Speaking of dissent

I know I'm jumping into this fray a little late, but I've only recently sobered up from my weekend oblation to Lord Bacchus, half-way through which I had a few sobering thoughts on evolution, creation, and discrimination. As you probably are already very well aware, Michael L. Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech University, is in a little bit of hot water with evangelical Christians and the U.S. Justice Department over his alleged bias against Creationists -- they deserve a capital C, right? Apparently, Dihi is one of those professors who takes recommendations very seriously, i.e., one of those professors we all hate, as the students he recommends reflect upon him, too. Selfish bastard, eh? He outlines one of the major criteria to have him on your side here:

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.

Ah, don't think Dr. Dihi doesn't see your quizzical eyebrows raising. He adds:

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 question now, of course, is whether or not this is discrimination against Creationists. I don't think so, for a few different reasons.

• Like it or not, the evolutionary paradigm is the one through which professional science is conducted. Thomas Kuhn, the erroneous claims that he was a relativist notwithstanding, pointed out a long time ago this is how science has always functioned. Scientific "revolutions," as he calls them, can either come from within or outwith the existing paradigm; either way, and I don't think he expresses this too well, it's an uphill battle most of the way. Science itself, as is the case with all disciplines, is in the state of evolution; what this means is that there is a registered order that governs the way things are perceived, in this case, evolution, that this order can be usurped, but most of the time these attempts fail (otherwise, there'd be no order at all). You try to buck the order, and you risk getting squashed. Might be sad, but it's true.

• Also worth noting, though, if the first above point is a little too dark for all you subversive-types, is that there is not simply one kind of creationism (or evolution, for that matter). They are not necessary opposites; it is very possible, not to mention rather common, for one to believe in a divine-controlled evolution. However, the question as to whether that is science is dependent upon whether one's method contravenes the accepted scientific method of the time.

• Michael Dihi, thus, appears simply to be representing the broadly-accepted contours of evolutionary biology, and his inclusion therein. He is not asking people to reject their faith for a recommendation, but that they recognize these same disciplinary walls in which potential students are seeking inclusion. In other words, to play the game, you not only have to know the rules but you have to be invited to play. This is something I don't think many creationists have recognized as yet.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm as inter-disciplinary as they come, and I appreciate fresh, unsung voices. The thing is, though, we recognize these unsung voices only because there is a hegemonic order in place. I certainly don't think it is in the best interest of that order to become stalwart and unchanging, but the fact is that most such orders have change, their very dissolution, in fact, worked into their very fabric; it's the recognition of that change, admittedly by those within such an order, that often remains their most difficult and stifling aspect.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum, one of the best bloggers you're going to find, by the way, has an excellent post detailing some of the major scientific "revolutions" of the past century or so, and the relative rapidity in which they were accepted by the scientific community. This doesn't discount, I don't think, my suggestion that these kinds of things are "uphill battles," as my point was simply to emphasize the guiding scientific perspective from which such thinking invariably arises. Anyway, check out his site even if you're not remotely interested in evolution or creation. Loads of goodies every day.