Topic awaiting preservation: Creationist? No recommendation for you. (Page 1 of 1)

Now this is interesting.

The above link goes to a story regarding a biology professor at Texas Tech who has a policy of not giving letters of recommendations to students in the biomedical field who do not believe in the theory of evolution.

A quote from the prof's website

quote:

---

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.

---

Now without making this a creationist/evolutionist argument (we've had plenty of those) What do you think about this professors position? you may want to read the full text of why he has this policy in the link above before responding.

Now personally I'm on the evolutionist side of the argument (again trying to keep that debate seperate, just showing which way I lean as I say this). And I belive that the professor has a solid right to take this stand. If someone wants a letter of recommendation from a professor then I believe he does have a right to create his own set of criterion for which he will give his stamp of approval. Letters of recommendation don't only reflect the person being written about but also reflect on the writer as well. Someone who just writes letters for any dumbass who asks for one devalues himself and the letters he writes. However by maintaining a certain level of criterion he adds worth to the recommendations he writes.

Also to note is that he is a professor of BIOLOGY. A science which more than virtually any other is based around evolutionary theory. I can understand his hesitation to recommend anyone to continue in this field who does not believe in one of the core tenets of the science.

What do you think?



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

It's no different than an English professor making sure students have a clear grasp of the language before handing out a recommendation. Or a math teacher making sure the student can add and subtract. You're right; biology is largely, if not solely, based on evolution. I can't grasp how anyone can want to pursue biology and yet toss out one of the most important parts of it. Baffling ...

Cell Number: 494 / Inkstick

bitdamaged: I think he is:

a) Well within his rights to set whatever criteria he wants.

b) Right to do so - there are a large number of biology students who don't believe in evolution and while that might not matter too much if they went off and became a bank clerk but it would matter an awful lot if they were going on to do further research in biology (as he says it is a fundamental principle of biological research these days).

So top marks to him

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I also agree that he has the right to recommend anyone he wants.

while i personally believe in evolution and agree with most of what the professor is doing, i don't think it (getting the letter) should hinge on wether or not you "believe" in evoloution. i think as long as you completely grasp the theory you should get a letter (providing you meet the rest of the requirements). science works from theories and that's what drives scientists to prove their theories and disprove those of other scientists. you need people of differing beliefs to prove the theory (hope that made sense). it is easy for me to believe in evolution because it's logical and i don't have any religious beliefs to bar me from feeling that way. not all people are like that.
to me, it would be like a professor hundreds of years ago believing that the earth was flat and only furthering those students that believed the same....it's silly!
if i were a scientist i would welcome people with a different theory to mine as it would give me something to strive for....disproving the other persons theory and in effect, strengthening my own.
but, the bottom line is that it's the professor's decision, right or wrong. i just feel it short changes some excellent students who have a different belief....which is sad.

I don't disagree with you Lacuna, but remember, a good theory must be determined by analyzing conclusive and accurate observations, and must make definate predictions for the future. An example used by Stephen Hawking - Gravity. It describes the attraction of matter to each other, and it allows you to predict the motion of matter in our universe. (I know that if I drop a rock off a cliff - disregarding resistance it will fall, and accelerate at 9.81 meters per second each second.)

How can anyone have a *good* scientific theory about a Universe created by God? How can we predict the next stages of life, or movement of the universe with the thesis "God created the universe?"

ok...good point...so my reasoning is a bit flawed! lol i just don't think what the good professor is doing is "right"... and other than what i've said previously, i have nothing else to back that up.
i'm sure that before gravity was proven though, there were people out there that believed differently...should they have been denied the best possible furthering of their education because they had a different theory?? i think it's a lil hairy because the opposition to evolution is all religion based...where faith and blind belief come into play rather than good ole hard facts. i mean, there's no opposition to the fact that gravity exists in any of the religions....ya know what i'm saying??
i understand *why* he's doing it...i just don't think it's right.

quote:

---

...I belive that the professor has a solid right to take this stand. If someone wants a letter of recommendation from a professor then I believe he does have a right to create his own set of criterion for which he will give his stamp of approval.

---

Bit, I agree 100% with you here. And I'm sure you would have the exact same position if this professor only gave letters to committed Buddhists, yes? And I am being quite serious, I think he should be free to give them to whoever he deems worthy.

I particularly agree with the criteria he states in the quote from his site,

quote:

---

If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question...

---

The key point there for me is "a scientific answer". I would be very displeased if this professor required a "belief" as some of you have stated in Evolution. That is *not* true to the best traditions of science.

As scientists, we should always be looking at the data in new and creative ways and not be subject to some secular version of the Inquisition. Evolution has center stage, as well it should. However, there are numerous difficulties with it and I am quite positive that we will find either another superior theory OR a significant modification in the the future. I am very afraid that a good many "evolutionists" are in charge of our institutes of learning as opposes to a good many "scientists". I do not necessarily include Prof. Dini in that because I don't know his position well enough.

Dan, I am surprised by your question, as stated. By that statement, wouldn't you be excluding Galileo Galilei from the scientific community? If you just meant Creationism in your statement, then I would much more inclined to agree.

. . : slicePuzzle

Good point Bugs. Sure were his criterion arbitrary (only giving letters of Rec. to buddhists in the Biology field) then I wouldn't like it. However I'll stick to my stance that he has a right to do so.

However to take your analogy further. Were a Buddhist Novice who wanted to become a monk need a Letter to go to Monk school from a senior buddhist, shouldn't that superior have a right not to give him that letter if he didn't think the novice was commmitted?

The thing here is that the subject matters are inextricably linked in this matter and his reasoning is not arbitrary.

Also interesting to note. After cruising his site a bit I came across his bio. Interesting fellow our Dr. Dini. Seems he was raised Roman Catholic, and was in fact a brother in a Roman Catholic order for a number of years prior to pursuing his PHD in Biology. I would think that he had a very difficult time resolving his religious beliefs with his scientific ones. No doubt reflected in his stance.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

[This message has been edited by bitdamaged (edited 01-30-2003).]

I must admit, I'm really torn on the issue...on one side, I hold evolution to be the best explaination currently...

However, some of my beliefs conflict with what the Prof. is doing...I do hold, that he has the right to decide...yes. However, in a framework of whether it is right or wrong...I feel Bugs has a good point...a solid point, IMHO.

I mean, what if someone holds both points to be true? Would the Prof. accept that? Until the final question is conclusively answered (the origin of everything), I feel that only the possibility that evolution, as a means of species progressing, should be considered...that belief should, then, not come into play, here...

If the Prof. is only considering that point, then I feel it is really up to the student, to decide whether or not, they really need the recommendation...and that would exclude only the rabid 'God and Bible' lovers...IMHO.

Bugs, I wasn't trying to state that evolution is fact, and that God didn't create everything how it is, and doesn't have his own plan for the future. What I was saying was that as long as someone can provide a good scientific theory they should get a recommendation. But only if they can actually provide one. Beliefs are all fine and good, but they don't cut it. As a science professor he should expect his students to be able to use the factual evidence provided and come to a conclusion based on observations, not beliefs. Of course, I don't think the teacher should give recommendations to students who cannot demonstrate an understanding of the material before they come to a conclusive theory, regardless of whether they believe in evolution or not.
I'm not giving my own personal beliefs because they aren?t relevant.

I stand behind my statement on religious beliefs. I'm not claiming to have any knowledge as to whether God exists or not, but I don't believe that there?s any conclusive evidence that a God has any role in Science.

[This message has been edited by Dan (edited 01-30-2003).]

No worries then, Dan. I thought you were saying that holding religious beliefs *excluded* one from being a good scientist. Thanks for the clarification.

just an observation, but it seems that some here have construed a creationist viewpoint as rejecting all tenets of evolution. there's definitely room for micro-evolution to exist within creationist beliefs and other aspects of evolution could probably be argued. some seem to be implying that anyone with a creationist viewpoint could have no scientific understanding of the subject, which seems even more close-minded than refusing to believe in evolution

chris


KAIROSinteractive

It sounds like he is saying, "don't try and think for yourselves. we ARE right so believe it, or don't even bother."
hmm... yah... thats what i got out of it.... "conform with us if you want this"

nice guy.

                                   

[This message has been edited by eyezaer (edited 01-31-2003).]

Some also seem to be implying that the theory of evolution is scientifically proven fact as well.

Cool, thread, I think every single reply has a valid point. Perhaps I should read it more closely =D

Me, I think the guy has the right to set whatever criteria he deems fit for his recommendation. Commenting on the rest would be reading stuff into it since I haven't read his position fully or know the guy personally but on the surface I think eye nailed it, it smacks of "think" my way or hit the highway. Who knows, I've heard good scientific answers that support creation, maybe that would be acceptable to him and that would make him a real scientist in my book, no preconceived notions, just looking for good thoughts and evidence.

^Christian good squad^ comin to lump somebody up. Ya'll all talkin evolution up in heah?!?!

Jason

*Pulls up britches*

"And we don't need no bible-thumpin' sermon-lovin' brimstone breathin' christs, nether!"

Hehe...



Though I do think Izzay got it right...smacks just a little bit of 'I'm right...and everyone else is wrong'.

Physics professor: "Please explain how the sun came to existence."

Physics student: "It was created by God, of course."

Physics professor: "But can´t we observe stars developing in large gas and dust clouds all over the universe? can´t we show examples for every stage of development a star goes through from before it emits the first light until long after it has ceased to exist?"

Physics student: "Yeah, maybe all other stars develop that way, but our sun was specially created by God."

Physics professor: "Well that´s what I call scientific thinking."

After actually reading your links bit

I found the last seven papragraphs of that news article extremely confusing. Leaving by the wayside the ACLU's take on the matter (could it be any clearer what their agenda is?), specifically this:

quote:

---

On Dini's Web site, he writes that he has the policy because he doesn't believe anyone should practice in a biology-related field without accepting "the most important theory in biology."

...

A scientist who denies the "fact" of human evolution, Dini writes, is in effect committing "malpractice regarding the method of science."

"Good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs," he writes.

---

His own page on his policy is only a wee bit more enlightening, maybe I should read through his laundry list of "citations below" but I have a feeling they would be inconclusive to a truly open mind as well. There's always at least 2 sides to every story and the brilliant thing about scientists and religious zealots is that they never seem to want to even consider the other side or three.

Precisely why you will normally not see me in threads such as these. Bugs has a harder skull than I, the brick marks aren't even showing yet! The same could be said of Mr Shaman as well. You guys are nuts, or maybe just talkative =D

Jason

Hmmm...would you perhaps accept inquisitive, and curious? I can't speak for Bugs, of course...but mostly, I'm just interested in other views...

Always try to keep an open mind...

*Ducks the bricks* ' Whew! They sure can throw! That last one almost got me...'