We need more of this kind of news [Archive]

Plutarck

3rd February 2003, 06:58 PM

"It's a theory. You read about it in textbooks. I could explain the process, maybe how some people say it happens, but I could not have said ... I believe in it," Spradling said Wednesday. "I really don't see how believing in the evolution of humanity has anything to do with patient care or studying science."

Oh well gee, that just makes ME want to write a reccommendation for him; doesn't it you?

:rolleyes:

Good for the Professor, I say. Perhaps letters of reccommendation can at least mean more than the degrees they hand out to anyone who can regurgitate the proper information, regardless of a complete lack of thorough and intuitive knowledge and understanding of the subject without compartmentalization.

Doesn't say which degree the mo...student has presently, though, or is seeking. That'd be interesting to know.

arcticpenguin

4th February 2003, 08:11 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/education/03PROF.html
(subscription only)

It says in the NYT that Dini is Catholic. isn't that interesting?

It also says that John Ashcroft has the Justice Department investigating Dini. Isn't that sad?

Torlack

4th February 2003, 10:49 AM

I still can't get the feeling of "Jim Crow" laws out of the back of my mind. As much as I agree with the prof, I think he is placing himself in great risk of running into legal problems.

*sigh*

Keneke

4th February 2003, 11:39 AM

Instead of "How do you think the humans originated" he needs to ask, "Using what we know of current scientific theory, formulate a theory on the origin of humanity." As much as I believe in evolution, the phrasing of his question is vague and can elicit unwanted belief statements. Science is not belief. I'm siding with the courts on this one. All he needs to do is change his question a little to reflect knowledge of the scientific principles. What a person thinks (meaning, what they believe in) should not factor in, as long as it is understood such beliefs will have no bearing on future scientific efforts.

You can believe in creationism as long as you stick to scientific principles of "repeatable results" in the implementation. Of course, that last sentence is almost an oxymoron as spoken, but the jargon I just threw up might satisfy a legal body.

Brown

4th February 2003, 11:41 AM

Let me get this straight:

The complaint against the professor was brought on behalf of a student (Micah Spradling) who was not denied a recommendation from the professor. It appears that Spradling never asked for a recommendation, and therefore suffered no denial.

The professor had given recommendations to Christian students in the past. Spradling, however, apparently decided it was futile even to ask for one, because he (Spradling) subjectively believed that doing so would be to deny his "faith."

There were at least 38 other faculty members (perhaps including some full professors) who Spradling could have asked for recommendations, but didn't.

The complaint is premised on the notion that creationism is a matter of faith, and yet the grounds for denial are based upon a matter of science. To win the case, it would seem the complaining party must concede that creationism is a religious, not scientific, principle.

Now, news reports about legal issues are notoriously inaccurate. But if these reports are accurate, then this whole matter seems to be a large publicity-seeking waste of time.

4th February 2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Torlack
I still can't get the feeling of "Jim Crow" laws out of the back of my mind. As much as I agree with the prof, I think he is placing himself in great risk of running into legal problems.

*sigh*

Yes, he is putting himself at risk. He is also making a great stand on one of the great issues of our time: the incursion of religion into the domain of science. His webpage makes his position and his reasoning clear.

The risk, at this time, however, is great. Given the religious nature of this administration, it seems likely he will get prosecuted. I hope I'm wrong.

Cheers,

pgwenthold

4th February 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Keneke
Instead of "How do you think the humans originated" he needs to ask, "Using what we know of current scientific theory, formulate a theory on the origin of humanity." As much as I believe in evolution, the phrasing of his question is vague and can elicit unwanted belief statements. Science is not belief. I'm siding with the courts on this one. All he needs to do is change his question a little to reflect knowledge of the scientific principles. What a person thinks (meaning, what they believe in) should not factor in, as long as it is understood such beliefs will have no bearing on future scientific efforts.

You can believe in creationism as long as you stick to scientific principles of "repeatable results" in the implementation. Of course, that last sentence is almost an oxymoron as spoken, but the jargon I just threw up might satisfy a legal body.

The point that you and Brown have missed is that Dini never mentions creationism or evolution. His only guideline is that the student provide a scientific explanation of origins.

4th February 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The point that you and Brown have missed is that Dini never mentions creationism or evolution. His only guideline is that the student provide a scientific explanation of origins.

Actually, Dini says this on his web page (http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm):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?

Cheers,

[edit: added web page link - bh]

Roadtoad

4th February 2003, 03:58 PM

Sorry, gang: In spite of (or perhaps because of) my stated beliefs, I believe the professor is correct.

If you are going to be working with the human body, which has clearly evolved over the past few millenia, due to any number of factors (environmental change, micromutation, etc.), you'd better have a firm grasp of how evolution works, and the resulting product (us) therein. His understanding on this issue is clear, and his reasoning is solid. And while I respect people's beliefs, when I was on the operating table a few months ago, I wanted someone who had a firm grasp of human physiology. That we are willing to allow someone to practice medicine who might lack that grasp because their faith makes such intellectual endeavors inconvenient is far more frightening to me than the Professor's "bigotry."

This may not sit well with some. Too bad. Ashcroft will never be practicing medicine. This man's students will.

arcticpenguin

5th February 2003, 07:05 AM

Maybe this could lead to another "monkey trial". That could be fun, the evidence in favor of evolution is even more overwhelmng that it was 80 years ago.

pgwenthold

5th February 2003, 07:06 AM

One thing worth mentioning because it is interesting (but not because it is necessarily relevent) is that the student complaining never actually took Prof. Dini's biology class, and ducked it because he was unwilling to take a biology class from a person who would insist that he learn and understand evolution in order to get a letter of recommendation.

You know, maybe if he had taken the course he might have learned a little bit. But he was not even willing to do that.

And he wants to be your doctor...

Occasional Chemist

5th February 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
the student complaining never actually took Prof. Dini's biology class, and ducked it because he was unwilling to take a biology class from a person who would insist that he learn and understand evolution

I find this fascinating. Since evolutionary theory is pretty well the foundation of modern biology, what the student's actually saying is this:

"I want to take a biology class from a person who won't insist I learn biology."

I wouldn't want this person making my cheeseburger, let alone diagnosing my illnesses.

pgwenthold

5th February 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

I find this fascinating. Since evolutionary theory is pretty well the foundation of modern biology, what the student's actually saying is this:

"I want to take a biology class from a person who won't insist I learn biology."

Yep.

In fact, it is even worse than that. It's more of

"I won't take biology from him because no matter what he says, I will not believe evolution."

Not the guy I want trying to diagnose my life threatening disease.

Occasional Chemist

5th February 2003, 07:31 AM

Here's a quote from a student at channelone.com (http://www.channelonenews.com/articles/2003/01/31/ap_evolution/)

Jenny
I think the professor is wrong for not writing a recomendation for the students if they do not believe in evolution. I don't believe in it! I believe that God created everything we see. We do not come from Monkeys!! That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

I don't think I even need to comment ... :)

5th February 2003, 07:32 AM

Does anybody know if a legal defense fund is being set up for Dini? My fear is that the current administration will take him on, UTA may step back and the scientific community may have to step in to support him.

Cheers,

pgwenthold

5th February 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Does anybody know if a legal defense fund is being set up for Dini? My fear is that the current administration will take him on, UTA may step back and the scientific community may have to step in to support him.

Cheers,

Initial comments from the TTU (not UTA) administration were basically "We don't control the recommendation letters for our faculty." The administration must and will support the academic freedom of the faculty.

BTW, there are good reasons why this is much more likely to be an issue at TTU than at UTA.

Occasional Chemist

5th February 2003, 07:46 AM

From boundless.org (http://www.boundless.org/2002_2003/features/a0000679.html) :

And Terry Gage, M.D., wrote:

Dini's implication that a physician who fails to believe in his pet theory would also fail to remain a physician for long does not impress me. After 20 years in medicine, I believe the theory of evolution holds as much water as a colander. . . .The theory in question has no relevance to clinical medicine. I would not hesitate to recommend a good medical student who failed to share my beliefs on the theory of evolution.

What's interesting about this physician is that he's a quack (http://www.restministries.org/dr_rec/christiandoctor_tx.htm). - or at the very least he's working towards quackish ends. I wonder why he doesn't simply abandon the medical part altogether.

Dr. Gage chairs a committte to present a yearly workshop on "Incorporating Prayer Into Medical Practice" He and his staff are all Christians, and pray with you at the end of each office visit.

5th February 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Initial comments from the TTU (not UTA) administration were basically "We don't control the recommendation letters for our faculty." The administration must and will support the academic freedom of the faculty.

BTW, there are good reasons why this is much more likely to be an issue at TTU than at UTA.

My error. Thanks for the correction.

Roadtoad

5th February 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
What's interesting about this physician is that he's a
quack. (http://www.restministries.org/dr_rec/christiandoctor_tx.htm)

You know, prayer is a good thing. I pray frequently. But, I'm sorry, I find prayer is a poor substitute for thorough knowledge and a good scalpel. Trying to dress up a lack of discipline and refusing to accept established fact in the name of God only makes you look like an idiot. I want a Doctor who knows what he/she is doing. If they don't, then they need to get out of the practice of medicine, period. This is not bigotry; this is what's required to save lives.

Or, to put it another way:

"I find prayer doesn't help me when I play golf. I suppose that's because I'm a lousy putter." Billy Graham.

Keneke

5th February 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
His only guideline is that the student provide a scientific explanation of origins.

That needs to be addressed, then. The sentence "How do you think...etc." is vague. All he needs to say is, "What is your theory of how humankind...etc.", or something that clearly states he is looking for a scientific theory. At that point, the creationist can hang himself if he insists on promoting his beliefs.

Is this clarification redundant? Does it pander to the lowest common denominator? Yes. But it is necessary. For a reason why, let me bring up the urban legend of the physics teacher and the smart-ass student.

I am not sure how it goes exactly, but in short: There's a test asking students to determine the height of a building with a sextant. An exceptionally bright student goes about using the sextant in every way but the way it was supposed to be used: using the sextant as a bob at the end of a pendulum and timing the length of a full swing, dropping it from the roof and calculating acceleration and drag, etc. The teacher either fails him and he complains, getting the teacher fired, or the teacher gives him an A+...I forget the exact story.

The point of that cute little story is that teachers often feel that they have presented the material in the most clear manner possible, and that their way is the only way. That's true, on a general level, but this also produces the side-effect of not truly communicating their desires to students upon review. This results in poorly-worded tests, and examples that take logical jumps that the teacher can perform but the student still struggles with.

Kids learn how to get through loopholes. This little fact of life isn't exactly in opposition to what schools are trying to teach kids, but they do have to plug any loopholes they find to make sure that the system holds. Even constitutions have amendments!

Occasional Chemist

5th February 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Keneke

Kids learn how to get through loopholes. This little fact of life isn't exactly in opposition to what schools are trying to teach kids, but they do have to plug any loopholes they find to make sure that the system holds.

Nice story, but I don't think it's terribly relevant. After all, this is for a recommendation letter - not a grade. You are not likely to impress someone by trying to wriggle through little "loopholes" in their suggestions.

arcticpenguin

5th February 2003, 10:23 AM

Also, Dini made it clear that students seeking a letter of rec would come in for an interview, and if there were any misunderstandings about what was being asked, they could be cleared up at that time.

Plutarck

5th February 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad

You know, prayer is a good thing. I pray frequently. But, I'm sorry, I find prayer is a poor substitute for thorough knowledge and a good scalpel. Trying to dress up a lack of discipline and refusing to accept established fact in the name of God only makes you look like an idiot. I want a Doctor who knows what he/she is doing. If they don't, then they need to get out of the practice of medicine, period. This is not bigotry; this is what's required to save lives.

Personally, I'd be really worried if my doctor started praying for me in the exam room or the operating table. You know, you never see someone pray before picking up a glass of water - that's generally because they are quite sure of their ability to successfully pick up a glass of water without requiring any divine intervention. If a doctor started praying I'd begin to wonder just how confident he was in his ability to actually help me without divine intervention.

Throughout life I find that when people refer to something to the effect of, "we're praying...", they are, in general, really really screwed.

Roadtoad

5th February 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Plutarck

Personally, I'd be really worried if my doctor started praying for me in the exam room or the operating table. You know, you never see someone pray before picking up a glass of water - that's generally because they are quite sure of their ability to successfully pick up a glass of water without requiring any divine intervention. If a doctor started praying I'd begin to wonder just how confident he was in his ability to actually help me without divine intervention.

Throughout life I find that when people refer to something to the effect of, "we're praying...", they are, in general, really really screwed.

I'd hope, Plutarck, that any doctor who were praying would be secure enough in his faith that he wouldn't need to advertise it. That's not faith, that's flash. And, I might add, you're right. That screams to me "Incompetent" right from the outset. At that point, I'd start asking for a second opinion, before they bring out the bullet and the shot of whiskey.

Akots

5th February 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by BillyJoe

It's okay.

That beer is 99.999999999999999999999999999999% POSSIBLE which is virtually ACTUAL.

Once in a trillion trillion years you may miss out on that beer so quantum mechanics is not such a bad guy really.

regards,
BillyJoe

Hm...

Well, my callender doesn't seem to list any leap beers.

*rimshot*

arcticpenguin

5th February 2003, 01:21 PM

Put these on your calendar:

http://www.oxford.net/~bobnet/hoser/back/v2n5.html

http://beeradvocate.com/beer/rate_results/897/5815/

Keneke

5th February 2003, 03:13 PM

Nice story, but I don't think it's terribly relevant. After all, this is for a recommendation letter - not a grade. You are not likely to impress someone by trying to wriggle through little "loopholes" in their suggestions.
Recommendation letters and grades are both assessments of the qualifications of a student to perform what he has learned. The only difference is grades must conform to a standard, while recommendation letters are more vague.

Also, Dini made it clear that students seeking a letter of rec would come in for an interview, and if there were any misunderstandings about what was being asked, they could be cleared up at that time.
Ah, that does make sense. Was that mentioned in the article? Perhaps it is this sort of omission that makes this "newsworthy", and therefore dangerous.

arcticpenguin

5th February 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Keneke

Recommendation letters and grades are both assessments of the qualifications of a student to perform what he has learned. The only difference is grades must conform to a standard, while recommendation letters are more vague.

There is a big difference. A grade is given for performance in the class - homework, exams, labs. A letter of recommendation is entirely up to the discretion of the professor. His putting a personal stamp of approval on a student is not part of his contract, and any attempt to force him to give such approval would be a violation of the professor's academic freedom. If letters of rec were mandatory, they would be worthless.

Jade_GL

5th February 2003, 03:35 PM

A student has to go ask a professor for a recommendation, and a professor isn't required to even give one. A grade comes from being in a class, doing the required work, and being evaluated by that work, participation, etc. As a college student, I see a big difference.

This student hasn't even been in a class taught by Mr. Dini, so why would he even contemplate asking for a recommendation? This is just someone who saw an oppotunity to try and get some form of publicity. I would understand, perhaps, if he went through the process of asking for a recommendation, and was refused, but this is not the case.

The professor clearly states that you need to have a grasp of this basic scientific theory. He has a great argument and I think that it's fine. He is just one professor out of how many? You can ask anyone else you want for a recommendation. You could even *shock* ask a professor that you have had a class with! :)

Anyway, I think this is just idiotic. If you're going to be a student and you're going to go into a certain field, you should have a grasp of that fields most fundamental theories. THis professor just wants to recommend students who he feels are well prepared and understand those basic theories. It's not as though he is giving him a failing grade in a class, or making him get lower grades by telling other professors about his beliefs. I just don't see the fuss really.

pgwenthold

5th February 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Keneke

Recommendation letters and grades are both assessments of the qualifications of a student to perform what he has learned.

Um, no.

A grade is an assessment of the student's knowledge of the material. Usually they are based on objective criteria of performance on homework, lab exercises, writing assignments, exams, or other such rubrics. The grade is not based on potential success in future endeavor, but only their demonstrated mastery of the course material.

A "letter of recommendation" is requested in order to get people who are familiar with the person in question to provide their opinion of the likelyhood that the person will succeed in the chosen endeavor. Some recommendation forms ask you to rate the person in certain areas, including aptitude, promise and potential, imagination, initiative, perseverance, etc (these are from a reference form lying on my desk that I have to fill out), but they also always ask for comments about abilities, as well.

In general, the applicant will request letters from someone who will give them a favorable recommendation. However, I have seen letters that have said "I recommend that you do not accept this student into your program."

If grades and recommendations were both assessments of the same thing, there would not be a need for both, one or the other would suffice. There is information in letters that cannot be gained from grades, such as "While the student knows the conclusions drawn from scientific endeavor, he is unwilling to embrace the process and will discard facts that are inconvient to his preconceived beliefs."

You can't learn that information by looking at the grade in the class.

pgwenthold

5th February 2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Jade_GL

This student hasn't even been in a class taught by Mr. Dini, so why would he even contemplate asking for a recommendation?

The reason he didn't take the class is because he knew that he would not be able to get a letter of recommendation from Prof. Dini.

Of course, what he is really saying is that there is nothing he could encounter in a biology course that would change his mind about evolution. So much for being able to examine evidence and let it lead you to a conclusion...

Occasional Chemist

5th February 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Keneke

Recommendation letters and grades are both assessments of the qualifications of a student to perform what he has learned. The only difference is grades must conform to a standard, while recommendation letters are more vague.

I just looked at my faculty handbook (guess what I do for a living? :) ), and nowhere does it say that I'm required to write anyone a letter of recommendation. I bet Dini's faculty handbook is similar. Dini's even nice enough to tell students to not bother wasting his time if (1) they don't demonstrate exceptional performance and (2) they don't accept the science.

I can't believe you don't get the difference here.

Occasional Chemist

5th February 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

The reason he didn't take the class is because he knew that he would not be able to get a letter of recommendation from Prof. Dini.

He probably wouldn't have gotten an "A" either, so the religion question would never have come up had he actually taken the class. ;)

Jade_GL

5th February 2003, 06:09 PM

The reason he didn't take the class is because he knew that he would not be able to get a letter of recommendation from Prof. Dini.

But you don't take a class just so that, at some point in the future, you can get a letter of recommendation. You take a class to fulfill requirements for your major area of study, as well as the certain schools general requirements. A letter of recommendation is something that comes along later and I, as a student, would only ask a professor who knew me enough to write an aqequate recommendation, someone who could describe my capabilities, strengths, and be the best person to recommend me as a person and student. I know a lot about this because I am getting together letters of recommendation so that I can get into a program here at my university.

I just can't see any reason why he won't just go get a letter of recommendation from someone who knows him more personally as a student and can describe his strengths. It just seems like he's stirring the pot for no other reason than that he gets some publicity. It's not like I can see any harm coming from this, unless there was only one professor teaching at the school. :)

Ah, I babble. I just wanted to try and better describe my points.

5th February 2003, 06:19 PM

Clearly the one potentionally writing the recommendation is afraid (with good reason) of recommending him, --then having the student explain the origin of life without resorting to evolution! It would reflect poorly on the recommender.

Although, I do think that one could do the job without knowing anything about evolution.

pgwenthold

5th February 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Jade_GL
But you don't take a class just so that, at some point in the future, you can get a letter of recommendation. You take a class to fulfill requirements for your major area of study, as well as the certain schools general requirements. A letter of recommendation is something that comes along later and I, as a student, would only ask a professor who knew me enough to write an aqequate recommendation, someone who could describe my capabilities, strengths, and be the best person to recommend me as a person and student. I know a lot about this because I am getting together letters of recommendation so that I can get into a program here at my university.

Um, be careful here. I can guarantee you that the Occasional Chemist and I both have plenty of experience in the world of "letters of recommendation," so we know what we are talking about.

But the guy's issue is not about the letters, it is about the policy. His complaint is that by not providing letters of recommendation to creationists, Prof. Dini basically ruins any chance they have of getting into med school, because most med schools expect a letter from the biology instructor. Therefore, a creationist must find another biology program in order to get a letter of recommendation from their biology instructor.

He is correct about one thing: a med school applicant should have a letter from a biology instructor, and without that, will have a hard time getting into med school. However, his mistake is in the implication that he has the right to get a letter despite his creationist views. As the OC points out, no instructor has any responsibility to write a letter on anyone's behalf. It is a job that we do graciously in order to assist students that we want to help. It is not right to discriminate in the process on the grounds of race, gender, religion, etc (those classed protected by the university) but we do reserve the right to discriminate on the grounds that they are bad scientists.

pgwenthold

5th February 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
Clearly the one potentionally writing the recommendation is afraid (with good reason) of recommending him, --then having the student explain the origin of life without resorting to evolution! It would reflect poorly on the recommender.

Although, I do think that one could do the job without knowing anything about evolution.

It is the professor's opinion that an unwillingness to change a preconceived belief in the face of overwhelming evidence is not the type of practice that makes one a good doctor.

I can see his point. I wouldn't want this person trying to diagnose my life threatening disease.

spoonhandler

5th February 2003, 06:56 PM

Hi All.

What bothers me about the story is that the student in question keeps using the word "believe".

Spradling, 22, wants to become a physician and said he needed a letter of recommendation from a biology professor but, as a creationist, he said he couldn't "sit there and truthfully say I believe in human evolution.
It's a theory. You read about it in textbooks. I could explain the process, maybe how some people say it happens, but I could not have said ... I believe in it," Spradling said Wednesday. "I really don't see how believing in the evolution of humanity has anything to do with patient care or studying science."

This is an old chestnut I know, but it still bugs me to hear people talking about belief in the theory of evolution, rather than using words like understanding, which does not automatically imply acceptance.

I can understand a theory - I may or may not agree that the evidence validates it.

I can also try to argue about a theory I don't actually understand and make a complete fool of myself.

Believing in theories is the worst error I can make. It means I'm not being objective, that I'm not prepared to adjust or abandon a hypothesis when evidence suggests I should.

What this student is saying boils down to "I don't believe in facts."

Nice to meet you all. :)

Occasional Chemist

5th February 2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
His complaint is that by not providing letters of recommendation to creationists, Prof. Dini basically ruins any chance they have of getting into med school, because most med schools expect a letter from the biology instructor. Therefore, a creationist must find another biology program in order to get a letter of recommendation from their biology instructor.

Of course, unless Dini's the whole biology department (poor Dini :) ), it's entirely possible for the student to just get a recommendation from someone else there. With the attitude given in the quotes in the articles, though, I expect the student didn't have any friends in that particular biology department.

It is not right to discriminate in the process on the grounds of race, gender, religion, etc (those classed protected by the university) but we do reserve the right to discriminate on the grounds that they are bad scientists.

Luckily, I've never had to deal with a religious issue with respect to a letter of recommendation. It's not much of an issue with chemistry, as mainstream religion doesn't seem to have a problem with our theories and what they say about how the world works.

The student in question here seems to have difficulty dealing with facts that don't agree with his pet (creation) theory. This can't be good for someone whose job will be to diagnose illnesses.

Occasional Chemist

5th February 2003, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by spoonhandler

What bothers me about the story is that the student in question keeps using the word "believe".

Worse yet, it implies that the student doesn't really understand what a scientific theory is in the first place. You might expect that from someone who's never had a science course in his life, but from a biology student? One who wants to go to med school?

fishbob

6th February 2003, 02:23 AM

A letter of recommendation is a signed document describing reasons that a student is a good candidate for a higher degree. If the student is not a good candidate, then a letter describing the student's lack of capabilities is pretty much a waste of time.

Having never even heard of Spradling before these news articles, I can tell that this student is not cut out to be a doctor. He didn't even talk to the professor before starting this uproar.

Dini deserves a medal for saving lives if he stopped this woo-woo whiner and other incompetents from becoming doctors.

pgwenthold

6th February 2003, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by fishbob
A letter of recommendation is a signed document describing reasons that a student is a good candidate for a higher degree.

The purpose of a letter is to offer the writer's opinion of the individual's potential to succeed in the chosen endeavor. Given that most people will not ask people to write letters for them if they don't think they will get a favorable recommendation, you usually see a positive description.

If the student is not a good candidate, then a letter describing the student's lack of capabilities is pretty much a waste of time.

Not at all. It is extremely informative to get a letter that says "This person is not a good person for your purpose." They are rare, but I have seen letters like that.

pgwenthold

6th February 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

Of course, unless Dini's the whole biology department (poor Dini :) ), it's entirely possible for the student to just get a recommendation from someone else there. With the attitude given in the quotes in the articles, though, I expect the student didn't have any friends in that particular biology department.

While I would expect a pre-med major to have more than one biology course, I can see where it may not be required. My sister-in-law was a pre-med zoology major, and took her courses in the ag school. Introductory bio may have been the only class she had in the biology department.

arcticpenguin

6th February 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

Worse yet, it implies that the student doesn't really understand what a scientific theory is in the first place. You might expect that from someone who's never had a science course in his life, but from a biology student? One who wants to go to med school?
I actually know a graduat student in molecular biology who is a Biblical literalist and young earth creationist. What a waste of a decent brain.

Occasional Chemist

6th February 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

While I would expect a pre-med major to have more than one biology course, I can see where it may not be required.

I see where you're coming from. From my reading of this guy's story, it sounded like he was a biology major (Dini taught the "only" intro bio course for bio majors) - so it seemed to me that he'd be taking more biology than just that course.

I could, of course, be wrong as most of the info out there is the same article reprinted over and over. :)

Occasional Chemist

6th February 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I actually know a graduat student in molecular biology who is a Biblical literalist and young earth creationist. What a waste of a decent brain.

[raises hand]

I object to "young earth creationist" and "decent brain" being associated in that manner. It's an insult to decent brains everywhere.

Heck, it's an insult to mediocre brains ... :)

arcticpenguin

6th February 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

[raises hand]

I object to "young earth creationist" and "decent brain" being associated in that manner. It's an insult to decent brains everywhere.

Heck, it's an insult to mediocre brains ... :)
What do you want, the guy was probably brainwashed from birth. I did my part to try to instill some reasoning into him, but it's hard to think out of the box if you've never been out of the box.

6th February 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Whodini
Although, I do think that one could do the job without knowing anything about evolution.

You might want to read Dini's website to see why he (and I) disagree with this.

Cheers,

Occasional Chemist

6th February 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

What do you want, the guy was probably brainwashed from birth. I did my part to try to instill some reasoning into him, but it's hard to think out of the box if you've never been out of the box.

It's hard to see how someone makes it all the way through graduate school in biology with YEC and Biblical literalism still intact. I must confess that I know it's not impossible, as down here in South Carolina we have a fair number - some of which are trying to have any discussion of evolution removed from the intro biology courses.

Frostbite

6th February 2003, 02:01 PM

That teacher needs to pull out his head out of his ass. Religious belief has nothing to do with professional competence.

Hellbound

6th February 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Frostbite
That teacher needs to pull out his head out of his ass. Religious belief has nothing to do with professional competence.

But critical thinking, scientific metholdology, an open mind to new evidence, and a willingness to examine contradictory evidence DO have something to do with it. The student skipped the course because he knew they'd discuss evolution, avoided asking the instructor for anything (again, because the instructor expected the student to be familiar with the material), and ran away to file a lawsuit. He "refutes" evolution but has shown a single-minded determination not to understand it at all (understanding and agreement are not the same). If his religious belief prevents him from examining the evidence of evolution, what is to stop his religious beliefs from making him ignore evidence of a particular illness or condition? "God showed me in a dream that you have lung cancer, so I cancelled the tests we were going to run and went ahead to schedule you for surgery."

I would say, in any cas,e that deeply held religious belief affects EVERY aspect of a persons lives, professional and personal. If the instructor feels that rejection of evolution means one would not make a good doctor, that is entirely within his perogative. The student is not entitled to any form of reccommendation letter, and had other options available. Not only did he fail to persue those options at that school, fail to ask for clarification, fail to argue the case there, fail to even try to get a letter, he also is filing a lawsuit to punish the professor for his personal beliefs. Hypocrisy.

Religious belief has NOTHING to do with science, and thus should not replace it. The student needs to get his head out of the fundamentalists asses

arcticpenguin

6th February 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Frostbite
That teacher needs to pull out his head out of his ass. Religious belief has nothing to do with professional competence.
That would depend on the profession.

Occasional Chemist

6th February 2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Frostbite
That teacher needs to pull out his head out of his ass. Religious belief has nothing to do with professional competence.

How about at least reading the thread (and maybe the articles too) first, 'kay? This isn't
slashdot (http://slashdot.org/).

bignickel

6th February 2003, 02:43 PM

Hey Frostbite: would you be willing to be treated for pneumonia by a doctor who didn't believe in the germ theory of disease?

Put your body where your mouth is.

7th February 2003, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Frostbite
That teacher needs to pull out his head out of his ass. Religious belief has nothing to do with professional competence.

It most assuredly does. First, the lack of critical thinking skills amongst Doctors is one reason we have so much quackery. A doctor needs to understand science and its methods to understand what is good evidence, what poor and what is pure nonsense. If this kid can't even overcome his religious indoctrination to reach an understanding of evolution, then he clearly can't consistently apply critical thinking.

Second is the point already raised. Evolutionary thinking applies to both disease organisms and the immune system. If this doc-wannabe can't understand evolution he can't understand why wide-spectrum antibiotics are beginning to fail us. He can't understand why vaccination works. He can't understand why his patients MUST complete antibiotics regimens as prescribed. He can't understand why he must prescribe multi-antibiotic regimens in the case of sepsis.

His professional competence most certainly depends on an understanding of science.

Cheers