Edited by author 01-30-2003 11:43 PM
Here's an outstandingly thoughtful weblog post about this.

I'd say he's justified. Evolution is the foundation for biological knowledge. Rejecting evolution is incompatible with modern scientific understanding. Medicine is a branch of science. If you reject the scientific method, you reject medicine.

Thoughtful? Oh, come on.

It's simple, if one expects a career in biology/medicine/science/etc., one should be at least able to ARGUE the standpoint of evolutionary theory. To steal an analogy from the MeFi discussion over this, would one expect a priest to write a letter for someone who denounced the existence of God?

There's no religious bigotry here, just a well-reasoned justification for a personal letter-writing policy. Seems completely sound to me.

--sean

Edited by author 01-31-2003 12:58 AM
I agree that the "outstandingly thoughtful weblog post" is neither outstanding nor thoughtful, while it does at least appear to be a weblog post.

Just because most people understand neither science nor religion does not make them equal.

I fully support the Texas professor's position and I'd like to see more of it.

Here's what I posted about this on a science board earlier today:

He's not insisting that they not be religious. Most religions have no problem with evolution -- they see it as the mechanism god uses. And if they can't accept the evidence for evolution, they shouldn't be going into biology -- they aren't going to likely to help the science. (Remember the baboon heart into child debacle, done by a doctor who refused to believe the facts that point to evolution?) They are always free to go into something else that doesn't require evolutionary studies, and they should, for their own sakes as well as others.

I fully support the professor. It reminds me of the PETA kiddies who want to become veterinarians but don't want to dissect frogs in high school. I have news for them, the vast majority of vets don't care for fluffy bunnies and kitties, they take care of livestock that people eat: cattle, sheep, and pigs, and you can't get through vet school without learning to work in an industry that PETA hates.
But I can look at things from a different angle. As I grew up, I always thought I'd become an astronomer. It was an exciting time of the discoveries of the cosmic background radiation, and the proofs of the Big Bang. But subsequently, I became a buddhist, and I now have firm faith in the Steady State. I can BELIEVE the evidence of the BB, but I have faith in SS. I see no dichotomy, because cosmology is closer to religion than any other science, and I see plenty of loopholes. And now there seems to be a revival of the old Steady State theories, in new contexts. But it's such abstact quantum physics, I have no means to evaluate it. I suppose this leaves me with an unresolved dichotomy, but I don't have a problem with it since I will never be an astronomer.

What a juicy yummy set of issues! And the article is fun as well...referring to the Liberty Legal Institute as simply 'a Plano-based religious freedom organization.'

Our attempts to ensure equal opportunity to all through prohibitions on discrimination take a toll in our individual liberties.

Telling Woolworth's 'you don't have the freedom to _not_ serve Black people' seems okay to me. Telling a church that they must hire ministers regardless of their religion is obviously (I hope!) absurd.

But at either extreme, we have made societal choices to balance the conflicting demands for liberty and equal opportunity.

But in this case we have a conflict between the strong rights of the professor to hold his own opinions, and the non-right desire of a whacko who wants a recomendation.

The school has it right "A letter of recommendation is a personal matter between a professor and student and is not subject to the university control or regulation"

The Creationist arguments I've seen tend to be more anti-evolution than pro-Creation. Science tends to work towards reconciling contradictions. Fundamentalism - which doesn't necessarily grasp the metaphors mentioned in that weblog entry noted - doesn't cope with contradictions well.

You can take the theory of evolution with a non-literal reading of the Bible; they're not incompatible, unless you're taking the Bible literally, word-for-word.

Speaking as an ex-pharmacist (i.e. someone who did graduate level work in a medical speciality), I am aghast that this is an issue. Here's a clue: how do you think bacterial antibiotic resistance happens, and why does it spread? It's a clear case of natural selection in action, and you can observe it in any damn hospital today!

Someone who doesn't understand the theory of evolution, or who doesn't believe that an evolutionary theory (not necessarily Darwin's, there's still some argument over which post-Darwinian theory is closest to the dark) explains human origins is simply not fit to work in the field. Neither is doctor who believes they can cure cancer by laying on of hands, or one who believes necrotising fasciitis is caused by evil spirits sent by a neighbourhood witch. If they're willfully refusing to admit glaringly obvious evidence that's right in front of their eyes, then they lack the essential ability to look at a medical problem and reach an impartial diagnosis on the basis of the observable facts.

Because evolution is observable fact, when you get down to it. We see it in bacteria. We see it in flies. We even see it in higher organisms (although you have to get pretty specialised and spend a long time looking to see it). Genetic mechanisms have been uncovered in the past couple of years that coordinate how different tissues are formed, and it's been demonstrated that single point mutations on one chromosome can give rise to startling differences (up to and including the level of speciation).

An anti-evolutionist doctor is like a lawyer who insists that Leviticus takes priority over the state legal code.

Actually, your description of the issue is inaccurate. The professor never asked anyone to deny a belief in creationism, only to profess a belief in evolution. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are plenty of people who believe that God "created" the earth by setting in motion a chain of events which resulted in the evolution of earth's many species. Many people also believe that the "7 days" is a metaphor for millions of years. So as long as these students are willing to account for the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution, their religious beliefs are a nonissue.

The man in question is a college professor. His duty is to provide information from which his students can (or cannot) gain knowledge as they choose. They pay for the privilege. If a student meets all the requirements of the class (attendance, grades, thesis) and they grasp what they need to proceed, then they have earned the right to do so. If they take what they learned, and then are irresponsible with it, they won't prosper. They won't get patients, they won't get published, they might skirt the hippocratic oath and get sued.

This really seems like a strange issue to debate. The stauch creationists who believe that laying on hands is enough wouldn't embrace the secular medical teachings anyway. Anyone with a scientific mind and religious convictions would be able to accept, as was already discussed, that God put us here, and now things go from there in a logical fashion.

It really sounds like the professor is causing a stink while doing nothing more than weeding a minute percentage of oddballs who I wouldn't let touch me with a 10 foot stethoscope anyway.

This is interesting. From the article:

The professor's web page reads
"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..."
...

Spradling, 22, who plans to be a physician, said he needed a letter of recommendation from a biology professor but, as a creationist, could not "sit there and truthfully say I believe in human evolution."

This gives the lie to "creation science." It seems clear Dini would agree that "creation science" is a contradiction in terms. Spradling, unwittingly, has shown he also agrees. Dini is not explicitly asking for an *evolutionary* explanation, he is asking for a *scientific* explanation of human origins. It just so happens that evolution is the best scientific explanation we've got. Spradling apparently was not prepared to assert that creationism is valid science (which shows some level of intellectual honesty, I suppose).

Wiseanduncanny wrote: "It's simple, if one expects a career in biology/medicine/science/etc., one should be at least able to ARGUE the standpoint of evolutionary theory. To steal an analogy from the MeFi discussion over this, would one expect a priest to write a letter for someone who denounced the existence of God?"

No, it's not that simple because you apparently didn't bother to read the article. As the student says, he would have no problem explaining the evolutionary theory of the origin of the human species. What the student is clearly being asked to do is go well beyond that and assert that his personal religious beliefs are not in conflict with evolutionary theories.

The professor is quite clear that he thinks anyone who doesn't agree with evolutionary theories is not fit to be a physician. As an atheist who doesn't agree with creationism one bit, even I find that absurd. All the good prof. is doing is reinforcing all of the far right misconceptions about evolutionary biology.

Brian and Tim, I don't think that the professor is attemptintg to weed out anyone. He says nothing about 'allowing' such students into his class, or treating them unfairly. He is asserting his right, privilege, and duty to be selective in his recommendations.

This professor believes that a belief in a scientific fact/idea/wild ass guess is necessary, and so will only recommend students if they have this believe.

Whether or not this is 'objectively' true, it is a reasonable belief. What the religious nut jobs are attempting is to require this teacher to ignore his own principles. How is that fair, proper, or legal?

The professor shouldn’t be so harsh. Religion has evolved for very good reasons. People who believe in dogma, heaven & hell, and the correlation of good & evil (we become good by defeating evil) not only make better soldiers, but they stay in line in the off-season.
It’s just good natural selection:
Follow the rules. Stay with the group. Obey the hierarchy. Don’t ask questions. Do not kill (unless your leader points to evil). You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists. OK, now you can kill. You will be rewarded in heaven.
People who philosophize and see issues in shades of gray make very poor soldiers, and tend to be pain-in-the-ass liberals in the off-season.
And in a stroke of evolutionary elegance as beautiful as hexagonal bee cells, religious belief not only has evolved to deny its own evolution, but the top of the hierarchy is unavailable for scrutiny. And for the fence sitters, we have the everlasting barbecue in Hell. Lastly, there’s the “God saved my life” movement, which tends to have more members than the “Where was God?” movement. It’s truly a miracle.
Recommend this student for military medical service.

Would you expect a physics professor to write a recommendation for a student who doesn't believe in gravity? A geography professor to recommend a student who believes the earth is flat?

Remember, a letter of recommendation is a personal thing. The professor has every right to refuse to write one for a student he can not recommend. The student has absolutely no right to demand a letter from a professor. Given that the student here claims to be pre-med, I'm sure he's taken more than one biology course, and could easily have gotten a letter from a different professor.

Sounds to me like this is someone itching for a "test case" to further the cause of religious fundamentalism.

>"The professor shouldn’t be so harsh."

He isn't being harsh. I guess he even gave this student a passing grade, since the student is pressing for a recommendation. But how can a prof recommend someone for a field whose well-established underpinning the student categorically denies as a matter of faith? The prof isn't asking the kid to deny religion (and most religions have no problem with evolution), but he can't use faith to deny scientific findings and get anywhere. The kid should simply go into some other field where his faith won't blind him to basic realities of that field -- biology is not a good fit for him; he won't do well in it and unless he does only rote work of some sort, his work would be a danger to others. And of course demanding a letter of recommendation as some sort of right is, frankly, just bizarre behavior.

Religion and faith have nothing to do with science. Religion is a belief-system. Science is about testability. The so-called science of "creationism" was an attempt during the 70s to "scientifically" disprove the idea that humans have evolved from animals. Creationists distorted the existing data and morphed it, so that its interpretation just happened to agree with certain parts of the bible. Creationism, though, was bad science--it never went through peer review, was not repeatable, etc. The beast of creationism is still lingering, so it's the job of scientists to remind us that this is bullshit. Hell, you can believe whatever you want, just don't call it science if it's not testable.

The student is an idiot.

I don't say that bc of the evolution vs. creation business, but because of the whole notion that she can force a professor to write a recommendation letter for her. (Although I'm sure the case is probably really motivated by politics, to be fair.) Having served on a graduate admissions committee, I can say that not all letters submitted by professors are positive.
The fact that the professor declines to write the letter, rather than saying he'll write a letter, and then sending a bad one is a GOOD thing, if you're the student.

"Miss Smith has demonstrated a poor understanding of the most basic principles of biology and the scientific method" is really not something you want the people on the admissions committee to read in your application packet...

I sent an emailed message to the professor saying 'Good For You.'

One of the more interesting bits about this tempest in a teapot is that Professor Dini has not required his students to believe in anything. It was the complainants who manufactured that "requirement" to advance their discrimination case.

Give a truthful, forthright, scientific answer to the question, or get a clue.

You do have to love the First Amendment implication of the complaint though. What, are they going to compel Dini to give the guy a recommendation?

Tempest in a teapot indeed. This lawsuit is a big red herring. I'm certain everyone can see that. As for whether the good professor ought to set this question (we all know it's his right to), well, I just don't see how it helps and what it achieves. What, exactly, is the point of this question? I suspect the professor of rabble rousing, if you know what I mean.

Re: aha: "Religion has evolved for very good reasons."

Nice line.

Edited by author 02-01-2003 02:12 PM
Sounds to me like the "rabble-rousing" is coming from an entirely different source than the prof. Why does he ask that question? Why not check out his reason, in the page titled "How to Get a Letter of Recommendation" from his university web page: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm

Here is a part of that:
"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?"

"Brian and Tim, I don't think that the professor is attemptintg to weed out anyone. He says nothing about 'allowing' such students into his class, or treating them unfairly. He is asserting his right, privilege, and duty to be selective in his recommendations.

This professor believes that a belief in a scientific fact/idea/wild ass guess is necessary, and so will only recommend students if they have this believe.

Whether or not this is 'objectively' true, it is a reasonable belief. What the religious nut jobs are attempting is to require this teacher to ignore his own principles. How is that fair, proper, or legal?"

I didn't comment about the plausibility of the lawsuit, because I have no idea how letters of recommendation will be treated by the courts. It appears that Texas Tech is a publicly funded university. As such, presumably there are legal limits to who he can and cannot discriminate against, even in recommendation letters. I doubt, for example, that if he said "I will never give recommendation letters to Catholic students" that he would be on shaky legal ground. Whether or not requiring students to overtly reject creationism rises to that level remains to be seen.

It was the content of his message that I disagree with (and is at odds with the typical academic nonsense about academic freedom). Saying that a creationist can never be a good physicians is right up there with idiots who claim that pro-lifers are unqualified to be gynecologists. It's interesting how academia likes to mouth these phrases about academic freedom and diversity until someone comes along who disagrees their sacred cows.

Brian,

I am going to go out on a limb and argue that faculty should have absolute freedom in the creation and contents of recommendation letters. Including not writing such letters for 'improper' reasons.

I think a faculty member should have the absolute right and freedom to discriminate in making recomendations based on the sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc. of the student.

Professors are private citizens, and recommendation letters are the result of the choice of a private citizen.

As for the specific case: I agree with the profressor. Creationists have no place in the medical field.

Richard wrote,

"I am going to go out on a limb and argue that faculty should have absolute freedom in the creation and contents of recommendation letters. Including not writing such letters for 'improper' reasons."

I would agree with you that this is how things *should* work, but I doubt that is the law. I can't imagine, for example, that an engineering prof. would get away with saying that he wouldn't write letters of recomm. for women (and believe me, there are still folks like that around).

As for creationists being physicians, why would you want to decrease the pool of talented physicians simply to exclude those with views about human origins that run counter to currently accepted scientific views? If the students can do the work, pass the tests, and get the degree, they shouldn't have to pass an additional scientific loyalty oath.

Hey Brian,

I'm speaking pretty specifically that I agree with the professor that 'Creationists' have no place in the medical field. I don't advocate a scientific loyalty oath.

As for why...well, I believe that belief in Creationism is wrong. That such belief makes our society weaker through the promotion of ignorance, and that people who believe in Creationism are, well, fucking idiots.

That's not very tolerant of me. But, hey, so be it. I also happen to believe that folks who are opposed to gay rights are evil bastards. Also not a tolerant view.

Edited by author 02-01-2003 09:34 PM
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler." (Isaac Newton, 1686).

Ahhhh...anyone else want to weigh in on the side of the professor..and against religious freedoms? Out of 25+ posts not one of you thinks that maybe there is something wrong with discriminating against a persons beliefs? Talk about lock step. How intellectual of you all to chime in on how much you agree with each other. And what bold positions your taking on freedom and science. Truly novel, bohemian, and original. Really.

You all need a reality check. If you say anti-gays should have no rights, pro-nazis should have no rights, and 50% of all Christians (who believe in Creationism) also should have no rights- your just as bad as Stalin or any other dictator.

Just because I am opposed to somone's beliefs like a racist or nazi, does not mean I can take away their rights. Once you do that your freedoms are subject to popular opinion, which is how these movements start.

So wake up.

All of you have been brainwashed by western Darwinism. The best scientists have already discounted evolution. More and more facts weigh in against it. Now that doesn't mean that they all believe God or some supreme "deity" built it all, but the worlds best and cutting edge has sharply turned from these silly notions of evolution which keeps bringing in more and more millions of years to explain itself. There is no evidence, unfortunately we have invested so heavily in in our educational institutions and scientific circles, we are trapped by them.

Don't believe me? Check out this link http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k a creationist has had a standing offer for about the last 5 years offering $250,000 for anyone who can prove evolution to be true. No one has taken the guy up on it and won. I watched a debate that was lost by a challenger.

Do you know that "dirty ignorant not worthy of human rights creationist" was directly responsible for curing legionnaires disease? http://www.icr.org/headlines/legionnairesdisease.html

Finally, that is fine if you all disagree. You have a right. I respect that right, and consider myself a student of life. But don't tell people like that student that they don't have a rights. You don't want hospitals, government, filled with people who have only one belief. No matter how ridiculous it may seem to you or anyone else. Otherwise your lack of good sense displayed on this message board would be responsible for keeping great scientific minds like Isaac Newton from prominence.

The information is out there for those who would like to study the latest science
here:
About RadioHalos
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-353.htm

More info:
http://www.discovery.org/crsc/

here:
http://www.icr.org/research/lv/lv-r03.htm
http://www.icr.org/research/jb/debatehighlights.html

Someone needs to say it, apparantly again and again, and again. 'Christian' Creationists are just full of shit.

They may have non-creationist belief's that are also of interest, but creationism if crap.

And students don't have any rights to the personal recommendation of a professor.

What about Jewish Creationists, Muslim Creationists, and Buddhist Creationists? Or is it only the Christians you want to discriminate against? How articulate. Clearly you don't know enough to argue your dogma. Do me a favor and quit insulting anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you, it makes you look stupid.
Fortunately, for those of us who value our freedoms, the justice department does not see it your way Gibson.
Read story here
I happen to agree with Liberty Legal Institute who filed a complaint on the students behalf who stated "There's no problem with Dr. Dini saying you have to understand evolution and you have to be able to describe it in detail," said Kelly Shackelford, the group's chief counsel, "but you can't tell students that they have to hold the same personal belief that you do."

For those who do not have their brains in neutral, think of this, in the same way that early scientists were impeded by religious dogma, today's scientists are impeded by anti-religious dogma. According to a study on Einstein's thinking process which was said to be ultra simplistic and childlike the discovery of relativity theory was based on the thought "If I was God how would I make things?" History shows that true science grows in humility, not gross arrogance.

Liberty legal wishes to mandate the standards which individuals use to write recommendations. They are fucked, and deserve ridicule.

As for the justice department having anything to do with justice. Hah.

Ashcroft is a fucking criminal in the service of a parasite.

Dr.Dini wishes to mandate the standards which individuals use to use to GAIN THEIR CAREERS based on his blatant example of religious discrimination. If you support it you do not value your freedoms. Think about it. You cannot simply stifle those you disagree with.

While American justice is a work in progress, maybe you should tell me another justice system you prefer?

In a representational form of government one should either support elected officials, or vote them out. Personal attacks, and undermining authority only weaken our country in times of war.

That is fine if you do not know enough about science to hold a stimulating argument. Maybe it will induce some study on your part. Or even if you are yet another freeloader of democracy, who does not understand it's cost, nor is willing to pay it's price. Maybe your disdain of US government will prompt you to MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE and stop taking up valuable "citizen space".
But please learn to articulate your point with opinions and facts not just dogmatic statements. It is both boring, and typical of today's "pop-cultureites" who think they are espousing some radical form of individuality, when really they have learned intellectual dishonesty, practiced conformity, and who's form of expression has become IRRESPONSIBILITY.

I will leave you with this refreshing reminder in the form of the American Creed:

"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the People, by the People, for the People; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; A democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many Sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of Freedom, Equality, Justice, and Humanity for which American Patriots sacrificed their Lives and Fortunes." (by William Tyler Page)

No...Dr. Dini wishes to mandate the standards which _he_ uses to decide who _he will recommend_ to pursue further study.

And yes...of course you can stifle those you disagree with!

American Justice is certainly a work in progress. I said nothing against 'American Justice.'

I speak of the current occupants in the Justice Department, ie. Ashcroft, who is a horror who should be wiped out along with his boss.

Yes: here we are in a 'time of war.' Bullshit! Honestly, the war we are in is a war against what it is to be an American. Bush and Ashcroft are on the wrong side of that one, and deserve no mercy.

Those who believe in 'Christian Creationism' are undeserving of a position in American intellectual discourse.

Oh wait...that is the whole point!

As I recall, Dr. Dini's web site didn't say "You must express belief in evolution". He said "I will ask you how life originated, you must give a _scientific_ answer" (paraphrased, emphasis mine). So if the student believed that "Creation Science" is in fact scientific, why didn't he use that as his answer? Did this student in fact even approach Dr. Dini to discuss the question?

The article says that on the basis of what he saw on Dr. Dini's website, the student dropped Dr. Dini's class, transferred to another school, and initiated the suit. Keep in mind that Dr. Dini also said you needed an A in his class to get a recommendation; I suspect that dropping the class doesn't lead to getting an A!

In other words, the student did not make a good-faith effort to get a recommendation from Dr. Dini, but is just looking to stir up trouble.

There are two possibilities here:

1. "Creation science" is legitimate science. In that case, step up to the plate and make your case, and stop whining if your case is too weak to convince most scientists. If this student believes "Creation science" deserves to be called science, then why didn't he offer that to Dr. Dini as his "scientific answer"?

2. "Creation science" is BS. In that case, stop pretending that it's legitimate science. If you want to believe in literal biblical Creation, that's your right. But if you agree that such a belief is incompatible with being a scientist, stop trying to impose your beliefs on scientists, and don't claim to be a scientist. And don't whine if other people don't think you're a scientist.

jleader I don't think that is the case, for it would be certain that the justice department nor other legal aid groups would take interest in a student who was simply trying to sluff the class. Also, it would not surprise me if at this point, Dr.Dini would not find it in his interest to modify or revise his site to cast a better light on the draconian standard in question. (Which he did, understandibly.)

In his own words Dr. Dini wrote. "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?"
I don't think Michael L. Dini is trying to step on the rights of his students. I think he truly believes evolution to be empirically true. Unfortunately, he is wrong, it is just a theory that to this date, though more popular, is no more provable than the theories behind creationism.

 Either way, it should be noted that evolution is not as credible as entrenched "authorities" have claimed. New info on RadioHalos and carbon dating, facts learned from Mt.St.Helens, and the revealed hoaxes of many of the human skeletal fossils have cast a shadow on this old theory. The biggest one in my mind is the never ending millions of years they keep adding to the time line when they cannot explain something. There is credible science behind the theory of creative entity behind universal architecture. (It should be noted that no credible creation scientists ignore or discount micro-evolution or mutation.) You have to remember that early evolution theories were born from the idea that early life was single celled and therefore "simple" biology. We now know through DNA that the simplest of life forms has very large complex genetic codes behind it.
 
IMOHO The professor has a right to require students to have full knowledge of current scientific theories. He even has the right to say he empirically believes them, but he is impinging on free thought when he requires a student to believe in a theory.( It is clear from the news stories that he insists that his students accept the tenets of human evolution )

from a credible source:
Kent Hovind the Creation scientist who has had a long standing offer of $250,000 dollars for reasonable proof of evolution is currently scheduling a debate with Dr.Dini.

PS I noticed the boingboing.net link to the story at the tribune was broken but here is another link with the same info at:
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/no_reality_in_lubbock.html

Read comments by an other scientist here:
http://www.lubbockchristians.com/articles/dini_texas_tech.pdf

See a photo of Dr.Dini and learn more about him here:
http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/

Read his current criteria here:
http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm
(Note the criteria in question was recently revised.)

One other note regardless of his issue with the student, after reading his criteria I have to conclude he is another of those proffessors I would avoid at all costs. I find objection with his critera for 1,2 and 3.
1.
Everyone must have an "A". Not really stating what it takes to get that letter grade seems a little vague. (Isn't top of the class a given anyway?)
2. Makes it clear that even if you were an excellent student, if he doesn't "know" you, yer' going nowhere. This kind of academic snobbery makes me ill.
And finnally his revised #3, which he claimed he would not be changing, seems more like a lecture then valid criteria. All in all it appears that his "criteria" has more to do with him liking you and sharing philosphical opinions then anything else. This is what is wrong in education today. Read the link from the texas prof' his seemingly objective opinion is pretty telling.

x, re your #2: "Makes it clear that even if you were an excellent student, if he doesn't "know" you, yer' going nowhere. This kind of academic snobbery makes me ill."

Now you want this professor to write a recommendation for a student he doesn't know from Adam? On what should he base his recommendation, then?

The whole point of a letter of recommendation is to convey information gained from direct interaction with the student, that can't be determined from the student's transcript.

It's not snobbery, it's common sense. If the professor doesn't remember you, that means you probably didn't participate in class discussions, didn't write any memorable term papers, and the professor doesn't have anything meaningful to say in a letter of recommendation.

Note that the criteria on Prof. Dini's web page are not "who should go to graduate school", they're "for whom will _I_ write a letter of recommendation". Writing such a letter is a non-trivial task, if the letter is going to be any good. Dini is implying that he's not going write meaningless rubber-stamp boiler-plate letters, he's going to actually write about why _you_ in particular would make a valuable addition to the graduate school of your choice. It makes sense to tell people up front, so they won't ask him to waste his time writing them a generic "Joe Schmoe must be a good student, he got good grades" letter.

Likewise, in your point #1, he's saying that to get him to write a letter of recommendation, you first have to earn an A in one of his courses. What it takes to get an A presumably depends on the course; I would hope that he'd specify that in each course's syllabus. All he's saying is that if you didn't get an A from him at some point, he's not the right person to be asking for a letter of recommendation. I could imagine cases where it would be appropriate for a professor to write a letter for a student who got a B, for example if he's interacted with the student outside of class, such as if the student worked in his lab, but if Dr. Dini wants to set a strict "A or no recommendation" policy, that's his perogative.

But then, Dr. Dini believes evolution is a proven theory, so if he said "the sky is blue" it would offend you, I guess!

Your points may have some merit. I was just pointing out that after a casual glance, in my opinion that the criteria seemed weak and not very fair and balanced aside from his retracted biased statement. Honestly, I dont know enough about the process to be authorative by any means. However, you would have to agree that our colleges are plagued with epedemic levels of political mumbo jumbo that stand in the way of fair and balanced acadamia.
As far as "Blue sky" you guess wrongly, as actaully I am not personally offended in any way by Dr.Dini's position. I am sure he is far more studied then I, and I can respect a person even if I disagree with them. But there is no such thing as a proven theory, at that point it becomes fact, and Dr.Dini nor anyone else to date has the evidence.
But he is wrong to discriminate in philosophic values.
He also loses points for changing his criteria when the heat gets put on him, and then adding a small lecture in it's place as opposed to affirming the right of students who have differing opinions. And finnally, I didn't care for his criteria. It appears to me as if he wants to only recommend a small amount of graduates that meet his approval. Furthermore, I commented that a simple letter grade seems a little vague.
To me a good prof, will recommend you even if he doesn't like you. Even if you are not popular or well known, even if you differ vastly in world view or philosophy. I have great loathe for instructors who use thier position for personal gain and power and run treat student's futures as expendable.
Again that is purely subjective observation on my part.

Edited by author 02-20-2003 02:34 PM
SEE what I mean about these colloege prof's? (TIC)
professor arrested

Of course the professor was right to do this.

What scientific evidence is there to support "creation science"? Name one test you and perform that would support "creation theory"?

Evolution has plenty of evidence that supports it. When Darwin first postulated there was a common species he didn't even know about DNA which was discovered by Watson and Crick over 50 years later, that showed that even mice share most genomes that people have. That's just one example. There are countless case studies in evolution, the latest being that all hand writing recognition systems are based on genetic algorithms which just simulate evolution as we currently theorize it. Heck, it's not very difficult to create a new species either, despite Creations claims to the contrary.

There is absolutely no evidence that would support the idea that some magical leprechaun in the sky, for the purpose of man, created 26 billion light years of universe and made a planet that is covered by 85% salt water that is unihabitable by human beings - for human beings.

Although it's certain to offend a lot of people, religion is clearly a cultural phenomenon, which is why clusters of it exist and there isn't uniform religious belief spread across the planet. Why do you think most of Europe (which was dominated by the Roman Catholic Church) is Christian whereas the Middle East is almost purely Islamic, that India is mostly Hindu, that China is mostly Buddhist, etc? Because religion is passed on from parent to child. It's just a legend passed from one generation to the next.

The idiocy of this "Professor" astounds me. He is the exact thing he claims the creationists are. He has accepted a THEORY as fact and has ruled out anything that contradicts THAT THEORY. To postulate anything other than his narrowminded view to the "creation" of the universe and man by random selection he deems as outside the acceptable.

Yet, the mathematical odds of life springing forth from non-living molecules is so slim that it is essentially NIL. The odds as I learned them are 1 in 10 to the 87856!!! That is fraction so small that your odds would be better to paint a grain of sand red, throw it in the ocean and come back to earth a billion years later and land and the first grain of sand you pick up is the red one.

Random selction is a joke. Plain and simple. Any "scientist" that clings to Darwinian evolution and natural selction are BLINDED by bad science and ignore the odds, and half of the facts( the ones that don't support thier Blind faith in Darwin)