[DFSchmidt]

Maybe I just missed it in all the excitement, but isn't the central question of this thread:

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

[Dark Knight]

>> 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