hile the debate about evolution exists among scientists only to the extent of exactly how it occurred in various species, the public at large, especially the uneducated religious portion of it, still thinks of this as a controversial topic. It's sort of ridiculous that in this modern day and age there's still debate in any educated nation about the validity of evolution as a science, but hey, Darwin was in the 1850s, and it took the Catholic Church 500 years to pardon Galileo for proving the earth revolved around the sun.  So there's clearly quite a delay in the trickle down effect for science that contradicts what people have always felt was Biblical truth. 

This page collects articles about various evolutionary skirmishes around the US and the world (mostly the US, embarrassingly enough).  Check the Has Human Evolution Stopped page for more specific discussion of this topic, and there is some overlap on the Religion vs. Reality page as well.

More recent additions are on top.  Posts about the same subject are grouped, and separated by divider lines.

February 1, 2003

Interesting little tempest in a teapot has been stirred up by a graduate student at Texas Tech who is demanding a recommendation letter from his biology professor.  Professor Dini is refusing to give it since the student isn't, in his judgment, qualified for a recommendation, and he has certain standards anyone who wants a recommendation letter much meet.

Dini writes that he has the policy because he doesn't believe anyone should practice in a biology-related field without accepting "the most important theory in biology."

"Good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs," he writes.

Dini also says he refuses to write letters of recommendation for students he doesn't know fairly well and those who haven't earned an "A" in one of his classes.

What makes this controversial is that the professor is a biology expert, and the student is a creationist who doesn't accept that evolution is the source of life on earth.  A conservative legal foundation is trying to stir up trouble over the issue, though they really have no case.  It's just a way to get publicity and claim religious discrimination.

Texas Tech spokeswoman Cindy Rugeley said that the university stands by Dini, and that his policies do not conflict with those of Texas Tech.

"A letter of recommendation is a personal matter between a professor and student and is not subject to the university control or regulation," Texas Tech Chancellor David Smith wrote in October in response to an earlier letter of complaint.

That would seem to be the end of the story there.  It's not like he gave the student an F since he didn't like his religion.  If he doesn't want to give a recommendation since a person doesn't meet his requirements, then tough shit.  Take it like a man.  Further comment was well provided on CalPundit, where I saw the news item in the first place.  He cuts to the heart of the matter pretty well, and provides a nice counter example, so I might as well just quote him. 

POSTSCRIPT: I'm just curious: would the Liberty Legal Institute complain if a divinity professor refused to give a recommendation to a student who didn't believe in God?

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has practically devoted his entire blog to this issue tonight. I don't think I've ever in my life seen so many smart people completely miss the point over and over.

Here it is: if you ask a biology professor for a personal recommendation, it's going to be based on whether he thinks you have a strong knowledge of biology and biological theory. If you don't believe in evolution, you obviously don't understand biology very well. So: no recommendation.

February 4, 2003

And this Cal Pundit post about the biology professor and his lawsuit-happy Creationist grad student gives a nice run down of the scientific state of evolution vs. Creationism.

To a large extent, this is what the Dini controversy is about. Creationists play for sympathy by claiming that evolution is a shaky theory protected by a jealous scientific elite. But nothing could be further from the truth. The scientific establishment is constantly adding new members, and if there was even a shred of evidence for creationism there would be legions of bright young grad students latching onto it, hoping to make a name for themselves.

No such thing has happened. Not in 10 years, not in 50 years, not for over a century. The closest we've come has been Lysenkoism, which set back Russian biology by decades.

Why? Because there's nothing there. There is plenty of activity in the field of evolution and bits and pieces of it will no doubt continue changing for a long time. But creationism? It's like suggesting that geologists ought to pay serious attention to people who claim the earth is flat.

Creationism is as demonstrably false as it's possible for a theory to be. For Dini to recommend a student who believes it is to countenance someone who may someday make claims for creationism — perhaps in a classroom, perhaps on a congressional panel — that are credible partly by virtue of the authority that Dini bestowed. The result might be anything from ignorant students to public policy based on superstition. Is it any wonder that Dini wants no part of this?

February 6, 2003

Very funny and cruel post about the Creationist student recommendation letter controversy, with a hilarious parody of said letter, from a "blame the professor" point of view.

This is Eustace. I've taught him biology for three years and he still believes in Creationism. If you fancy having a go at turning him into a doctor, be my guest. I daresay I'll be sending you another crop of students of this calibre in twelve months' time. Do you know, when I was little, I wanted to be a lumberjack? Funny the way things turn out.

Best Regards, Joe Bob.

December 11, 2002

This article on British museums refusing to hand over their entire aboriginal collections for burial caught my attention.  The article doesn't really say exactly what the requests encompass, but I'll take this opening to go off on the subject.  Turning a random conversational to my own evil ends, and using it to dominate the conversation.  Just like that annoying guy at the party last week.

The Native Americans (AKA Indians) in the US have won several court cases and basically any ancient human remains, no matter how old, are requested for reburial.  This obviously pisses off archeologists, since it's pretty much impossible to study the history of a culture when every other thing you dig up from 6000 years ago is said to be someone's ancestor and they run off and throw this priceless archeological relic back into the ground. Usually smashing it up first so just in case you dig it up again at some point, it won't be of much use to you.

I can see if you have a specimen from a hundred or two hundred years ago; that could literally be someone's great grandmother/father, but over 500 years it's a fossil, and no one has a legitimate claim to it.  My grandmother was 1/16 Cherokee, so I'm 1/64th at best, but technically related, if very distantly.  But so what?  Should I be demanding reburial of some dig site in Virginia?  Please.  It's some old bones, it's got nothing to do with anyone alive today.  It's useful for science and study, and that's what it should be used for.

A complicating factor is a lot of recent finds along the lines of non-Indian ancient Americans.  They just recently found a skull in Mexico that appears more like South American than North American Indian in shape.  So did the first Americans look like South or North?  Did they settle the whole continent quickly?  Who evolved to look differently, the Indians we see in North or South now, or are they both adaptations on the initial unknown settlers.  And where did those people come from?

A key aspect to this skull in Mexico is that since it was found there, rather than in say New Jersey, is that they don't have some tribe of about 31 people demanding it be buried beneath the fourth slot machine from the right, before it can be properly-studied. In the US the Indian groups have really pushed hard to get those things taken away from the scientists and reburied.  They claim it's their culture and religion and reverence for the dead, etc.  Which may be true, I'm no expert on their mythos, nor am I real respectful of any particular superstitions. But their religion or not, it's very self-serving, as they work to stymie study into the true earliest Americans, who may well turn out to not be Indians after all.

I don't know if that would matter in terms of the various legal rights Indians have now; I mean they aren't given their few advantages (semi-sovereignty from the US, which is why they can sell fireworks and build casinos) now solely because they were here first of all.  They are given them since they were murdered by the millions and signed treaties with the white man, treaties that the white man pretty well ignored as soon as it was convenient to do so.  How would finding out exactly who first came from Asia or Europe to settle North American change any of that?

I think it's just more a matter of pride to think they were first, so therefore any body found on the continent, no matter how old, must be one of their ancestors.  And if no one can study the remains, then that's never going to be disproven.

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.