DOJ Drops Investigation of Biology Professor

[Clancie]

The Bush Dept. of Justice was investigating a professor who is actively promoting evolution. Apparently he requires students to affirm they believe it in in order to get his Med School recommendation.

The DOJ was pursuing the idea that is discriminatory. But is it? Doesn't he have a right to set a criteria for recommending someone?

(And, why would it be different--as I feel it would be--if he was only recommending those who believed in creationism instead?)

Bush administration drops probe of Darwinist teacher
Wed Apr 23,10:28 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Bush administration has stepped back from a another clash over religion's place in society, as the Justice Department quietly dropped a probe of a university professor who is actively promoting Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

The face-saving retreat became possible after Texas Tech University biologist Michael Dini slightly changed his requirements for issuing letters of recommendation enabling his students to join medical school.

"In light of this change, the Department of Justice has closed its inquiry into the matter," said a statement issued by the department Tuesday.

The investigation was launched after a student in Dini's class in Lubbock, Texas, complained he could not hope to obtain a formal recommendation for studying medicine because he believed that humans were created by God.

Under rules initially set by Dini, the coveted letters were given to those who got at least one "A" grade in his class, knew him personally through joint work, and could "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the question: "How do you think the human species originated?"

This third requirement was immediately interpreted by critics as a concealed attempt to discriminate against religious students who believe in creationism -- a transgression that could not be tolerated in a state-funded educational institution.

But the Justice Department, already under fire for its conservative agenda, apparently had little appetite for igniting another battle between liberals and religious right-wingers over the origins of human life.

So in the end, it accepted a small concession from Dini, who had agreed to drop his demand that students "affirm" their personal belief in evolution while continuing to insist that they be able to "explain" Darwin's theory.

Otherwise, the Darwinist professor did not give an inch.

"If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: 'How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?'" Dini states on his updated Web site. "If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

He goes on to explain that modern medicine is rooted in biology and the theory of evolution as its "unifying principle."

"Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology," the professor points out.

[Tony]

Good, bigotry should not be tolerated on our universities. The professor showed real integrity in changing his bigoted criteria.

[arcticpenguin]

We had a lengthy thread on this over in Science when it first made the news: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=13190

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
Good, bigotry should not be tolerated on our universities. The professor showed real integrity in changing his bigoted criteria.

I think that you should explain how it is bigoted to require that people accept the science they learn in order to get a recommendation for learning and practicing SCIENCE.

Let me show you a parallel idea.

I can explain the idea of Young Earth Creationism. I think it's dreck, nonsense, and bullpucky, but I CAN explain it.

Do you think I should get a favorable recommendation to an institute promoting research into and promotion of YEC?

The two situations are exactly the same. The person wanting to be a doctor wants to practice medicine while not accepting the basis upon which medicine is founded. I'm wanting to practice YEC while not accepting its basis.

Either we both get good rec's or neither does.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


I think that you should explain how it is bigoted to require that people accept the science they learn in order to get a recommendation for learning and practicing SCIENCE.



He wasnt asking them to explain evolution theory, he was asking "How do you think the human species originated?". Very different from asking them to explain the theory. A person can know everything there is to know about the theory and still disagree with it.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Tony
He wasnt asking them to explain evolution theory, he was asking "How do you think the human species originated?". Very different from asking them to explain the theory. A person can know everything thier is to know about the theory and still be disagree with it.
Incorrect. Dini was asking for a scientific answer to the question. An answer that says, "God did it," is religious, not scientific. If the students who complained could answer scientifically, why didn't they?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Tony
Good, bigotry should not be tolerated on our universities. The professor showed real integrity in changing his bigoted criteria.
Bigotry? It is not bigotry to expect a scientist to know and affirm science.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


He wasnt asking them to explain evolution theory, he was asking "How do you think the human species originated?". Very different from asking them to explain the theory. A person can know everything there is to know about the theory and still disagree with it.

You're missing the point. If someone who is going to practice science can't put up a SCIENTIFIC argument for what they "think", they aren't a good scientist.

So what's the problem?

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj




So what's the problem?

He's forcing his students to parrot his beliefs.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


He's forcing his students to parrot his beliefs.
They aren't his beliefs, they are objective scientific facts.

[Clancie]

Well, on Tony's side, is it really fair for this professor to say, essentially, that someone who rejects Darwin--but is still a good enough student to get an "A" in his class (one of his other criteria)--isn't suitable to become a doctor and practice medicine?

Or is a professor entitled to set any criteria for writing a recommendation that he pleases? (And, while tempted to say "Yes", would I still feel that way if a professor made a litmus test of someone having certain religious views?)

I guess the question is: If a student can reject evolution and still get an "A" in his course, shouldn't their quality of work, in itself, be enough to earn them a recommendation to medical school?

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

They aren't his beliefs, they are objective scientific facts.

No they arent, if they were objective scientific facts there wouldn't be different schools of thought in evolution theory.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Tony
Good, bigotry should not be tolerated on our universities. The professor showed real integrity in changing his bigoted criteria.

Ladies and gentleman, it is now against the law to discriminate against idiots.

Time to vacate the planet.



Ok, I admit that was a little harsh. But then again, I'm not asking my professor for a letter of recommendation when there is really nothing to recommend me in my field. Good luck understanding bacterial resistance to anti-biotics without an understanding of evolution. Ditto with genetic mutations and diseases.

Evolution is a fact. The explanations of how it occured are theory. The observation of a phenomonen is a law. See the differance?

Get it? Got it? Good.

Originally posted by Clancy
The Bush Dept. of Justice was investigating a professor who is actively promoting evolution. Apparently he requires students to affirm they believe it in in order to get his Med School recommendation.


Dear Clancy,

If he required people to believe in evolution, then I feel the professor is very incorrect in this matter. The professor should not be allowed to dictate the beliefs of people, and should be punished for his backward thinking.

I would find his criteria acceptable if he administered a test that would gauge how much someone knew about evolution in theory and practice.

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Clancy
Well, on Tony's side, is it really fair for this professor to say, essentially, that someone who rejects Darwin--but is still a good enough student to get an "A" in his class (one of his other criteria)--isn't suitable to become a doctor and practice medicine?



Of course it is fair for him to say that, because that is what he thinks, as a scientist. The whole purpose of letters of recommendation is to get that person's opinion as to the potential success of the applicant.

If you want to be a doctor and don't want to accept evolution, then he is not the right person to ask for a letter of recommendation. You can't force him to write a favorable letter.

[bignickel]

Hey S Holmes: I hear that there going to do the same thing with mathematics students.

They don't have to believe that 2 + 2 = 4, but they will be required to explain why it does.

By the way, I think the State is considering the same thing for car mechanics who believe that 'evil spirits' cause car trouble. Let me know how well your brakes work after visiting one of them, will you?

Originally posted by a_unique_person

They aren't his beliefs, they are objective scientific facts.

Dear Mr. a_unique_person,

I'm still not sure, is it regular evolution, or punctuated equilibrium?

Perhaps you know?

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Tony]

Originally posted by pgwenthold




If you want to be a doctor and don't want to accept evolution, then he is not the right person to ask for a letter of recommendation. You can't force him to write a favorable letter.

Acceptance and knowledge are 2 different things.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
,

If he required people to believe in evolution, then I feel the professor is very incorrect in this matter. The professor should not be allowed to dictate the beliefs of people, and should be punished for his backward thinking.


He is not telling anyone what they have to believe. He is telling them that if they expect him to recommend them for medical school, which he does as a courtesy, BTW, then they must accept evolution.

They are welcome to believe anything they want, but if they don't accept evolution, then don't expect him to recommend them for medical school.

Originally posted by bignickel
Hey S Holmes: I hear that there going to do the same thing with mathematics students.

They don't have to believe that 2 + 2 = 4, but they will be required to explain why it does.

By the way, I think the State is considering the same thing for car mechanics who believe that 'evil spirits' cause car trouble. Let me know how well your brakes work after visiting one of them, will you?

Dear Mr. bignickel,

The comparison of a physical science to mathematics is a little awkward.

Your silly jokes aside, the beliefs of someone do not necessarily determine their competence. If that were the case, you'd find a lot of doctors who could do little more than put on their surgical mask.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tony


Acceptance and knowledge are 2 different things.

Exactly. And I think he made a mistake by dropping his criterion of acceptance.

If someone is unwilling to accept evolution after learning biology, then I would not trust them making a diagnosis. If I were writing a letter for such a person, that is exactly would I would say. "The student has demonstrated that s/he bases their opinion on preconceived beliefs, which they are unwilling to change even in the presence of overwhelming evidence. I would not want this person as my doctor."

Of course, that is my (professional) opinion (and, in fact, I have written letters of recommendation for many medical students).

If you have a different opinion, then you are welcome to write a letter on the student's behalf.

[bignickel]

Fine, S Holmes, YOU go to the mechanic who believes that evil spirits cause car trouble to get your automobile repaired.

Then take a drive thru the hills.

Let me know how your Sunday drive goes.



PS The student wasn't be told he couldn't graduate. He was told that the professor wasn't going to recommend him.

If I wouldn't recommend him, why the hell would I expect this professor to?

[fishbob]

Sherlock Holmes sez:I'm still not sure, is it regular evolution, or punctuated equilibrium? You have to know that punctuated equilibrium is one of the mechanisms explaining how some of the details of evolution work. Don't you? You wouldn't parrot one of those old, tired, and thoroughly discredited creationist arguments on these boards would you?

[Clancie]

If he required people to believe in evolution, then I feel the professor is very incorrect in this matter. The professor should not be allowed to dictate the beliefs of people, and should be punished for his backward thinking. I would find his criteria acceptable if he administered a test that would gauge how much someone knew about evolution in theory and practice.

So, Sherlock,

Do you think that someone who receives an "A" in this professor's biology class without believing in Darwin's theory of evolution still doesn't deserve his recommendation to med school?

More to the point, do you think such a student definitely wouldn't possibly be a good doctor?

[corplinx]

So, you had to answer "Darwin Evolution" and not "synthetic evolution" or "quantum evolution"?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
So, you had to answer "Darwin Evolution" and not "synthetic evolution" or "quantum evolution"?

Evolution as a concept is scientifically proven. The finer details, like all science, may never be known. "Darwinian" evolution is really just a label that acknowledges Darwin invented the basic theory.

All theories since then are refinements on the original model. Kind of like the development of the theory of atoms. They are still there, we just know much more about them than when they were first discovered.

[susheel]

Back in my school days in Bahrain, there was a bit of excitement in our class when one of our classmates was leaving for India. His whole family was being deported. The reason was his parents were born again Christian and nurses at a hospital. They had gone around to patients at the hospital where and would preach to them going so far as to advice them to forget about the doctors and take the help of god.

Now Bahrain is a pretty lenient country and at that time had quite a few churches and even a temple. The administration didn’t mind as people practiced religion among themselves. Active attempts at conversion was discouraged. The extreme step in this case was because these people were not fulfilling their duties as nurses.

I think the good professor in this case is well within his rights. His technique makes for an effective filter to see to it that a kook doesn’t end up getting his degree and one day decide that the best way to treat his or her patient is to pray over them.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by susheel
I think the good professor in this case is well within his rights. His technique makes for an effective filter to see to it that a kook doesn’t end up getting his degree and one day decide that the best way to treat his or her patient is to pray over them.

He is not using this to stop anyone from getting a degree. It is only for letters of recommendation. Thus, he _is_ using it as a way to help keep from getting doctors who pray over their patients, as you note in the second part.

[Pyrrho]

If a student receives an A in Dini's class, yet continues to believe in Creationism, and intends to enter the medical profession, Dini is quite right to refuse to give the student a letter of recommendation, because the student is showing that they are willing to ignore scientific fact in favor of an unprovable belief. It is this willingness to sidestep science that is detrimental. The medical profession is no place for shortcuts.

[arcticpenguin]

You don't like the 2+2 analogy? Well how about a geophysics student who can read and understand all about plate tectonics, etc. but still believes the earth is flat? Should a geophysics professor be obligated to write a letter of recommendation so this student can get into grad school?

[wayrad]

One solution might be for the prof to agree to write the letter if the student REALLY wants, but mention that the letter would have to include certain concerns...only a very foolish student would continue to want a letter at that point.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Your silly jokes aside, the beliefs of someone do not necessarily determine their competence. If that were the case, you'd find a lot of doctors who could do little more than put on their surgical mask.
You are weaseling on the term "beliefs", sir. The student's "beliefs" are not being asked here. The understanding of facts is being asked. On a deeper level, the understanding of the epistemology of those facts is being asked. What has this to do with doctoring? The current problem of "superbug" resistance is due, in part, to doctors not understanding evolution and the consequences of antibiotic overprescription combined with patient practice of not completing antibiotic regimins. Secondly, we are at the genetic drug frontier's border, and have been for a while. There is a mad rush to exploit this frontier on the part of drug companies. Doctors who don't understand what is going on will be ill-equipped for the future. Thirdly, and most important, is this professor is not being asked about doctoring competency. He is being asked about biology competency, isn't he? You seem to prefer that he lie and say, "sure, Joe has mastered biology", when, in fact, he can't understand the first principles. Strange indeed.

Cheers,

[corplinx]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The current problem of "superbug" resistance is due, in part, to doctors not understanding evolution and the consequences of antibiotic overprescription combined with patient practice of not completing antibiotic regimins.

I have to tell you, I don't understand what that has to do with a doctor believing the God was the originator of life, believing life came here from another planet, or believing lightning struck a pool of tlemshe right fluid has to do with what you say.

I know xians, i grew up forced to go to their churches. They in general seem to agree with adaption, mutation, natural selection, and other mechanisms of evolution. Some "creationists" believe that whatever happened was god's design and have no problem with evolution. Some believe that man was created by god but still see the obvious truth of natural selection and adaption.

In short, if the superbug problem is due to ignorance of evolution. I would say the problem is in teaching of natural selection and adaption and not the teaching of origin of species from single cell lifeforms.

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You seem to prefer that he lie and say, "sure, Joe has mastered biology", when, in fact, he can't understand the first principles. Strange indeed.


Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

If Joe gets good grades and has done well on exams and can prove himself when compared to any other student, would you call that "mastered" or something else?

Very sincerely yours,

S. Holmes

[hammegk]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
You don't like the 2+2 analogy? Well how about a geophysics student who can read and understand all about plate tectonics, etc. but still believes the earth is flat? Should a geophysics professor be obligated to write a letter of recommendation so this student can get into grad school?

More appropriately, are you suggesting a geophysicist/geologist who holds a belief in god will not be able to be an effective earth scientist? That's also basically where we have arrived vis-a-vis Doctors.

I would worry if I caught my Doctor praying for my death rather than my recovery. :(

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You are weaseling on the term "beliefs", sir. The student's "beliefs" are not being asked here.


Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

You must join the department that is investigating this matter and inform them of their error.

According to the excerpts from two reports (emphasis mine)

"The department said it ended its probe after Professor Michael Dini eliminated the evolution belief requirement in his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution."

From another report

"So in the end, it accepted a small concession from Dini, who had agreed to drop his demand that students "affirm" their personal belief in evolution while continuing to insist that they be able to "explain" Darwin's theory."

Looks like you are in error, sir.

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[LCBOY]

my two cents worth...

I am christian and I have serious doubts about evolution...However, If I were in Dr. Dini's class I probably would not ask him for a letter of recommendation. If I did ask him and he asked to me describe the process of evolution I would have no problem with that. If he asked if I believed that evolution is true, well then that is a different question. Personally, I think that the student that complained wasted everyone's time and money. He wasted the universty's and the DOJs time. There are other professors that he could have gone for a recommendation. Dr. Dini is under no obligation to give letters to students he doesn't want to. A letter of recommendation is really a personal favor to a student.

Also, a person can be a good doctor without believing in evolution. What does evolution have to do with performing surgery, or sports medicine, or cardiology. etc...If I have a broken leg it don't matter to me if my doctor believes in evolution or creationism. I just want him to fix my leg.

I guess I gave five cents worth. :p

[susheel]

Originally posted by hammegk


More appropriately, are you suggesting a geophysicist/geologist who holds a belief in god will not be able to be an effective earth scientist? That's also basically where we have arrived vis-a-vis Doctors.

I would worry if I caught my Doctor praying for my death rather than my recovery. :(

I don't think the problem is about the person's belief in God. There is little harm in the person believing in God The problem is in the belief of Creatrionism as fact and eschewing evolutionary theories. This could lead to problems since belief in such could point to a fundamentalist frame of mind prone to letting God handle it all.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Looks like you are in error, sir.
No, Dini's original site said "affirm". He meant the student must affirm the scientific answer to a scientific question. The fundies construed this to be an affront to their religious beliefs. The DOJ answered the complaint that Dini was discriminating against religious beliefs and accepted his answer that he was not discriminating and his revised language making his position abundantly clear:

""How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

"The designated criteria for a letter of recommendation should not be misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone's personal beliefs. Rather, the goals of these requirements are to help insure that a student who wishes my recommendation uses scientific thinking to answer scientific questions."

Dini's web page (http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm)

Now that you are aware of the original thread on this topic, I direct you to my post of 13 February. Dini had last revised his site on 10 February to make clear he was asking for scientific answers and not discriminating against religious beliefs.

Cheers,

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Also, a person can be a good doctor without believing in evolution. What does evolution have to do with performing surgery, or sports medicine, or cardiology. etc...If I have a broken leg it don't matter to me if my doctor believes in evolution or creationism. I just want him to fix my leg.

No person ever becomes a doctor without at least a cursory acceptance of evolution. Embryology, comparative anatomy, histology, pathology and especially genetics all rely on accepting the basic facts of evolution.

For example, when a new drug for humans is being tested, they first try it out on animals more closely related to us. If there were no evolutionary relationship between lab animals and humans, well they might as well test new human vaccines on fish, or really, not test them at all, since there is no reason to think that what works for a monkey will work for humans.

The SARS virus is an example of evolution in action. This virus did not exist until very recently. Now scientists have to isolate it, and determine how it has changed from other related viruses.

Believe me, LCBOY, there is virtually no one in the medical community who denies that evolution exists.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


He's forcing his students to parrot his beliefs.

So, someone who wants to be in a scientific discipline, who wants to work on people of all things, shouldn't follow the scientific method?

This is a classic example of "beyond the end of the nose". It affects the doctor's ability to accept new scientific advances.

[jj]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Mr. a_unique_person,

I'm still not sure, is it regular evolution, or punctuated equilibrium?

Perhaps you know?

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

Ah, now we discover why Sherlock here is posting those inane puzzles. He wants to write an article on how skeptics couldn't figure them out, and he could.

The fact that evolution has occurred, been observed in the lab, in nature, etc, is quite a bit more basic than exactly HOW it happened.

So yes, evolution is as close to a fact as science gets. Exactly how is still quite open to discussion.

[jj]

Originally posted by fishbob
Sherlock Holmes sez: You have to know that punctuated equilibrium is one of the mechanisms explaining how some of the details of evolution work. Don't you? You wouldn't parrot one of those old, tired, and thoroughly discredited creationist arguments on these boards would you?

That's exactly what he did, Bob.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


More appropriately, are you suggesting a geophysicist/geologist who holds a belief in god will not be able to be an effective earth scientist? That's also basically where we have arrived vis-a-vis Doctors.

I would worry if I caught my Doctor praying for my death rather than my recovery. :(

No, Hammy, that's not what we've arrived at. What we have arrived at is that the professor requires the appropriate scientific understanding.

How evolution comes about is not the issue here, it can be due to "God's will" acting in the background, but it does happen, it's shown in the lab, with the "superbugs", etc. Denying evolution is denying the process by which medical methods are arrived at.

[Checkmite]

I remember this whole rigamaroo when it first came out as well.

It seems very clear to me that Professor Dini couldn't care less whether a student "believed in God" or not, because belief in God makes no difference in biology. He wanted his students to confirm that they were able to analyze and grasp the concepts underlying basic biology.

Evolution is fact. Life started out very simple, and grew more complex and diverse as time went on. That's the basic concept of evolution, and absolutely nobody in the world of science disputes this - it's not even an issue. Now, whether that complexity developed at a steady rate, or "punctuated equilibrium", is still a matter of debate - but mislabeling one or the other as "normal" evolution is fallacy.

I wouldn't have written a letter of recommendation for this person, because (as someone else said) that student is willing to fasten onto beliefs he/she already holds, even in the face of directly observable evidence to the contrary. What's to stop him/her from refusing to "believe" in some new medical breakthrough that could save a patient's life?

Despite the fact that he or she could explain the concept, would you recommend an aspiring geneticist who didn't "believe" in DNA? Would you recommend an aspiring physicist who didn't "believe" in atoms? How about a geologist who didn't "believe" that sedimentary rocks were really sedimentary?

"Believing" in evolution doesn't mean not believing in God - the very notion is ridiculous. Only Bible-worshippers have a hang-up on this issue.

[arcticpenguin]

Not that it should matter, but the word is that Dini may not be an atheist.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj

How evolution comes about is not the issue here .....
Denying evolution is denying the process by which medical methods are arrived at.

Aside: Next you can tell us what "affirm" means in a religious context.

The question is indeed "how" and more important, "why". I will be glad to discuss with you the FACT that science will never -- without rational counterargument -- answer "how", and "why" is completely beyond the scope of science.
The scientific facts of evolution are valid whether the universe is 16 billion years old & it "just happened" or if it were "god's plan and He put the whole enchilada together just as it now but 10 minutes/days/years/etcetc ago". Capische?

Egotism coupled with knowledge and intelligence leads most to go with the 16 billion yr concept, but if the issue is examined either solution will yield the exact same result. Hubris, anyone?

Feel free to prove me wrong: define "energy". You can't even manage that, let alone explain "what-it-is" or "what-is-it". And more realistic please tell me today's stand by medical science "are eggs good for me, or bad?".

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
The scientific facts of evolution are valid whether the universe is 16 billion years old & it "just happened" or if it were "god's plan and He put the whole enchilada together just as it now but 10 minutes/days/years/etcetc ago". Capische?

Egotism coupled with knowledge and intelligence leads most to go with the 16 billion yr concept, but if the issue is examined either solution will yield the exact same result. Hubris, anyone?

Bad science, jj! Present its pee-pee for whacking. Goddidit! 10 minutes ago! He just designed a broken clock for the universe so none of those bad scientists can tell time!

Cheers

Originally posted by jj

Ah, now we discover why Sherlock here is posting those inane puzzles. He wants to write an article on how skeptics couldn't figure them out, and he could.


Dear Mr. jj,

Being a skeptic, I'll request your evidence for your claim that I want "to write an article on how skeptics couldn't figure them (puzzles) out and he (I) could."

Being that you are a skeptic, you probably wouldn't let your beliefs dictate your claims.

As far as "inane", I guess that depends on if you can figure them out or not.

Sincerely yours,

S. Holmes

[jj]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Mr. jj,

Being a skeptic, I'll request your evidence for your claim that I want "to write an article on how skeptics couldn't figure them (puzzles) out and he (I) could."


S. Holmes

Pure supposition on my part, and represented as nothing more. Your attempt to misrepresent my supposition displays, once again, a base perfidy.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


Aside: Next you can tell us what "affirm" means in a religious context.

The context was not religion, ergo your request is disputatious and irrelevant. The context was science. The choice of the word does point out a very significant difference between science and religion, but that's not the problem of science.

The question is indeed "how" and more important, "why". I will be glad to discuss with you the FACT that science will never -- without rational counterargument -- answer "how", and "why" is completely beyond the scope of science.
This is germane, how? It seems to be an enticement to claim that science is something it isn't, if there is any value at all to your statement.

The scientific facts of evolution are valid whether the universe is 16 billion years old & it "just happened" or if it were "god's plan and He put the whole enchilada together just as it now but 10 minutes/days/years/etcetc ago". Capische?

Science does not deal in fact, it deals in "best theory". Evolution is clearly far and away the best such theory.

You are now discussing what I refer to as "tautological creationism". The proof or nonexistance of that is a matter of faith. I am not applying science to this matter of faith. Why do you think that this discussion is at all germane, when it's not?

Egotism coupled with knowledge and intelligence leads most to go with the 16 billion yr concept, but if the issue is examined either solution will yield the exact same result. Hubris, anyone?

Same old nonsense. You're basically arguing that god faked us out, and set everything up to deceive, although you'd never argue it quite like that. In any case, completely irrelevant and a matter of faith, nothing more. The question, in any case, is completely unrelated to modern medicine, which is scientifically based, and which does not judge matters of faith.

Modern medicine is based on science, and modern doctors must accept that, at least for the practice of medicine. If they think that God just set it up to look that way, but that IS how it works now, fine.

Feel free to prove me wrong: define "energy". You can't even manage that, let alone explain "what-it-is" or "what-is-it". And more realistic please tell me today's stand by medical science "are eggs good for me, or bad?".
Explain how explaining what energy is is germane. Hint: it isn't. What's more, since you will reject any definition that is testable, you are asking deliberately for something impossible, and you know it. Your behavior is found wanting.

(Your ad-hominem is recognized, btw, and will be held against you as a matter of principle.)

The issue here is simple, do modern doctors, practicing modern medicine, which is based on the scientific method, have the right to reject the scientific method as regards biology.

The answer is still "no".

Originally posted by jj

Pure supposition on my part, and represented as nothing more. Your attempt to misrepresent my supposition displays, once again, a base perfidy.

Dear Mr. jj,

You have said that "now we discover why" and "He wants to write".

You are claiming what my intentions are, claiming that I am posting puzzles so I can say that skeptics can't solve them.

Very interesting,
Very sincerely yours,

S. Holmes

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Bad science, jj! Present its pee-pee for whacking. Goddidit! 10 minutes ago! He just designed a broken clock for the universe so none of those bad scientists can tell time!

Cheers

Awaiting your proof. Thanks in advance.

Have you finished writing Morality of Secular Humanism yet?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj

The answer is still "no".

And you (and Bill) are both still full of it.

So far as I'm concerned your screed was well written puffery and unworthy of a detailed response.

I note you do understand the limits of science, you just are unwilling to examine the consequences.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Tricky

No person ever becomes a doctor without at least a cursory acceptance of evolution. Embryology, comparative anatomy, histology, pathology and especially genetics all rely on accepting the basic facts of evolution.

For example, when a new drug for humans is being tested, they first try it out on animals more closely related to us. If there were no evolutionary relationship between lab animals and humans, well they might as well test new human vaccines on fish, or really, not test them at all, since there is no reason to think that what works for a monkey will work for humans.

The SARS virus is an example of evolution in action. This virus did not exist until very recently. Now scientists have to isolate it, and determine how it has changed from other related viruses.

Believe me, LCBOY, there is virtually no one in the medical community who denies that evolution exists.

I do not agree. Here is why:

1) Yes, new drugs are tested on animals with anatomical or physiological similarities. It doesn't matter WHY humans and the animals used for testing are related (evolution, creation, created by space aliens, made out of cosmic play-do :D, etc.). It only matters HOW they are related now in the present. It doesn't matter how they were related millions of years ago.

2) It would be an interesting to see how many doctors actually believe in evolution. I think a better question will be if how evolution applies to their job. I believe that the majority do believe in evolution but I think "virtually no one" is a little strong.

I haven't read much about the SARS virus. I am interested to read about how it may came about. I 'd like to understand the mechanism of how it works.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


And you (and Bill) are both still full of it.

So far as I'm concerned your screed was well written puffery and unworthy of a detailed response.

I note you do understand the limits of science, you just are unwilling to examine the consequences.

Show me one. I mean, like, you know, put one in my hand. Show me the dreamtime.

Evolution is as close to a fact as anything gets. The tautological version of creationism is the only way to rectify the two. Enjoy.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk


Awaiting your proof. Thanks in advance.

Have you finished writing Morality of Secular Humanism yet?

I assume you have nothing to say that is germane to the topic of Dini or evolution or the consequences of giving medical degrees to those ignorant of evolution. Until you do, kindly stop hijacking the thread.

Cheers,

[fishbob]

Originally posted by LCBOY Also, a person can be a good doctor without believing in evolution. What does evolution have to do with performing surgery, or sports medicine, or cardiology. etc...If I have a broken leg it don't matter to me if my doctor believes in evolution or creationism. I just want him to fix my leg.
You might recall that the family business of the student that filed suit is selling artificial limbs. Are you sure that you want this guy, as your doctor, to fix your leg?

You might have to get a parrot to go with your wooden leg.:D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I assume you have nothing to say that is germane to the topic of Dini or evolution or the consequences of giving medical degrees to those ignorant of evolution. Until you do, kindly stop hijacking the thread.


"Blow me" seems to be an appropriate response. Don't want to talk about your book? Why am I not surprised. :(

PS. Still awaiting your proof of the 16 billion yr v. 10 minute question. :rolleyes:

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by hammegk
Egotism coupled with knowledge and intelligence leads most to go with the 16 billion yr concept, but if the issue is examined either solution will yield the exact same result. Hubris, anyone?
I don't understand how "hubris" has anything to do with preferring the modern cosmological view of the universe to the Biblical view. In fact, I see more potential for hubris in the contrary position.

If a person asserts a belief in the Bible as fact, based upon an inner revelation of the Holy Spirit, he may or may not be correct. But if he insists upon his view in a community of others who haven't shared his inner experiences, he's guilty of hubris. He's saying, in effect, that his subjective experience ought to be more valid to others than their own.

A belief in a God who posesses human qualities might also be an example of hubris.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I don't understand how "hubris" has anything to do with preferring the modern cosmological view of the universe to the Biblical view. In fact, I see more potential for hubris in the contrary position.


The problem here is that you, not I, is postulating the Biblical God. My statement about a Creation by who-or-what ever occuring 10 minutes ago -- creating all history -- is tautological, and not very high on my "Do I believe THAT list".

FYI, I'm more inclined towards Buddhism -- as an idealistic deist. :D

I would be pleased if science demonstrates our universe as closed. The Hindu 100 billion cycle appeals to me. ;) We are now in the 8th cycle iirc. :D

My point is the scientific belief in "matter-- that creates life" & 16 billion yrs is "faith" as much as any other belief. Agnosticism remains the only logically defensible choice. Hubris is the 100%certainty that "you" are right and "I" am wrong.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by hammegk
My point is the scientific belief in "matter-- that creates life" & 16 billion yrs is "faith" as much as any other belief.
Hmm. I think there's a subtle distinction between the positivism of science and philosophical materialism.

Science says, "Here are a set of facts, and here is a theory that explains the relationship between these facts. This theory has predictive power, as we can demostrate by establishing conditions X and observing result Y. This theory is preferred to others, as it doesn't multiply non-verifiable assumtions unnecessarily."

In science, "matter" is defined by certain observable qualities, such as mass and momentum.

I'm no philosopher, and I don't mind being corrected, but it's been my impression that materialism, as a philosophy, goes a step beyond the parsimony and empiricism of science. Materialism rules out, a priori, the existence of anything which cannot be measured using physical terms such as mass, energy, or momentum.

Only time will tell if the materialists are wrong. Even if they are wrong, the method of science, as I describe above, will not change.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
My point is the scientific belief in "matter-- that creates life" & 16 billion yrs is "faith" as much as any other belief. Agnosticism remains the only logically defensible choice. Hubris is the 100%certainty that "you" are right and "I" am wrong.
You equivocate on the word "belief". There is "belief" with foundation, and there is "belief" without foundation. You also equivocate on the word "faith", and in a similar fashion. Finally, you stolidly insist on 100% certainty when I, Stimpy and numerous others have taken the time, over and over again, to try to explain to you that no such position is taken by science. Science works on provisional truth and the evidence.

If you wish to have a bifurcated mind that insists on "absolute certainty or else hammy can introduce any proposition whatsoever", then enjoy. But don't bother me with such poppycock.

Cheers,

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by hammegk

My point is the scientific belief in "matter-- that creates life" & 16 billion yrs is "faith" as much as any other belief.
What a load of hooey, discussed at length frequently and elsewhere on this board

Agnosticism remains the only logically defensible choice.
Highly disputable. But I don't feel like another round of 'invisible pink unicorns' at present.

Hubris is the 100%certainty that "you" are right and "I" am wrong.
Put together with your first two statements in this paragraph, that entitles you to nominate yourself for 'Mr. Hubris of the Year'.

Cheers,

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

....

If you wish to have a bifurcated mind that insists on "absolute certainty or else hammy can introduce any proposition whatsoever", then enjoy. But don't bother me with such poppycock.



Yeah, I know the hypothetical I mentioned presents a problem. My faith in it's correctness is vanishingly small, too.

Since you assert you are not 100% materialist/atheist, welcome to agnosticism. Perhaps others would like to vote in the existing poll where 17 100%ers have stepped forth. Perhaps they are also "really" just agnostics.

Originally posted by AP

hammegk: Agnosticism remains the only logically defensible choice.
AP: Highly disputable. But I don't feel like another round of 'invisible pink unicorns' at present.
Feel to dispute it all you wish. You say you are 100% certain. Why is that again? 100% does equal hubris imo.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yeah, I know the hypothetical I mentioned presents a problem. My faith in it's correctness is vanishingly small, too.

Since you assert you are not 100% materialist/atheist, welcome to agnosticism. Perhaps others would like to vote in the existing poll where 17 100%ers have stepped forth. Perhaps they are also "really" just agnostics.
I'm even less interested in the poll you mention than I am in yet another discussion where you change scientific questions into atheism/theism issues. We are talking about evolution and Professor Dini's position.

But feel free to put another quarter in and continue to ride your one-trick mechanical pony.

Cheers,

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by hammegk
Since you assert you are not 100% materialist/atheist, welcome to agnosticism.
Atheists say, "I see insufficient evidence to support belief in the existence of Jesus, Allah, Yaweh, Zeus, or any of the other creator beings humans have described to date."

Obviously, if evidence for the existence of Allah, etc., is discovered, the atheist will change his position.

Agnostics say, "I can't determine whether or not the evidence in favor of God's existence is convincing."

I, myself, am willing to go on record with my conclusion that evidence in favor of Zeus, Yaweh, or Allah fails to persuade.

The debate gets cloudy when the definition of the word "God" is altered. For many, "God," is a purposeful being. For others, God is not a being, as humans conceive of beings.

Some say the word "God" represents a reality beyond all categories of thought, beyond all human ability to understand. This "God" is akin to the experience of existence; it's directly and immediately perceived, like one's own subjectivity, but cannot be expressed verbally to others.

Some say the word "God" is a synonym for "that which embodies our highest values; that which we, as humans, aspire toward." They say this because the word "God" is used in social contexts, where one party is attempting to persuade the other of what is good.

If "God" cannot be defined, then the debate over the existence of God becomes moot. If "God" is an expression of humanity's highest aspirations, then even an atheist would admit that God exists, if humanity so wills.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hubris is the 100%certainty that "you" are right and "I" am wrong.
With respect to matters determined entirely by conscience or faith, I would agree with you. I'm sure you would agree with me that with respect to verifiable matters of fact, it is possible to be "right" or "wrong."

When people describe events which are entirely subjective (e.g., a feeling of God's presence, or a sense of oneness with the universe, or an inner conviction of the divine truth of some scripture), I listen with interest. I am only annoyed when people insist that I accept their experience at face value, or when they imply that I'm a lesser being if I haven't experienced the same sort of thing myself.

It's possible that some of these personal religious experiences are, in fact, encounters with a supernatural presence. In that case, I would be in error in rejecting their claims. Still, even if armed with the Truth, if the super-naturalists failed to recognize the necessity for my sense of doubt, I would fault them for hubris.

[Fade]

Hammy hammy hammy, do you ever learn?

Originally posted by DrBenway

Obviously, if evidence for the existence of Allah, etc., is discovered, the atheist will change his position.


Dear Mr. DrBenway,

To be more accurate, I'd change the "atheist will" with atheist may.

It has been said that there is no convincing evidence of god, yet people still believe. I doubt that atheists would all acknowledge that there is a god, even if there was in fact evidence.

That is nothing against believers or non-believers, but rather an observation of human nature.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Fade]

To be more accurate, I'd change the "atheist will" with atheist may.

This is because you haven't the first clue about either atheism and human nature.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I'm even less interested in the poll you mention than I am in yet another discussion where you change scientific questions into atheism/theism issues. We are talking about evolution and Professor Dini's position.

But feel free to put another quarter in and continue to ride your one-trick mechanical pony.

Cheers,

Gladly. It is interesting that you don't think "faith" in the mechanism causing evolution -- assuming for the moment the current theory is "fact" -- is an atheistic issue. Also, you are the man proposing theism, not me. My take on it is deism/idealism.

You know, at one level, is matter the substrate of reality or is energy the substrate of reality. If matter, let's find that A-tom.

Originally posted by Fade

Hammy hammy hammy, do you ever learn?
I've learned one thing. That is you continue to have nothing to contribute, here or elsewhere.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Mr. DrBenway,

To be more accurate, I'd change the "atheist will" with atheist may.

It has been said that there is no convincing evidence of god, yet people still believe. I doubt that atheists would all acknowledge that there is a god, even if there was in fact evidence.

That is nothing against believers or non-believers, but rather an observation of human nature.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

I totally agree wih this! I remember an atheist once saying that even if he was shown ireffutable evidence for God's existence he will still choose NOT to believe in God because in his worldview God does not exist and would deny the evidence. No one becomes an atheist or theist basely soley on rational or logial process. "Human nature" plays a signficant role.

I'd be interested hear some definitions of "human nature".

Originally posted by Fade

This is because you haven't the first clue about either atheism and human nature.

Dear Fade,

Interesting response. Instead of saying I "don't have the first clue about" this-n-that, would you like to respond in a logical manner to my idea?

Sincerely yours,

S. Holmes

[Fade]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Fade,

Interesting response. Instead of saying I "don't have the first clue about" this-n-that, would you like to respond in a logical manner to my idea?

Sincerely yours,

S. Holmes

You haven't responded in a logical manner. Why should I give you anything different from what you gave?

You seem to be the type of person that loves clumping different types of ideas under the same banner, or at least the same cause. For one, atheism isn't something that a person commits to (well one very very rarely commits too) it's by and large a position one falls into after exhausting the other possibilities. It is also, in some forms, a negative statement. How can you continue to disbelieve in something like god were it shown to be an actual thing? An atheist is usually an atheist due to intellectual endeavors. An atheist is almost never (as in, I have never met one) a person who is an atheist because they were just told that being an atheist is the right thing to be and everyone else is just plain wrong.

When faced with evidence so very clear to the contrary, almost all atheists (so many to the point where the rest are negligable) would instantly become theists. There would be some left over, but nothing to the point that you would seem to hint at.

Thus, you haven't the first clue about either atheism or humanity. Both are simply terms to you.

I've learned one thing. That is you continue to have nothing to contribute, here or elsewhere.

If by "contribute" you mean abuse others using arguments that are utterly without merit in any way, shape, or form then yes, I have nothing to contribute. I call it like I see it hammy. The jury is out as to whether you are trolling, or you are dense, or you are a brilliant person who loves playing the devils advocate to get others to think about their positions, regardless of whether right or not. However, I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to engage in a stimulating conversation. Your tune is one of constant denial, mind numbing repetition, and strawman.

Perhaps it would have been better if I never picked a fight with you. For that I am sorry.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I doubt that atheists would all acknowledge that there is a god, even if there was in fact evidence.

Well, I think they would. In fact, I'll go a step farther and say I personally wouldn't even need scientific "proof" to change my own ideas about god (atheist).

I don't need science; personally I would settle for a revelation. I'm sure that, even if I couldn't convince anyone else that it was "real", if I had a religious experience, an awakening, a vision that was totally convincing to me and no one else, I could come to believe in god after all.

Unfortunately, I don't expect to ever have either kind of "evidence"--scientific or experiential. (But, then again, who knows? Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised one of these days, and be proven wrong about the whole thing....)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LCBOY

I remember an atheist once saying that even if he was shown ireffutable evidence for God's existence he will still choose NOT to believe in God because in his worldview God does not exist and would deny the evidence.
What you were dealing with here was an "idiot". There are a few idiot atheists out there. I have no more respect for someone who ignores evidence for God than I do for someone who ignores evidence for evolution.

However, you must admit that this is a purely hypothetical case. No irrefutable evidence has ever been shown for God. In fact, I fail to see any evidence whatsoever, based on what I consider evidence (which does not include anecdotes). Most of the "evidence" I have seen for God boils down to, "You can't explain this, so there must be a God". Of course, I could be wrong. I've been wrong many times before, so it doesn't frighten me.

Originally posted by Fade

How can you continue to disbelieve in something like god were it shown to be an actual thing?

When faced with evidence so very clear to the contrary, almost all atheists (so many to the point where the rest are negligable) would instantly become theists. There would be some left over, but nothing to the point that you would seem to hint at.

Thus, you haven't the first clue about either atheism or humanity. Both are simply terms to you.


Dear Fade,

I simply said that I doubt that atheists "would all" admit that the god existed. This is based on what I know about human nature, and the fact that many people cling to a past worldview when presented with conflicting evidence (this applies to everyone).

I'm not "hinting" at anything more than that.

My knowledge about atheism aside, you are claiming that I don't have "the first clue about humanity". If you have suggestions for me, I'd certainly appreciate them rather than an insult.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[bignickel]

Originally posted by bignickel

Ladies and gentleman, it is now against the law to discriminate against idiots.

Ok, this has been on my mind the last few days.

I need to clarify my earlier post: I didn't mean that creationists are idiots.

I do think people who apply for a letter of recommendation from their professor when they have nothing to recommend themselves, and then actually complain about it legally are idiots. Especially when they don't believe in something which is the whole underpinning of their field (and they know how important it is to the professor they're seeking a letter from).

I think the student was seriously uncouth at best, and an idiot at worst.

I do know a creationist; he is neither uncouth nor an idiot. He's a pretty smark cookie, and one of the nicest guys I know. I've never delved his views on the subject, but evidently he finds the evidence for evolution wanting. That's fine with me.

Anyways, that's my clarification.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
Gladly. It is interesting that you don't think "faith" in the mechanism causing evolution -- assuming for the moment the current theory is "fact" -- is an atheistic issue. Also, you are the man proposing theism, not me. My take on it is deism/idealism.

You know, at one level, is matter the substrate of reality or is energy the substrate of reality. If matter, let's find that A-tom.
hammy,

We can keep going until you run out of quarters. I don't care. Your equivocation on "faith" continues, sir. Your equivocation on "evolution" as well. I have extraordinarily high confidence in the fact that evolution has occurred and is occuring. I have high confidence that the mathematics of theoretical population genetics describes it accurately. But therein lies your "evolution" equivocation. Theoretical population genetics is the modern form of the "theory of evolution." The fact of evolution is the record of life on earth.

But please do put another quarter in and turn every science discussion into an tirade agains atheistic materialists. It so helps civil discourse to derail it to suit your one-trick mechanical hobby-horse.

Cheers,

[Victor Danilchenko]

DrBenway

I'm no philosopher, and I don't mind being corrected, but it's been my impression that materialism, as a philosophy, goes a step beyond the parsimony and empiricism of science. Materialism rules out, a priori, the existence of anything which cannot be measured using physical terms such as mass, energy, or momentum.Well, what you describe as materialism is the "classical" materialism, the ontologically-ladden materialism of the 19th century. These days, it is understood that a better way to describe things is via physicalism -- a conceptual framework defining meaning in terms of referrential coherence, and all referrentiality ultimately reduces to our physical perceptions. Matter under physicalism is not some ontological substance to be distinguisghed from an equally mysterious ontological substance of "spirit"; rather, matter is defined as that which we observe.

P.S. Hammy is a philosophically illiterate idjit.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
P.S. Hammy is a philosophically illiterate idjit.

Victor, I'm having some Southern Baptists pray for your immortal soul. There, feel better now?

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk


Victor, I'm having some Southern Baptists pray for your immortal soul. There, feel better now?

Better they should read some Bertrand Russell and learn something. My shoes can be replaced.

[Checkmite]

I still fail to see how "God" or "atheism", and the professor's particular stance on either issue, has anything to do with the matter.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Tricky

What you were dealing with here was an "idiot". There are a few idiot atheists out there. I have no more respect for someone who ignores evidence for God than I do for someone who ignores evidence for evolution.

However, you must admit that this is a purely hypothetical case. No irrefutable evidence has ever been shown for God. In fact, I fail to see any evidence whatsoever, based on what I consider evidence (which does not include anecdotes). Most of the "evidence" I have seen for God boils down to, "You can't explain this, so there must be a God". Of course, I could be wrong. I've been wrong many times before, so it doesn't frighten me.

I would like to add that for every idiot atheist there is an idiot theist. :D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by LCBOY


I would like to add that for every idiot atheist there is an idiot theist. :D

Absolutely true! Ergo, maybe 99% of theists are not idiots, right?

[Victor Danilchenko]

hammegk

Absolutely true! Ergo, maybe 99% of theists are not idiots, right?Ah, the famous hammy "lawgick"...

Just because there is a theist idiot for every atheist idiot, doesn't mean that only the theist idiots who have a corresponding atheist idiot exist. All it means is that there are at least as many theist idiots as atheist idiots; the mapping from atheist idiots to theist idiots is 1-to-1, but nothing says that it's onto.

now if the statement was that for every theist idiot there is an atheist idiot (the funciton mapping (atheistidiots -> theistidiots) is onto) , then you could draw the conclusion you did.

[hammegk]

Geez, Vic, look for the humor, the subtlety. Or not, as the case may be. ;)

Did Linear thinking fabricate the first tool?

[Martin]

Originally posted by bignickel
I do know a creationist; he is neither uncouth nor an idiot. He's a pretty smark cookie, and one of the nicest guys I know. I've never delved his views on the subject, but evidently he finds the evidence for evolution wanting. That's fine with meYou're right, creationists aren't all stupid. Ignorance and self-delusion do the trick just fine.

Now, on the subject matter - call me crazy, but I want my doctor to be able to make observations, use them to form hypotheses and test them to draw a conclusion. Is that too much to ask? It's possible to get an A in a college course without any such ability. Rote learning will do the trick just fine. To be a competent scientist requires more.