Posted on 01/30/2003 9:33:28 AM PST by matthew_the_brain
Letters of Recommendation
Before you ask me to write you a letter of recommendation for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences, there are several criteria that must be met. The request for a letter is best made by making an appointment to discuss the matter with me after considering these three criteria:
Criterion 1
You should have earned an "A" from me in at least one semester that you were taught by me.
Criterion 2
I should know you fairly well. Merely earning an "A" in a lower-division class that enrolls 500 students does not guarantee that I know you. In such a situation, all I would be able to provide is a very generic letter that would not be of much help in getting you into the school of your choice. You should allow me to become better acquainted with you. This can be done in several ways:
1) by meeting with me regularly during my office hours to discuss biological questions. 2) by enrolling in an Honors’ section taught by me. 3) by enrolling in my section of BIOL 4301 and serving as an undergraduate TA (enrollment is by invitation only). 4) by serving as the chairman or secretary of the Biology Advisory Committee.
Criterion 3
If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.
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?
If you still want to make an appointment, you can do so in person during office hours (M-Th, 3:30-4:00), or by phoning my office at 742-2729, or by e-mailing me at michael.dini@ttacs.ttu.edu
Citations
Ewald, P.W. 1993. Evolution of infectious disease. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 298.
Ewald, P.W. 1993. The evolution of virulence. Scientific American 268:86-98.
Morgan, E. 1990. The scars of evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 196.
Myers, J.H. and L.E. Rothman. 1995. Virulence and transmission of infectious diseases in humans and insects: evolutionary and demographic patterns. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(5):194-198.
Nesse, R.M. and G.C. Williams. 1994. Why we get sick. Times Books, New York, pp. 291.
_____1997. Evolutionary biology in the medical curriculum -- what every physician should know. BioScience 47(10):664-666.
Rose, Michael. 1998. Darwin's Spectre. Princeton University Press, Princteon, NJ. pp. 233.
Seachrist, L. 1996. Only the strong survive: the evolution of a tumor favors the meanest, most aggressive cells. Science News 49:216-217.
Stearns, S.C. (ed.) 1999. Evolution in Health and Disease. Oxford University Press. pp. 328.
Trevathan, W.R., Smith, E.O. and J.J. McKenna (eds.). 1999. Evolutionary Medicine. Oxford University Press. pp. 480.
Williams, G.C. and R.M. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66:1-22.
Not at all. Just that faith is a great part of ALL theories. The evolutionists just insist it isn't.
OK, use your bigger brain: This guy is an employee of the government. He is using it to discriminate on what he thinks is the basis of religion. And you are defending him?
I'm pretty sure the National Observer had a story where a kid took an antibiotic a suddenly a zoo is spewin' out his nose. Evolution can be dangerous.
As much as it is to the idea that the earth is center of the Universe, or that 2+2=5.
RWP, the difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to know all the answers and that I admit that my theory requires faith.
I certainly don't claim to know all the answers. I don't pretend to know how life arose, for example. I think we have a different definition of faith.
Yet more grace dripping from the lips of an evolutionist.
It would be nice to see some constructive defense of your position. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate to us all your great knowledge of the truth and produce a solid transitional fossil. No cheating now, only a fossil that is not disputed.
Well, while still admitting (as I would never deny, being a libertarian) this particular Professor's constitutional right to be an oaf, I do think that a study of the medical efficacy of self-described "Creationist", "Intelligent Design", and "Evolutionist" medical doctors would very-likely discredit the Professor's irrational assertions.
I've no idea what definition of "medical efficacy" would be established, but assuming an objective and quantifiable standard I'd expect roughly equal medical efficacy across the board. Possibly higher for the religious M.D.s if the practice of religion "reduces stress" and "improves mental concentration" (wouldn't want to imply any yucky supernatural efficacy to prayer and meditation -- grin). And then again, possibly not. However, you'd have to figure out how to "control" for factors such as missionary doctors who choose to work in low-quality Third World medical environments.
Though I've seen a few folks who appeared to be "Random Mutations" of the West Virginia type, no, I have not yet needed to consult Richard Dawkins or Steven Jay Gould.
On the contrary, things like the expression of penicillin resistance are the opposite of "evolution" but rather a "switching on" of genes already pre-existing in that organism or related organisms which have simply "swapped" DNA by known non-evolutionary mechanisms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.