Biology Professor Refuses to Recommend Students Who Don't Believe in Evolution

Texas Tech ^ | January 29, 2003 | Michael Dini

[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.

[CyberAnt]

You're comparing apples to oranges - that doesn't work.

[Blood of Tyrants]

P.S. He states the case for the "evolution" of bacteria to become anti-biotic resistant. This evolution has been proven to be untrue. Specific bacteria strains have ALWAYS been resistant to antibiotics. It is now that we are finding that the "weak" bacteria were killed off long ago in industrialized countries. In third world countries where people rarely get medical attention, penicillin and streptomycin work fine on infections.

[eshu]

That's not quite an accurate parallel. It would be more like an astronomy professor refusing to recommend students who refuse to accept a heliocentric solar system.

When I first replied I couldn't remember the word "heliocentric" - you're right, that's a much better analogy

[Mr. Bird]

In my opinion, the guy gets points for outlining the criteria for getting a recommendation. I would venture that there are certain graduate programs out there that would look favorably on a letter from an applicant refusing to request a recommendation from this professor, because of his exhortation to denounce what one believes.

One could also just tell the guy what he wants to hear (you can still learn evolution without believing it) and get the recommendation. Much ado about nothing....

[Alouette]

I'd like to see what happens when the good professor turns down a request for recommendation of a Muslim student.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You have GOT to be kidding! You CANNOT equate change in height due to diet and cats who have been selectively bred for thousands of years with evolution.

[NativeNewYorker]

A specialist must accept the basic, fundamental premises of his discipline. Natural selection is as central to biology as belief in G-d is to, say, Judaism. I wouldn't go to a faithless rabbi. YMMV.

[Dark Knight]

My cat disagrees with you heartily. The comparison of cat brains, which she says is none of our business, should be done using current feral cat populations and house cat populations. Not hypothetical over time studies of some house cat sadists.

As for Asians being taller not related diet and living conditions, did you see the fighters we were training in Afghanistan? When they were standing next to the Allied Forces trainers, the difference was incredible. If you raised your children in those conditions, and I would not recommend it, they would look like those very same people. All it takes is very poor nutrition prior to full growth.


DK

[stanz]

I don't have any data in front of me regarding bacterial evolution or his ideas on it. This isn't about his expertise or lack of it. It concerns his requirements for students seeking his approval for recommendation.

[freedomcrusader]

Evolutionm is hardly a basic premise of modern medicine. Please demonstrate diagnostic and therapeutic prinicples that are based on evolution.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Truthful answer, I don't remember. But I seem to recall that the study dealt specifically with Christianity and prayers.

[frodolives]

Is there any potential employer impressed with a letter of recommendation from a kid's teacher? Not me.

[NativeNewYorker]

If you believe basic biology is not central to "diagnostic and therapeutic prinicples", I can offer you no satisfactory explanation.

As I said, YMMV.

[Maceman]

I don't have a problem with this at all.

Remember that science is only about what is scientific, not necessarily about what is true (not that I think creationism per se is true, although I do believe that God created the universe).

All scientific theories are subject to skepticism and/or rebuttal by scientific method. But if you are not using the scientific method to attack a well-accepted theory, you are not being scientific.

Perhaps someday science will discover through scientific methodology that the theory of evolution as generally understood is wrong, though I doubt it. After all, Newton's theories later gave way to Einstein's, because Newton began with an assumption that time and space are the same everywhere, which EInstein disproved.

But if I were a biology professor and someone asked me for a recommendation after telling me that that they didn't that there is a scientifc basis for the general theory of evolution, I too would be reluctant to give that person my endorsement.

[Dark Knight]

He did not want to be a biologist, he wanted to be a doctor. A belief in the Theory of Evolution is as fundamental to a doctor as being able to ride a motorcycle. Useful, sure. Clinically useful, not really. Certainly more relevent criteria should be used. If the professor chooses to use less relevant criteria to base his opinion, that is his right. It is also our right to laugh at him in public for being a poo-poo head. And it is the right of the young man that was discriminated against to sue the institution that took his good money and wasted his time with a biased "science" teacher.

DK

[the_devils_advocate_666]

It has also been proven that prayer is a powerful healing agent for ill patients.

Really!? I'd be very interested to read more about this. I recently read an article about Elisabeth Targ that shed a lot of doubt on some of her popular studies that set out to prove this.

[Dimensio]

I've seen 'prayer' studies before, and all of them are heavily flawed, with problems in the control groups and very limited conditions.

Personally, I won't trust any study that does not have multiple control groups for multiple theologies.

[Schnucki]

When in doubt, rely on intellectually bankrupt arguments like 'evolution is not science'.

I'm talking about macro evolution: I don't know of any scientists who have a problem with micro evolution. I don't know any religious folks who might have a problem with this either.

However, macro evolution is proveably a complete crock.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Natural selection and evolution don't necessarily go hand in hand. There is no doubt that the stronger survive to pass on their genes. However, it is much disputed that this leads to the creation of new species. Fruit flies have been raised in laboratories for thousands and thousands of generations and every effort to alter their genes has only resulted in defective or sterile offspring and never in a "better" fruit fly.

From your usage of the word "G-d", I assume that you are Jewish and on at least some level you are still practicing your faith. If that is so, then you also believe that the Old Testament is the inspired word of God. If that is so, then you should also believe that God doesn't make up fairy tails for our amusement and that Creation as described in Genesis is the literal truth.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And I don't trust a doctor that doesn't believe that humans are the unique creation of a loving God.