The dilemma’s not just theoretical for students seeking to go to medical school at Texas Tech.

There, Dr. Michael Dini claims that belief in human evolution as the sole explanation of human origins is an indispensable prerequisite for the study and practice of medicine. That’s a claim that should draw objections from any serious Christian, or for that matter, Jew or Muslim. But Dini doesn’t stop there. He’s publicly stated (posted on his Web site, in fact) that he will refuse to write letters of recommendation for any student applying to medical school who doesn’t kowtow to his own view on the subject.

In Dini’s own words:

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. . . .

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.

Get that. Dini’s not just saying you have to understand the theory of evolution; you have to believe it. And a lot of students get subjected to his approach. “Professor Dini is the only professor who teaches introductory biology for biology majors at Texas Tech,” notes attorney Hiram Sasser of the Liberty Legal Institute, which is considering legal action against Dini. “If a student wants to major in biology they’re forced to adhere to his beliefs.”

Dini, of course, says he’s just being scientific. But there are at least two egregious flaws in his position. The first is that he claims that evolution, as he defines it, is beyond dispute, so much so that it’s an indispensable principle of biological science. It’s not.

Some clarity on the word "evolution" is needed here. No one disputes that there are genetic variations in species and that some of those variations allow some population groups to thrive better than others. Likewise, no one disputes that some species have died out and others have arisen is also beyond debate. If these two principles were what Dini meant by "evolution," he would be hard pressed to find any serious student of science of any religious persuasion who would disagree with him.

However, Dini’s public statements leave no doubt that what he means is what we might call "big E" Evolution: the proposition that all modern species arose from common ancestors through the purposeless and undirected processes of mutation and selection, which by themselves account for the origins and diversity of life. As Cornell biologist William Provine — a prominent evolutionist — has candidly asserted, this has certain inescapable implications for the meaning of life (there is none) and the purpose of humankind (there is none). Indeed, there’s no God at all — not one Who has anything to do with creating us, anyway.

Now Evolution has been and continues to be attacked on purely scientific grounds. There’s a growing number of scientists who think the evidence has mounted to the point where schools had better start teaching the controversy over evolution rather than presenting it as factual. More than 100 scientists have weighed in with that view, including chemist and five-time Nobel nominee Henry Schaefer of the University of Georgia. "Some defenders of Darwinism," says Schaefer, "embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances." Even some big-name atheists in the scientific field, like Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle, have admitted the evidence suggests (in Hoyle's words) "a super intellect monkeyed with the physics, and the chemistry." (Sounds like God, doesn’t it?)

Moreover (and here we come to the second big flaw in Dini's position), Dini's concern that rejection of basic Darwinian principles can lead to faulty science is, to put it lightly, overstated. In fact, there have been well-documented instances in which adherence to Darwinian ideas actually led to poor science — including poor medicine.

The research into so-called “junk DNA” is one such area; research into the function of supposed "vestigial organs" another. In both cases, it was Darwinian assumptions about life's origins and development that hindered research, discouraging scientists from looking for purpose where they should have. Evolutionists have long believed that parts of us just have no reason to be there — that is, that random evolution has its inefficiencies, including residual organs that don’t do anything and DNA that serves no purpose. In fact, they argued that about 98 percent of our DNA fell into the “junk DNA” category and that the Human Genome Project shouldn’t waste time and money sequencing it.

Happily, the people in charge of the project didn’t follow their advice, and as a result (in the words of a Science magazine article) “several researchers predict that some of the most intriguing discoveries may come from areas once written off as genetic wastelands.” That includes discoveries involving the “promoter sequences,” which control when a gene is turned on or off. The bottom-line payoff could be cures for countless diseases, including many cancers.

With such research, you’d do far better by assuming that the human genome was written with the purpose of creating healthy, functioning organisms than by assuming that large portions of it are just so much accidental junk — which is what you’d tend to think if you believe the human race is merely what happened to arise through chance and survive the accidents of environmental conditions. The premise that the observed cosmos and mankind in particular are the products of an intelligent Creator, far from hindering research, produced the entire development of modern science from Kepler to Newton and beyond.

Indeed, some of Dini’s own current and former colleagues at Texas Tech have said as much in letters to the local newspaper, the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Thomas Langford, a Texas Tech emeritus dean, wrote: “Many of us have been concerned about the regimentation of belief on this subject [evolution] in our tax-supported institutions. . . . The cause of truth is not well-served by a closed mind.” And Terry Gage, M.D., wrote:

Dini's implication that a physician who fails to believe in his pet theory would also fail to remain a physician for long does not impress me. After 20 years in medicine, I believe the theory of evolution holds as much water as a colander. . . .The theory in question has no relevance to clinical medicine. I would not hesitate to recommend a good medical student who failed to share my beliefs on the theory of evolution.

That’s good to know, because letters of recommendation constitute one of the chief criteria used in evaluating candidates for medical school. Thus, Dini is issuing nothing short of a threat to kill aspiring doctors' careers before they can truly begin, all based on their acceptance or rejection of a theory that other scientists have repeatedly challenged on scientific and mathematical grounds.

If his position were to become the norm, then in the worst totalitarian fashion, it’d be a Berufsverbot — the kind of professional ban that gained infamy in the Nazi era when it was applied against Jews practicing a trade. It’s an attempt to keep intellectually honest, faithful religious people out of the medical profession. In fact, there are many professional organizations of religious doctors whose members would fail the Dini test.

If Dini is truly concerned with intellectual and scientific honesty among his students, he should abandon this position at once. Until he does, he’s subjecting them to nothing less than intellectual blackmail.

Interested in learning more about the scientific case against evolution? Go to the Web sites of the Access Research Network and The Discovery Institute.