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)

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.)

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.

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!

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.