FYI, CNN just put up the transcript of the interview that I referred to.
I haven’t read all the responses closely so sorry if this is a repeat.
Evolution is quite relevant to medicine. For one thing one of the latest research areas in medicine is Darwinian medicine which looks at evolutionary explanations for disease. A creationist will probably not be willing to study this literature.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/darwmed.html
Secondly much of the evidence for evolution comes from genetics. Someone who rejects evolution is unlikely to have a good grasp of genetics which is certainly necessary to be a good doctor in this day.
So not only was the professor legally within his rights, I think he was morally justified in refusing the recommendation. I certainly don’t want any doctors who are so intellectually misguided as to reject something as basic and well-established in biology as evolution.
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like a reasonable response would be to drop the class and schedule the same or similar class with a different professor. Part of college is learning that not everyone thinks as you do.
I only dropped one class in college. It was a calculus class that was taught as if all the students “got” math intuitively. I scheduled the class later with a different professor and aced the course. I didn’t drop out of school and sue it for crappy teaching.
Maybe - I’m not familiar with the situation at that school. Apparently he re-enrolled at the school after getting his LOR elsewhere.
It could possibly be that he is a litigitous jerk. But your point - that he would not have gotten a LOR anyway - remains invalid.
True enough if you can show that he would have earned an “A” in the class. I’m not sure that is self evident.
I disagree. If a professor announces in advance that “members of Group A” will not get a LOR, causing them to drop out, they don’t have to show that they would have gotten one otherwise. The point is that they were never given the chance. That alone is discrimination.
(This avoids the matter of whether the prof can be sued or not - I am avoiding that argument - only in reference to your specific point).
Maybe it’s not religious discrimination, but it certainly is bad. As Apos pointed out, a “scientific affirmation” should be irrelevant to science. If a student believes that evolution is a valid scientific model, understands the model, and can reason within its framework, it is dangerous to require him to profess a belief in it as the ultimate answer. A fundamental part of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. It must be–all scientific theories are refined over time, and sometimes thrown out entirely when the evidence warrants it. Requiring students to dispense with alternate beliefs weakens the entire scientific community–imagine if Michelson and Morley hadn’t done their experiment because they were required to affirm the aether.
What if a physics student is required to “believe” in the standard model when he might be interested in string theory?
This is patently absurd. Care to back this up?
Baloney. The professor is stating that students must have a solid factual grasp of the course material. This is not a question of “belief.” This is like a geology prof refusing to recommend a student who insists that the earth is flat. Science cannot function unless scientists have respect for empirical facts. This is not to say that scientists cannot believe in god, it is saying that scientific method depends on objectivity. It would be most decidedly unscientific (as well as unprofessional) to reject verifiable facts because they conflict a preconceived (and unverifiable) religious view.
And what if a medical student rejects germ theory, insisting, instead, that sick people are possessed by demons/"
Creationism is not an “alternate theory.” It does not meet the criteria to be labeled a theory. Furthermore, a literal reading of Genesis has been completely and indisputably falsified. A student who wishes to be taken seriously in any scientific field simply cannot reject falsification of bad hypotheses at his whim.
And yes, evolution is one of the most confirmed of all scientific theories. Every conceivable test which would be expected to confirm evolution has done so. Not one test has ever been able to falsify it. The evidence for evolution is every bit as strong as it is for atomic theory. I’m assuming you believe in the atom.
Ah yes, the tired old bogey-man argument (won’t anyone think of the Children!!!). Then that person should not be treating sick people.
That wasn’t what I objected to. I objected to the statment that it was more confirmed than relativity and quantum mechanics. That is absurd.
—Baloney. The professor is stating that students must have a solid factual grasp of the course material. This is not a question of “belief.”—
As I said, it is ambiguous as to whether it is or is not a question of belief. That ambiguity is a problem.
—It would be most decidedly unscientific (as well as unprofessional) to reject verifiable facts because they conflict a preconceived (and unverifiable) religious view.—
It would be most unscientific to mix personal belief with scientific argument and present it as pure scientific argument. But it’s not unscientific to hold PERSONAL beliefs not confirmed by, or even contradictory to, science. Martin Gardner is a well-beloved scientist and skeptic… and he proudly admits to being a fidelist when it comes to belief in God.
—That wasn’t what I objected to. I objected to the statment that it was more confirmed than relativity and quantum mechanics. That is absurd.—
I’m not sure, given that serious questions have been raised in regards to basic equations in both QM and (special?) Relativity, and pretty much everyone understands that one or the other or both will eventually need some revision if there is to be a unification.
In any case, depending on what is meant, we may be comparing apples to oranges. E=mc2 is not comparable to natural selection as a type of explanation.
It’s not at all unscientific to hold beliefs that are not confirmed by science, such as a belief that there is a God. It is unscientific to hold beliefs that are contradicted by the available evidence, such as the belief that people and dinosaurs co-existed , that the sun revolves around the earth, or that colds are caused by being chilled. I’ll leave Martin Gardner out of it, except to note that not all religious beliefs are incompatible with science.
Well, excuse me, but isn’t the point of the class the class, and not buttering up the Prof to get a letter of recommendation? So I won’t get a LOR from this dude. Fine. Let’s go for Plan B…
Sure it’s discrimination. But it’s OK to be discriminating in regard to rigor in your academic field. And further, the Prof is being fair in warning the applicants, listen, I will not write you a lukewarm, damning-with-faint-praise letter that will do more harm than good just to get you out of my hair.
In any case why the heck sue? Nobody is obligated to help him get into his school of choice.
—It is unscientific to hold beliefs that are contradicted by the available evidence, such as the belief that people and dinosaurs co-existed, that the sun revolves around the earth, or that colds are caused by being chilled.—
Again, I think you miss a crucial dinstinction between knowledge and belief. The ideal of science is to NOT be about the people doing science and what their beliefs may be. It’s to be about a discussion of the evidence, not a discussion of anyone’s belief or disbelief in anything. This prof makes it personal. He can do anything he wants as far as recommendations go, and suing him is ridiculous. Nevertheless, I don’t think the view you are defending (which may or may not be the one he actually holds: it’s unclear) is in the spirit of good science.
Well, I am no physicist, but as I understand things, relativity and quantum mechanics sit rather uneasily with one another. It seems quite reasonable to expect that there will be at least one more major paradigm shift in physics, akin from the shift from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, doesn’t seem at all likely to have it’s core shift at all. While there’s still plenty to be learned about specific evolutionary mechanisms, the basic core is rock solid, and doesn’t look likely to be modified at all.
Perhaps you were thinking of evolution as containing abiogenesis? Abiogenesis, I’ll grant you, is a total crapshoot, and will likely remain so for some time. But evolution is just the theory that explains how we got to these life forms from those other life forms in the past, and I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to call it the most highly confirmed theory in science.
There is no scientific ambiguity or doubt at all as to the fact that evolution occurs. The research and debate is only about how it occurs.
But capricious “disbelief” in solid empirical evidence most certainly is a huge impediment to being an honest and professional scientist. Would you say that a geology professor was discriminating if he refused to recommend flat earth believers?
—There is no scientific ambiguity or doubt at all as to the fact that evolution occurs.—
I think you may have gotten completely off the subject. I wasn’t even in the least talking about ambiguity in the theory, but ambiguity in the words of the professor as to what he means by an affirmation.
—But capricious “disbelief” in solid empirical evidence most certainly is a huge impediment to being an honest and professional scientist.—
Is it? In my understanding of academic ideals, we respect those who wish to keep their personal beliefs and their professional work separate. Maybe you don’t buy this, but at least admit that this is your own low opinion of people, not science’s.
—Would you say that a geology professor was discriminating if he refused to recommend flat earth believers?—
I didn’t say anything about discriminating. If flat earth believers can do good, conventional geology irrespective of their beliefs to the contrary when they go home, there’s no reason to look down on them as scientists simply because in their private life they are flat-earthers. I mean, what are you advocating: that ad hominem become a standard aspect of all science work?
In academia, we do “respect those who wish to keep their personal beliefs and their professional work separate.” However, if their personal beliefs contradict the scientific methodology that their profession espouses, and if they allow those beliefs (presumably not scientifically based) to affect the methods of their research or the conclusions that they might draw from such research, then they are no longer worthy of the title of “scientist,” as they cannot reliably perform honest or open research to contribute to knowledge in their field.
—However, if their personal beliefs contradict the scientific methodology that their profession espouses,—
If if if… and who is judging this, given the need for mind reading to be sure of it? Or do all believers have to wear a provisional red letter?
Scientific research does not occur in a vacuum. A researcher is judged every day by his coworkers and, assuming he publishes, by the peer-review process. It does not require mind-reading to determine that someone’s methodology or conclusions are compromised by external factors. In the hard sciences, it is (relatively speaking) simple to understand someone else’s research process by reading their publications or attenting their lectures. Because of this, believers do not have to wear a red letter. The few believers that cannot contribute honest and open research to their field make their own red letter identifiably easily by their peers: a short scientific career with either a lack of peer-reviewed publications or a profusion of articles published by questionable scientific outlets. By this means, the nature of one’s reputation spreads quickly through the scientific community.
—A researcher is judged every day by his coworkers and, assuming he publishes, by the peer-review process.—
Their WORK is supposed to be what is judged. Not them.
—It does not require mind-reading to determine that someone’s methodology or conclusions are compromised by external factors.—
Then why not simply point out the flaws in the methodology or conclusions, instead of trying to lay it at any particular door? Is it your contention that religious beliefs are the only things that every comprimise someone’s work?
—By this means, the nature of one’s reputation spreads quickly through the scientific community.—
Ok. But that’s not science. That’s personality. If Newton had published all his alchemy work before Principia, are you saying we should have ignored Principia? If not, what are you saying?