Professor's Snub of Creationists Prompts U.S. Inquiry

New York Times ^ | 2/02/03 | NICK MADIGAN

[kattracks]

UBBOCK, Tex., Feb. 2 — A biology professor who insists that his students accept the tenets of human evolution has found himself the subject of Justice Department scrutiny.

Prompted by a complaint from the Liberty Legal Institute, a group of Christian lawyers, the department is investigating whether Michael L. Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech University here, discriminated against students on the basis of religion when he posted a demand on his Web site that students wanting a letter of recommendation for postgraduate studies "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the question of how the human species originated.

"The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution," Dr. Dini wrote. "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?"

That was enough for the lawyers' group, based in Plano, a Dallas suburb, to file a complaint on behalf of a 22-year-old Texas Tech student, Micah Spradling.

Mr. Spradling said he sat in on two sessions of Dr. Dini's introductory biology class and shortly afterward noticed the guidelines on the professor's Web site (www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm).

Mr. Spradling said that given the professor's position, there was "no way" he would have enrolled in Dr. Dini's class or asked him for a recommendation to medical school.

"That would be denying my faith as a Christian," said Mr. Spradling, a junior raised in Lubbock who plans to study prosthetics and orthotics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. "They've taken prayer out of schools and the Ten Commandments out of courtrooms, so I thought I had an opportunity to make a difference."

In an interview in his office, Dr. Dini pointed to a computer screen full of e-mail messages and said he felt besieged.

"The policy is not meant in any way to be discriminatory toward anyone's beliefs, but instead to ensure that people who I recommend to a medical school or a professional school or a graduate school in the biomedical sciences are scientists," he said. "I think science and religion address very different types of questions, and they shouldn't overlap."

Dr. Dini, who said he had no intention of changing his policy, declined to address the question of his own faith. But university officials and several students who support him say he is a religious man.

"He's a devout Catholic," said Greg Rogers, 36, a pre-med student from Lubbock. "He's mentioned it in discussion groups."

Mr. Rogers, who returned to college for a second degree and who said his beliefs aligned with Dr. Dini's, added: "I believe in God and evolution. I believe that evolution was the tool that brought us about. To deny the theory of evolution is, to me, like denying the law of gravity. In science, a theory is about as close to a fact as you can get."

Another student, Brent Lawlis, 21, from Midland, Tex., said he hoped to become an orthopedic surgeon and had had no trouble obtaining a letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini. "I'm a Christian, but there's too much biological evidence to throw out evolution," he said.

But other students waiting to enter classes Friday morning said they felt that Dr. Dini had stepped over the line. "Just because someone believes in creationism doesn't mean he shouldn't give them a recommendation," said Lindsay Otoski, 20, a sophomore from Albuquerque who is studying nursing. "It's not fair."

On Jan. 21, Jeremiah Glassman, chief of the Department of Justice's civil rights division, told the university's general counsel, Dale Pat Campbell, that his office was looking into the complaint, and asked for copies of the university's policies on letters of recommendation.

David R. Smith, the Texas Tech chancellor, said on Friday afternoon that the university, a state institution with almost 30,000 students and an operating budget of $845 million, had no such policy and preferred to leave such matters to professors.

In a letter released by his office, Dr. Smith noted that there were 38 other faculty members who could have issued Mr. Spradling a letter of recommendation, had he taken their classes. "I suspect there are a number of them who can and do provide letters of recommendation to students regardless of their ability to articulate a scientific answer to the origin of the human species," Dr. Smith wrote.

Members of the Liberty Legal Institute, who specialize in litigating what they call religious freedom cases, said their complaint was a matter of principle.

"There's no problem with Dr. Dini saying you have to understand evolution and you have to be able to describe it in detail," said Kelly Shackelford, the group's chief counsel, "but you can't tell students that they have to hold the same personal belief that you do."

Mr. Shackelford said that he would await the outcome of the Justice Department investigation but that the next step would probably be to file a suit against the university.

[unspun]

Hm. Somewhat impressive. Happen to know what is theorized as to the frequency of species to species transitions? (How many, per million years, for example?)

There are many theories, from many good minds, of how the universe has gotten to exactly where it all is.

There are also many kinds of bigots.

[Terriergal]

Would you also agree that someone who approaches the evolution debate with the 'that settles it' attitude SHOULD be dismissed as unscientific?

Yes... but anyone who is attempting to enlighten another should find ways to help them sharpen their arguments. That's the best way for them to find the holes in them. Not always easy to do however... and not many people on either side are open to it.

I've always understood that evolution, although the odds are astronomical, given enough time and *given* life being in existence already, is possible.

The problem I have is that life is not self-existent. Intellect/personality/spirit may be... but not physical life. And evolution doesn't explain that any more scientifically than creationism does.

[Terriergal]

If not, why is there this push to make the Bible scientific dogma?

Who's trying to make the Bible scientific dogma? There are those who look at scientific discoveries to support Biblical accounts. That's all. And mostly that is done in response to evolutionists demanding proof that the Bible is a reliable account before they will believe anything about it.

[Terriergal]

nice link to the transitional species argument. how about transitional organs, organelles, cellular structures. If you have any inkling of biochemistry, you soon realize that *all* parts must be present in a machine, with no room for error, for any of them to function. Machines cannot rise into existence on their own strength.

[general_re]

Ever see "The French Connection"? We coulda used Popeye Doyle in that neighborhood ;)

[Terriergal]

1) Why would this interpretation be necessary for a divinely inspired book? 2) Would you accept this in a scientific paper?

I would. It shows the different personalities/intended audiences of the writers. Inspiration does not equal "channeling."

[gore3000]

You contradict yourself. If you are convinced that scientific = atheist,

Do not put words in my mouth. I have never said that scientific = atheist. I have said that evolution is not science, it is bunk, it is pseudo-science, it is rhetoric, but it is not science. And yes evolution is both materialistic and atheistic - science is not. Evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with atheism - as this 'professor' Dini abundantly shows.

[gore3000]

The court would have to conclude that the relevancy of evolution to biology is a reasonable test for writing a letter.

And it is not relevant because evolution is not science no matter how many times evolutionists repeat that mantra.

[gore3000]

Why was the guy being a jackass?

No, the man is not being a jackass, he is abusing his power. He has not been appointed God, he is just a teacher, there to teach students a subject. He is a very bad teacher because he is an ideologue atheist. He is a very bad scientist because he has a completely closed mind. As I have said before he does not belong in front of a class.

[Dinsdale]

If you have any inkling of biochemistry, you soon realize that *all* parts must be present in a machine

Only for the most simple cells. Additional functionallity can evolve for single celled organisms just as for higher forms.

It is an unanswered question. The answers available are faith or guesswork and are presented as such (I recall these discussions from Jr Highschool, arguements got heated). Once the science of evolving life forms is taught and understood you get back to were life started. It is appropriate to discuss philosophy with the kids including God at this point. Just not specific beliefs about God. If you want to teach the Christian creation myth you should also teach the Norse creation myth (Loki drank with Oden, earth is Odens puke, the land is chunks).

[gore3000]

The overwhelming majority of people who accept evolution also believe in a creator. Evolution does not demand that there be no God,

You certainly cannot speak for yourself on the subject. Why do you and other atheists fight so hard over a theory????? I do not see any fights here over relativity, over gravity, or over hundreds of other theories out there. No the only one that gathers heated debate from atheists is the theory of evolution. Why is that? The only one that splits the debate amongst the religious and the atheists is the theory of evolution - why is that?

For a very simple reason - evolution is purposely atheistic:

Now a third one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal.
Ernst Mayr - What Evolution Is - Edge Magazine 10/31/01

[gore3000]

Dini is a Catholic, according to the press

'according to the press'. Well, I think that is more than enough evidence that he is an atheist then! Has anyone ever seen him going to Church? (before the suit was filed). Clearly, the same folk that covered up for Clinton are making up stuff for this weasel.

[RadioAstronomer]

I would. It shows the different personalities/intended audiences of the writers. Inspiration does not equal "channeling."

For a novel, yes. For a scientific paper, No!

[general_re]

You certainly cannot speak for yourself on the subject.

Yeah! Shut up and let Gore do the talking for both of you!

Sheesh... ;)

[longshadow]

Personally, I'm developing an affinity for the notion of dismissing the case as unripe because Spradling failed to exhaust his available institutional remedies. He never met with Dini, never asked for a meeting with the department chair, never asked for a meeting with the dean of the appropriate school within the university, never requested a meeting with the dean of academic affairs - he just looked at the policy and bailed...

Not to mention that he NEVER took the course, which is a prerequisite to getting a recommendation!

This case isn't just "not ripe" it isn't even fertilized, except by the bombast issed by the Legal foundation that is handling the student's case. No doubt they will now be able to make great hay out of all the free publicity surrounding this stunt in their future fund raising letters......

[general_re]

...their future fund raising letters......

Pop quiz: A __________ and his __________ soon are parted ;)

[Terriergal]

If one observer noticed somethig another observer didn't why wouldn't it be included in a paper?

[gore3000]

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.

More garbage from TalkOrigins, the fountain of scientific disinformation. Since you claim to be so smart (although the only thing I see from you is TO links and placemarkers), perhaps you can tell us how the following species evolved their unique functions:

[gore3000]

You know this for a fact?

Yes, that is a fact. There is nothing in the Christian religion that forbids anyone from giving antibiotics. You are just showing your atheism with garbage excuses. Why don't you and your friends give proof of the garbage you keep repeating that evolution is science? What are these obvious facts that make it impossible for someone to be a doctor unless he kneels before the church of your maggot infested hero?

[RadioAstronomer]

If one observer noticed somethig another observer didn't why wouldn't it be included in a paper?

1) If the two observers were working together, they would resolve the different observations before publication.

2) If they were not working together, they would independently publish their findings and the scientific community would debate the issues including the differences.

3) In either of the 1^st two cases the observations should be testable and repeatable to validate the observation.

The Bible is not scientific.