in Health and Disease. Oxford University Press. pp. 328.

Trevathan, W.R., Smith, E.O. and J.J. McKenna (eds.). 1999. Evolutionary Medicine. Oxford University Press. pp. 480.

Williams, G.C. and R.M. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66:1-22.

[Dimensio]

Now, now. He may simply be ignorant. A person is only a liar if they are aware that the lie they are telling is false.

[Doctor Stochastic]

To be more precise, the (collectively taken) organisms causing the diseases will.

[Dataman]

When in doubt, rely on intellectually bankrupt arguments like 'evolution is not science'.

Let's define science: 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.

What is observable about

the big bang
the beginning of time
the evolution of elements
the spontaneous generation of life from non-life
the suspension of the law of biogenesis
the evolution of plant to animal
the evolution of animal to man?

[f.Christian]

How liberalism . . . came to // conquered - - - America // fr too ==== evolution!

[NativeNewYorker]

If I understand the scientific principles necessary to diagnose and treat patients, then I have the basis on which I can undergo medical training and then embark on a medical career.

If I understand and can speak Latin, and know how to conduct a service/counsel the flock, I have the basis on which I can assume the priesthood and then embark on a church career.

Again, both men can "do their jobs". The question is, which one would you willingly entrust yourself to?

If you personally feel comprehension/belief in evolution is irrelevant to medicine, *that's fine by me*.

But *I'd* be loathe to employ a doctor who felt as you do, as I'd avoid a faithless clergyman.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You don't have a double-blind study of prayers to various dieties to show that prayer works?

[agrace]

so what's your argument?

[Blood of Tyrants]

You haven't demonstrated that the bacteria evolved. Only that it had taken on a resistance to penicillin after it's structure was artifically altered.

Evolution states that an organism will evolve as the "need" arises. Looks to me that your bacteria in the control dish (the ones that died) couldn't evolve without outside influence even though there was a definite need.

You have once again proven the Intelligent Creator theory. Thanks!

[agrace]

Adaptation is not evolution.

[cogitator]

Not a single transitional fossil has ever been documented.

What's the definition of a transitional fossil? That's the key to this line of argument. Using one set of criteria by which the transitional nature of a fossil can be assessed, transitional fossils are found in abundance. A different set of criteria can exclude most of these.

So what criteria do you suggest using to define a transitional fossil?

[Dataman]

Natural selection is as central to biology as belief in G-d is to, say, Judaism.

Natural selection is not evolution.

[sleepy_hollow]

you should read what you post:

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

So, what were you saying again about me being a liar? You must really have alot invested in this theory of yours to be so blinded by it.

I'll pray for you, friend.

[BibChr]

Would you recommend someone for the clergy if they didn't believe in G-d or Christ?

Yes, and no, respectively.

(I don't believe in "G-d" either, and I'm a pastor!)

Dan

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

At its most superficial level, a clergyman can be described as a psychologist or performer, just as a doctor can be described as a mechanic or tradesman. Both can function at a passable level without believing in or even understanding the underpinnings of their professions.

So, in other words, if even a Practicing Doctor of Medicine himself tells you, "You must be daft -- The idea that Evolutionism contributes anything whatsoever to the competent practice of Medicine is inane"... then you would still rather go with your mystical belief that Evolutionism "improves" the practice of Medicine, even when an expert professional tells you that objectively it is not so?

Wow, that's quite a bit of Faith on your part.

[John H K]

Now, now. He may simply be ignorant. A person is only a liar if they are aware that the lie they are telling is false.

Ok, the options are either "liar" or "stupid and gullible to the point of mental redardation." I stand corrected. :-)

I'd crash the FR server if I posted a list of every transitional fossil ever found.

[70times7]

It's not the bacteria that change into other bacteria that scare me... when they start changing into tigers and lions and those things from "Aliens" we are gonna have some REAL problems. And it's all just a matter of time, and perhaps a few mutagens...

[Dark Knight]

>>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."<<

I've said this before, if they do not show a mechanism, it is just a theory. To "prove" the theory of evolution is a useful model, it has to:

1) Fit current data
2) Make accurate predictions about future data

If you have a mechanism, you are well on your way to establishing this as a hard science. If not, it is just Skinner's Black Box. Soft science claptrap, clammoring to be elevated to hard science.

In a previous thread I asked for examples of speciation, a central tenent of evolution. You know, a case of a new species coming from old. I was given one example. Goat's beard. All of biology can give one example. One.

Then the argument was "well just because the data isn't there for micro evolution, doesn't disprove macro evolution." Hold the phone. It is up to the theorist to prove it. Not me to disprove it.

Here's the bottom line. What medical procedure or clinical practice requires the BELIEF in the "Theory of Evolution"? If the number is in the thousands, then Katie bar the door, I'll change my view.

Otherwise this guy is just wallowing around in his social science beliefs allowing them to cloud his hard science vision.

DK

I just thought I would look at his resume on the website. He studied the same thing over and over, and now he is caught up in no one caring.

He listed two grants he did not even get. I know cops who have gotten more grants. After reading about his life I was more saddened than any other emotion. I'd bet this evolution kick he is on gets him the attention his research never will. Very sad. He measured plankton.

[Dataman]

Personally, I won't trust any study that does not have multiple control groups for multiple theologies.

Yet you swallow evolution?

[Dimensio]

What is observable about
the big bang

Remnants, evidence.

the beginning of time

I'm not aware of any leading scientific theories on "the beginning of time". In fact, from what I've seen most scientific principles break down once you get into Plank time, and as such there's no way to discern what happened 'before' that, much less whether or not there was a 'beginning'.

the beginning of time the evolution of elements

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

the spontaneous generation of life from non-life

Life is made up of various chemicals, all of which occur in nature. Unless life has existence since the beginning of the universe, it is logical to assume that at some point a collection of chemicals that were 'non-life' came together somehow in a fashion that made them 'life'. It is true that no one has managed to cause 'non-life' to form into 'life', but that's partly why speculation on abiogenesis is hypothesis, not theory.

the suspension of the law of biogenesis

What is the "law of biogenesis"?

the evolution of plant to animal
the evolution of animal to man?

I'm not aware that current theory has plants evolving into animals. I was under the impression that plants and animals were two different offshoots from more 'primitive' forms. As for man from animal....man is an animal!

[Dimensio]

Why shouldn't I?