Biology professor draws fire for not recommending creationist students

[JSFolk]

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/30/prof.htm

Dini, an associate professor who has been at Texas Tech for 10 years, said Wednesday he didn't know about a federal inquiry. He referred questions about his policy to a Web page that outlines it.
The Web page advises students seeking a recommendation to be prepared to answer the question: "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," Dini writes.

[arcticpenguin]

Interesting. Dini is asking about beliefs and not about knowledge, but this is for a personal recommendation, not a grade. Very complicated, but I think I would side with Dini.

[FFed]

I agree with the Professor. I would not recommend anyone for a science class that refuses to accept proven facts.

[JSFolk]

What I think is going to be very interesting here is that the creationists are apparently going to be arguing that creationism is a personal religious view, and not in any way a scientific hypothesis or theory. This will make it kinda hard for them to contend that it should be taught in science classrooms, no?

[Pyrrho]

Also here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/tech/main538565.shtml


"It's a theory. You read about it in textbooks. I could explain the process, maybe how some people say it happens, but I could not have said ... I believe in it," Spradling said Wednesday. "I really don't see how believing in the evolution of humanity has anything to do with patient care or studying science."

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Interesting. Dini is asking about beliefs and not about knowledge, but this is for a personal recommendation, not a grade. Very complicated, but I think I would side with Dini.

This is not complicated at all. "Letters of Recommendation," by definition, reflect the opinions of the letter writer. In fact, when schools ask for letters of recommendation for application, they absolutely want the opinions of those who know the students to assess their probability for success. That's the whole purpose.

The professor does not believe that students who deny evolution have the capability to be the top scientists they need to in order to be successful doctors. If he were to write a letter, that's what it would say. "I recommend that you do not accept this person into medical school." A single comment like that will blow any chances of a student getting into med school. Bad recommendation letters happen, but they are rare.

Academic freedom prohibits the university from doing anything about this, thankfully. He can't be forced to write letters for anyone, and he cannot be forced what to say when he writes letters. It's a total non-issue.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
"It's a theory. You read about it in textbooks. I could explain the process, maybe how some people say it happens, but I could not have said ... I believe in it," Spradling said Wednesday. "I really don't see how believing in the evolution of humanity has anything to do with patient care or studying science."



Isn't that great?

If it were me, I'd write the kid a letter:

"He appears to be incapable of understanding concepts, or making simple deductions based on observation. This is not a person I would want diagnosing my diseases."

[Occasional Chemist]

From the article:
"Students are being denied recommendations not because of their competence in understanding evolution, but solely because of their personal religious beliefs," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for the institute.

I guess the professor would have been better off. legally speaking, saying that "I can't write you a recommendation because you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny"?

Three cheers for a prof with some integrity!

[Torlack]

You know, this is a very hard question.

I am very torn. I think the prof. is exercising his personal beliefs as to what would make a good student. However, he might find himself in trouble since it involves religion and could be tied to civil rights.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Torlack
You know, this is a very hard question.


No it isn't. This is not about a grade - it's about a personal recommedation. A student is not entitled to one of these upon completion of a class.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Torlack
You know, this is a very hard question.

I am very torn. I think the prof. is exercising his personal beliefs as to what would make a good student. However, he might find himself in trouble since it involves religion and could be tied to civil rights.

How so?

Here's his statement:

"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," Dini writes."

What has he said that violates anyone's rights? He says nothing about anyone's religion. Only about their views on science.

[Houngan]

Exactly what pgwenthold said. If one of the students can offer a scientific basis for their belief in creationism, he'll be glad to write them a letter of recommendation.

Also, there is not a branch of natural science, ESPECIALLY Biology, that does not hinge utterly on the concepts of evolution and deep time. To have earned a degree in Biology and still deny everything you have learned is a dangerous example of poor thinking.

H.

[arcticpenguin]

An excellent point. He never insists that the scientific method they come up with has to be Evolution, only that they accept a scientific answer. (Of course Evolution is the ONLY scientific answer, but that;s another deal)

[Megalodon]

Well, I think the Prof has all the right to deny a reccomendation letter to someone that he thinks unfit to be a science.
And I for one wouldn't want to be treated by a creationist. Only their god knows which other scientific theories they don't believe in.

"Well doctor, what antibiotic should we use on this patient?"

"ANTIBIOTIC!!!... nah, call me a priest, it's time for a little exorcism..."

[Blue Monk]

Aw this is a slam-dunk!

Go, Dini go!

Don’t let the fundies shove you around!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
An excellent point. He never insists that the scientific method they come up with has to be Evolution, only that they accept a scientific answer. (Of course Evolution is the ONLY scientific answer, but that;s another deal)

The beauty of what he has done here is that claims of "religious bias" contradict any claims that creationism is scientific.

As JSFolk mentions above, you can't have it both ways. If they are claiming religious persecution, then they are admitting that creationism is a religious belief.

Exhibit A for the defense.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Megalodon
Well, I think the Prof has all the right to deny a reccomendation letter to someone that he thinks unfit to be a science.


The only grounds they might be able to claim is that he denied a letter on the basis of their religion.

But like I said, if you are a creationist, this is not the guy you want writing your letter for you. He is doing them a favor by telling them up front, don't even ask. Any letter he would write for them would do more harm than good.

[hgc]

As a question of law, can the plaintiff claim religious bias even if they claim that it isn't a religious belief? What I mean is, maybe they can claim that the professor is discriminating based on HIS belief that creationism is a religious belief, even if it isn't.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hgc
As a question of law, can the plaintiff claim religious bias even if they claim that it isn't a religious belief? What I mean is, maybe they can claim that the professor is discriminating based on HIS belief that creationism is a religious belief, even if it isn't.

The simple argument back is that he doesn't believe the student will be a good doctor because the student adopts a preconceived opinion and is unwilling to reconsider that opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That's not a good approach to use when making diagnoses.

If Dini were to write that in a letter, the only way the guy gets into a med school is by volunteering for clinical trials.

IOW, it's not really religion that he is discriminating against, it is the lousy analytical skills that result in the belief in creationism.

[Torlack]

Some of these arguments used to defend the prof are they same type of back door arguments used to discriminate against African Americans. Instead of directly discriminating against someone, you construct a process that they can not succeed in.

I happen to agree with the prof. But I also question his motives.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Torlack
Some of these arguments used to defend the prof are they same type of back door arguments used to discriminate against African Americans. Instead of directly discriminating against someone, you construct a process that they can not succeed in.

I happen to agree with the prof. But I also question his motives.

Are you suggesting that belief in creationism is genetic?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Torlack
Instead of directly discriminating against someone, you construct a process that they can not succeed in.

In addition to the "genetic" point that pg made, ...

The prof's not saying that to get a recommendation letter, you need to be exactly 5'11", named "Bob", and drive a green 1995 Chevy Cavalier LS. He's saying that to get a recommendation from him for further studies in biological sciences, you must be able to apply scientific thinking to biology.

Surely you see the difference.

With respect to this student, it's as if I were to say: "I can't ice skate. In fact, I'm unwilling to learn to ice skate. Write me a recommendation to play in the NHL."

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


With respect to this student, it's as if I were to say: "I can't ice skate. In fact, I'm unwilling to learn to ice skate. Write me a recommendation to play in the NHL."

:)

Or how about another example:

"I'm a baptist and don't approve of dancing, and I've never learned to dance. Can you write me a recommendation to get into the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders?"


"Sure, I know what dancing is and have seen the steps outlined in textbooks, but I don't see what that has to do with being a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader."

[JSFolk]

More reporting...

http://www.metanexus.net/archives/printerfriendly.asp?archiveid=7725http://www.metanexus.net/archives/printerfriendly.asp?archiveid=7725

I said at the outset that there was both more and less to this case than meets the eye. There is less in the sense that Micah Spradling appears never to have confronted Michael Dini. According to Liberty Legal Institute's staff attorney, on reading Dini's requirements Spradling responded, "I'll never be able to affirm that I believe human evolution is true. My faith prohibits that." Evidently, rather than make his feelings known to Professor Dini, Spradling dropped out of Texas Tech altogether, transferred to Lubbock Christian University, a private institution in the same city, and began planning his lawsuit.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by JSFolk
More reporting...

http://www.metanexus.net/archives/printerfriendly.asp?archiveid=7725http://www.metanexus.net/archives/printerfriendly.asp?archiveid=7725
"I'll never be able to affirm that I believe human evolution is true."

Repeat of a key point: Dini's list of criteria did not mention evolution. Spradling is the one who mentions it. This is a clear indication tha Spradling understands that Evolution is the scientific answer, and he feels obligated to reject Science.

Another point: The legal @sshole who will represent Spradling is trying to portray a tenured professorship as a "government official". No dice. They should clearly lose this one on grounds clearly stated in the articles.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey Dr. Professor, my religion tells me that women are inferior to men and are only good as sex objects. Could you write me a recommendation now that I've completed my Feminist Studies degree? Thanks a bunch.

~~ Paul

[Fade]

Maybe, possibly, in some sense if this student approached the professor and had a long talk and the professor started lecturing him and abusing his religious beliefs.. MAYBE then he would have a case.

But, quitting school, running ot another school, and THEN suing him? What?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Fade
Maybe, possibly, in some sense if this student approached the professor and had a long talk and the professor started lecturing him and abusing his religious beliefs.. MAYBE then he would have a case.

But, quitting school, running ot another school, and THEN suing him? What?
Maybe he was waiting for a Bush appointee to take the bench.

[fishbob]

So this guy Spradling wants to be a doctor but is unwilling to accept the scientific process as it relates to the origen of humans.

What kind of doctor would this guy be? Would he bother to keep up with the latest research findings? Would he be able to hypothesize and test and evaluate findings to diagnose diseases?

Or would he be one of those doctors that writes prescriptions based only on what the pharmaceutical companies tell him? Or what his Tarot cards tell him? Maybe recommend that the patients chase their pills down with a little Penta water?

How many lives has Prof Dini saved if he is responsible for keeping Spradling out of medical school? One less witch doctor bilking the public - Thanks Prof Dini.

[CurtC]

For once, I'm proud to be a Texas Tech graduate.

I like the NHL analogy. The one I thought about in comparison is "I don't believe atoms exist, but could you, Mr Chemistry professor, write me a letter to be accepted into a drug research program?"

[corplinx]

Playing devil's advocate, evolution as the origin of species is not law. I am sure the student _does_ believe in adaption and natural selection. However, tieing his admission to darwin evolution to me amounts to fascism. What about quantum evolution? "Belief" in evolution only hampers the fostering of alternative theories of origin of species (and no, i don't mean creation science).

However, the professor is his own person and he can write letters for whomever he wants. Its just sad to see someone so bent on pushing evolution down peoples throats. The battle of creation vs evolution has produced a lot of unobjective scientists clinging to darwin like the creationists cling to their bibles.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by corplinx
Playing devil's advocate, evolution as the origin of species is not law. I am sure the student _does_ believe in adaption and natural selection. However, tieing his admission to darwin evolution to me amounts to fascism. What about quantum evolution? "Belief" in evolution only hampers the fostering of alternative theories of origin of species (and no, i don't mean creation science).

However, the professor is his own person and he can write letters for whomever he wants. Its just sad to see someone so bent on pushing evolution down peoples throats. The battle of creation vs evolution has produced a lot of unobjective scientists clinging to darwin like the creationists cling to their bibles.
Did you actually read the article?

The professor is not pushing evolution. He is asking that recommendees know and accept a scientific explanation to the question of human origin. The word "evolution" does not appear, except in the student's response.

I.e. the student acknowledges that evolution is the only scientific answer, and that he therefore rejects science.

[corplinx]

Yes I read it, it seemed to almost be a loaded question though. I could be wrong (probably am). I do maintain though that he could could write letters for whoever he wanted for whatever reason he wanted. I think the student doesn't show much character for making a todo.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by corplinx
Yes I read it, it seemed to almost be a loaded question though.
It is loaded in that Science has a clear answer to the question. Would a geophysics professor be justified in refusing a letter to a student who believed in a Flat Earth, and wanted to study geophysics at the graduate level?

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by corplinx
I could be wrong (probably am).

[nodding] Yep, yep you are. The question, again, had NOTHING to do with evolution, in no way implied that religious beliefs would mean no recommendation, and the student never even tried to get a recommendation, prefering instead to transfer to another school and sue the professor. Who, mind you, he never talked to. There is no "loaded question," there is nothing whatsoever in the disclaimer that even comes close to mentioning religion. Sigh.

"I really don't see how believing in the evolution of humanity has anything to do with patient care or studying science."

:eek: :eek: :eek:
Gaah! GAAH! Get that guy AWAY from medical schools, please!

Originally posted by corplinx
Playing devil's advocate, evolution as the origin of species is not law. I am sure the student _does_ believe in adaption and natural selection. However, tieing his admission to darwin evolution to me amounts to fascism. What about quantum evolution? "Belief" in evolution only hampers the fostering of alternative theories of origin of species (and no, i don't mean creation science).

However, the professor is his own person and he can write letters for whomever he wants. Its just sad to see someone so bent on pushing evolution down peoples throats. The battle of creation vs evolution has produced a lot of unobjective scientists clinging to darwin like the creationists cling to their bibles.

I think you greatly misunderstand the stakes here, as well as the underlying issues. There is no dispute in biology that evolution did occur. None. All the specifics of the mechanisms are still being worked out, but that has nothing do with the established fact of evolution, as well as the general theoretical approach.

Fundamentalism has attempted to hi-jack science, and implied that creationism is an equally scientific explanation. It is not. Creationism shows none of the substance and only the most superficial form of science. It has made no progress, offers no means for arriving at truth. It starts with the "truth" and works backwards from there.

It is the duty of a professor of physics to not recommend a physics student who refuses to accept relativity. Or a cosmology student who claims the universe is only 11,000 years old. Or a geologist who claims radio-dating is farcical. They haven't learned the material. They don't understand the basic scientific approach. It is equally the duty of any professor to hear out a student in any of these areas who refutes any of these fundamentals with clear, evidence-based reasoning.

Now is this important for medicine? Do you want a doctor who can't tell the difference between science and nonsense? Who would offer you colloidal silver, antibiotics or a tap on the head with a talisman from Xanadu? Who didn't understand the differences between the claims for each of those? Or who didn't believe that overprescribing antibiotics could lead to further evolution of antibiotic-resistant superbugs? That that resistance can be passed from the specific disease organism in his patient to other types of disease organisms?

We need more professors who understand the stakes and more universities that stand by them.

Cheers,

[edthedoc]

Why can't people accept responsibility for their own religious beliefs rather than using them as an excuse. The guy hasn't been forced to believe in the creationist theory: it was his choice to believe in it and he should accept the consequences of his actions.

It is so child-like to blame someone else for his problems. He needs to get a life and some common sense, and a different career.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by corplinx
Playing devil's advocate, evolution as the origin of species is not law. I am sure the student _does_ believe in adaption and natural selection. However, tieing his admission to darwin evolution to me amounts to fascism. What about quantum evolution? "Belief" in evolution only hampers the fostering of alternative theories of origin of species (and no, i don't mean creation science).

However, the professor is his own person and he can write letters for whomever he wants. Its just sad to see someone so bent on pushing evolution down peoples throats. The battle of creation vs evolution has produced a lot of unobjective scientists clinging to darwin like the creationists cling to their bibles.

Wrong. The professor never lays a claim to Darwinian theory. You are making an assumption, just as the student did.

If a student happens to think an alternate theory has more credibility than Darwin's, and can prove it, he would get a recommendation letter.

We are not talking at all about beliefs. We are talking about a question of what a student thinks is true. I'm disturbed by how many people here have read that a question about what a student thinks is the same as asking what that student believes. They are not the same. Clinging to the misconception that thinking and believing are one in the same has led to great confusion of issues...

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by edthedoc
Why can't people accept responsibility for their own religious beliefs rather than using them as an excuse. The guy hasn't been forced to believe in the creationist theory: it was his choice to believe in it and he should accept the consequences of his actions.

Because people who disagree with fundies are still supposed to make them feel comfortable expressing these views all the time, everywhere they go. We aren't supposed to be able to express our views, founded in fact, critical thought, logic, and observation, because it makes them uncomfortable. :rolleyes:

Their comfort and peace of mind is obviously more important than our search for scientific truth...

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

It is the duty of a professor of physics to not recommend a physics student who refuses to accept relativity. Or a cosmology student who claims the universe is only 11,000 years old.
I should say not! Everyone knows the universe is only 6000 years old.;)

Evolution is not the cherry on top of the sundae of biology. It is the whole sundae; the meat and potatoes too.

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I should say not! Everyone knows the universe is only 6000 years old.;)

Holy cow! That young? She told me was older than that!


Cheers

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Holy cow! That young? She told me was older than that!


Cheers

In my opinion she doesn't look a day over 4000.

Originally posted by Blue Monk


In my opinion she doesn't look a day over 4000.

That's what I thought, too! But it was dark and I was wearing beer goggles.

Boy, I'm glad I've had a vasectomy.

Cheers,

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Hazelip


Because people who disagree with fundies are still supposed to make them feel comfortable expressing these views all the time, everywhere they go. We aren't supposed to be able to express our views, founded in fact, critical thought, logic, and observation, because it makes them uncomfortable. :rolleyes:

Their comfort and peace of mind is obviously more important than our search for scientific truth... I think this is a really good point that hasn't been looked at enough. I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets sick and tired of fundies coming up to me in the mall, calling me on the phone, knocking on my door then I find myself APOLOGIZING for not buying into their ridiculous beliefs.

From now on, I'm gonna look at it this way: they'll get their peace of mind in heaven, and I'll get mine when I wordlessly slam the door shut.

And as for the actual topic: the professor is totally within his rights to set rules for any recommendation he might give. If the poor bunny can't wrap his head around the scientific principle, he'd best go back to searching for Noah's Ark or whatever the hell creationists are doing these days.

[heath]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

It is loaded in that Science has a clear answer to the question. Would a geophysics professor be justified in refusing a letter to a student who believed in a Flat Earth, and wanted to study geophysics at the graduate level?

Funny. When I worked in seismic processing I knew a guy that was a sedimentologist and a creationist. He got over the obvious paradox by being as thick as a plank.

[heath]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


It is the duty of a professor of physics to not recommend a physics student who refuses to accept relativity. Or a cosmology student who claims the universe is only 11,000 years old. Or a geologist who claims radio-dating is farcical. They haven't learned the material. They don't understand the basic scientific approach. It is equally the duty of any professor to hear out a student in any of these areas who refutes any of these fundamentals with clear, evidence-based reasoning.


And I knew a very good physicst when at uni that was also a creationist. These people have no problem practicing what they don't believe in. :eek: There is nothing to say this kid couldn't be a perfectly competent doctor and still not believe in evolution. Sad perhaps, but true.

I don't think the prof should be sanctioned but I also think he is being a tad pedantic. your belief does not necessarily make you incapable of practicing something that is not in line with your belief. The threat is that they jump through the hoops while studying jsut to pass, then throw it away when they get to practice. Requires constant re-testing/supervision/evaluation of practicing medical types. This should be the norm anyway IMO.

Originally posted by heath
I don't think the prof should be sanctioned but I also think he is being a tad pedantic. your belief does not necessarily make you incapable of practicing something that is not in line with your belief. The threat is that they jump through the hoops while studying jsut to pass, then throw it away when they get to practice. Requires constant re-testing/supervision/evaluation of practicing medical types. This should be the norm anyway IMO.

But Dr. Dini is not assessing students for medical practice. He is assessing them for their understanding of biology. How, in good conscience, can he say Johnny grasps the material very well if, in fact, Johnny rejects the unifying principle of biology?

He can't. It would be a dereliction of his duty.

Cheers,

[heath]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


But Dr. Dini is not assessing students for medical practice. He is assessing them for their understanding of biology. How, in good conscience, can he say Johnny grasps the material very well if, in fact, Johnny rejects the unifying principle of biology?

He can't. It would be a dereliction of his duty.

Cheers,

No.

Dereliction of duty would be to pass somebody who couldn't do the course work (and therefore the job). Which is why he doesn't give personal recomendations to ppl that don't buy into evolutoin but would still pass the student if they met the criteria (must pass actually).

I'm not disagreeing with his personal choice, I just say that belief doesn't necessarily make people unable to do their job (result as opposed to belief).

What gets me is this student didn't even sit the course, so didn't even come close to being rejected for a recomendation. He's bound to have the case thrown out right?

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by heath


No.

Dereliction of duty would be to pass somebody who couldn't do the course work (and therefore the job). Which is why he doesn't give personal recomendations to ppl that don't buy into evolutoin but would still pass the student if they met the criteria (must pass actually).

I'm not disagreeing with his personal choice, I just say that belief doesn't necessarily make people unable to do their job (result as opposed to belief).

What gets me is this student didn't even sit the course, so didn't even come close to being rejected for a recomendation. He's bound to have the case thrown out right?

Complete and utter nonsense.

2+2=4. 2+2 does not equal 47 no matter what your religious beliefs.

His recommendations are based on the students understanding of biology and if he cannot grasp the basics he is a poor biologist and deserves no recommendation.

The very basis of science is to objectively evaluate the evidence. To reject evidence because it does not fit one's personal beliefs is the epitome of bad science.

If you believe that 2+2=47 for religious reasons and you ask someone to recommend you for a religious position then by all means you should be recommended for that religious position due to your steadfast devotion to nonsense.

If, however, you believe that 2+2=47 for religious reasons and you ask some to recommend you for a mathematics position then by all means you should be rejected.

Why?

Because 2+2=4.

If you want to study science then study evidence and proofs.

If you want to ignore evidence and proofs then you have no business in any scientific field and you should become a priest.

[arcticpenguin]

Happy Darwin Day! (http://www.darwinday.org)

[heath]

Originally posted by Blue Monk


Complete and utter nonsense.

2+2=4. 2+2 does not equal 47 no matter what your religious beliefs.

His recommendations are based on the students understanding of biology and if he cannot grasp the basics he is a poor biologist and deserves no recommendation.

The very basis of science is to objectively evaluate the evidence. To reject evidence because it does not fit one's personal beliefs is the epitome of bad science.

If you believe that 2+2=47 for religious reasons and you ask someone to recommend you for a religious position then by all means you should be recommended for that religious position due to your steadfast devotion to nonsense.

If, however, you believe that 2+2=47 for religious reasons and you ask some to recommend you for a mathematics position then by all means you should be rejected.

Why?

Because 2+2=4.

If you want to study science then study evidence and proofs.

If you want to ignore evidence and proofs then you have no business in any scientific field and you should become a priest.

Nice rant. But still wrong.

If a plumber thinks fairies push the water through the pipes he can still be a damn good plumber.

Being a creationist does not make people bad doctors, bad physicists or bad geologists. Note I italicise necessarily in every one of my posts. Assuming creationists are intrinsically incompetent is wrong. In many cases you will find that these people only lack the ability to apply logic in this one facet of their lives and are not polarised to either ultra-rational or so irrational they see no reason ever.

By the standards you seem to hold a tiny fraction of the worlds population should be allowed to be scientists or doctors because they are wholely rational. Most people aren't. Get used to it.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by heath

By the standards you seem to hold a tiny fraction of the worlds population should be allowed to be scientists or doctors because they are wholely rational.

But you do need to be rational about the field of science you're seeking a recommendation in - and that's what this thread is about.

[CurtC]

heath wrote:
If a plumber thinks fairies push the water through the pipes he can still be a damn good plumber.If the job description is to troubleshoot what might be going wrong with a complex water distribution system (analogous to a doctor), then someone who believes water is pushed through pipes by fairies would be incompetent.

[Blue Monk]

I disagree.

I never said being a creationist makes people bad doctors, bad physicists or bad geologists.

I am saying being a creationist does make people bad biologists because evolution is the very foundation of modern biology. There is no worse factor in any scientific endeavor that to ignore evidence that is specific to the study in question.

Believing Zeus controls the weather will not make you a bad biologist but it will make you a poor meteorologist.
Believing a tooth-ache is caused by demons does not make you a bad artist but it will make you a bad dentist.
Believing the Sun revolves around the Earth does not make you a bad plumber but it will make you a bad Astronomer.

Religious dogma is the antithesis of good science. No matter what the catholic churched believed and no matter what it says in the bible and no matter what Galileo is forced to 'confess' it will never change the scientific reality that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

Being a creationist in the field of biology proves that one is unwilling to accept the discipline that science requires to evaluate FACTS. To ignore FACTS due to one's preconceived notions is by definition bad science.

To ignore the facts that form the basis of mathematics will make a poor mathematician.
To ignore the facts that form the basis of carpentry will make a poor carpenter.
To ignore the facts that form the basis of biology will make a poor biologist. This man is to be recommended for a position based on his understanding of biology, not his personal religious dogma.

What are you saying? That all students of mathematics are judged on their competency based on whether or not they understand that 2+2=4 but Johnny should be exempt because his beliefs dictate that 2+2=47 even though that is mathematically incorrect?

Regardless of anyone's beliefs, 2+2=4, the earth revolves around the sun and the facts support evolution not creationism.

If you do not accept the fact that 2+2=4 then you should not receive a recommendation as a mathematician.
If you do not accept the fact that the earth revolves around the sun then you should not receive a recommendation as an astronomer.
If you do not accept the fact that 12 inches equals one foot then you should not reveive a recommendation as a carpenter.
If you do not accept the fact that the evidence supports evolution and not creationism then you should not receive a recommendation as a biologist.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I disagree.

I never said being a creationist makes people bad doctors, bad physicists or bad geologists.

I am saying being a creationist does make people bad biologists because evolution is the very foundation of modern biology. There is no worse factor in any scientific endeavor that to ignore evidence that is specific to the study in question.

Believing Zeus controls the weather will not make you a bad biologist but it will make you a poor meteorologist.
Believing a tooth-ache is caused by demons does not make you a bad artist but it will make you a bad dentist.
Believing the Sun revolves around the Earth does not make you a bad plumber but it will make you a bad Astronomer.

Religious dogma is the antithesis of good science. No matter what the catholic churched believed and no matter what it says in the bible and no matter what Galileo is forced to 'confess' it will never change the scientific reality that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.

Being a creationist in the field of biology proves that one is unwilling to accept the discipline that science requires to evaluate FACTS. To ignore FACTS due to one's preconceived notions is by definition bad science.

To ignore the facts that form the basis of mathematics will make a poor mathematician.
To ignore the facts that form the basis of carpentry will make a poor carpenter.
To ignore the facts that form the basis of biology will make a poor biologist. This man is to be recommended for a position based on his understanding of biology, not his personal religious dogma.

What are you saying? That all students of mathematics are judged on their competency based on whether or not they understand that 2+2=4 but Johnny should be exempt because his beliefs dictate that 2+2=47 even though that is mathematically incorrect?

Regardless of anyone's beliefs, 2+2=4, the earth revolves around the sun and the facts support evolution not creationism.

If you do not accept the fact that 2+2=4 then you should not receive a recommendation as a mathematician.
If you do not accept the fact that the earth revolves around the sun then you should not receive a recommendation as an astronomer.
If you do not accept the fact that 12 inches equals one foot then you should not reveive a recommendation as a carpenter.
If you do not accept the fact that the evidence supports evolution and not creationism then you should not receive a recommendation as a biologist.

PREACH IT BABY!! CAN I GET AN AMEN!!

Being a creationist does not make people bad doctors, bad physicists or bad geologists. Note I italicise necessarily in every one of my posts. Assuming creationists are intrinsically incompetent is wrong. In many cases you will find that these people only lack the ability to apply logic in this one facet of their lives and are not polarised to either ultra-rational or so irrational they see no reason ever.
heath,

This is a straw man. Dini clearly says he wants a scientific answer to a scientific answer. He asks about the origin of humans. Somebody who needs to compartmentalize the information could easily rationalize that God set the process in motion, or tinkered with our ancestors to produce us. But somebody who just can't accept evolution as reality is not even trying to think scientifically.

In day-to-day practice, many geologists would not need to confront this. But one has to wonder how they could get around radio-dating. Unless they are OEC, not YEC. In day-to-day practice, many physicists need not confront this. But they certainly can't do astronomy (unless they are OEC) and can't do cosmology (period).

More importantly, though, the recommendations Dini writes are for graduate work in biological fields or in medicine. So the question of geologists and physicists doesn't apply here.

In day-to-day practice, such a limited person might be a "doctor." But one has to wonder how he can reason about microbes building resistance to drugs. One has to wonder how he can address genetic diseases, given that he probably has a problem with the concept of mutation. Moreover, if he clearly rejects the scientific method used to arrive at evolutionary theory, then what can we say about his ability to assess medical literature? He clearly doesn't understand why peer-review arrives at scientific truth. He clearly misunderstands the criteria for assessing hypotheses and creating and testing theories. He can't tell good work from bad work. He can't tell scientific truth from fiction.

Cheers,

[spoonhandler]

Sorry to bring this thread back to life again, but when I saw this on snopes today I thought it was worth including in this discussion.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/hager.htm

In essence, it's an example of how a medical practitioner may be allowing strong religious beliefs to become his version of facts and how this may impact on patients and the health system at large.

:)

[Jeff Corey]

Hot damn! I'm gonna cut down on my workload this year and require students requesting a recco to have an A in at least one of my classes, a nodding acquaintance with me and an explanation why Freudian and other cognitive psychologies resemble bat guano (not the general in Dr. Strangelove).

[jj]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Hot damn! I'm gonna cut down on my workload this year and require students requesting a recco to have an A in at least one of my classes, a nodding acquaintance with me and an explanation why Freudian and other cognitive psychologies resemble bat guano (not the general in Dr. Strangelove).

Yeah, what do you think of what the fellow in Texas did, though?

I'm with you on Siggy Fraud. I'm just not Jung enough for that. (I think SF was sincere, btw, just deluded. It's some of the modern stuff that looks like "black magic" to me.)

[rwald]

I really can't respect Jung. Is it just me, or is the whole collective unconscious thing just a tad bit woo-woo?

[Ladewig]

I really can't respect Jung. Is it just me, or is the whole collective unconscious thing just a tad bit woo-woo?

I agree although I do appreciate the poetic imagery in all those achetypes.

[arcticpenguin]

bump - the Justice Department has dropped its investigation of Dini (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2594051,00.html)

The department said it ended its probe after Professor Michael Dini eliminated the evolution belief requirement in his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution.
...
(Dini's) Web site now reads: ``How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation.''

[Phaycops]

Right result, wrong reasons. Oh, well :rolleyes:

[Skeptoid]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Mr. rwald,

Could you expand on why you believe, to use different words, there is no evidence for collective consciousness?

Sincerely yours,

S. Holmes
Hi S. Holmes,

This thread was started back in January and just recently was bumped to update the status of the case. Mr. rwald hasn't posted on the forums for about a month. He could return at any time, I suppose, but don't feel ignored if you don't get an answer.

Originally posted by Skeptoid

Hi S. Holmes,

This thread was started back in January and just recently was bumped to update the status of the case. Mr. rwald hasn't posted on the forums for about a month. He could return at any time, I suppose, but don't feel ignored if you don't get an answer.

Dear Skeptoid,

Thank you for pointing out that date. I had not noticed the date when I posted my response to rwald.

I deleted my previous post.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Lord Emsworth]

From this side of the Atlantic Ocean the whole debate about creationism/evolution looks like something of yore, but not really unattractive.

The Prof., I think, should base his writing of recommendations solely on the ability of the student; that is, something on the lines of: "You will only get a recomend. if you earned an A-Grade" (So he does. Fine!), but not on the grounds of wheather the student can "truthfully and forthrightly affirm" something, however essetial this something might be, or not. Why shouldn't a student know everything about a theory he doesn't believe in.
A similar question would arise, if an atheist decided to study Theology, and then encountered a Prof. who distinctly tells him he will not get a recommend. if he (the student) doesn't believe in Gawd.

The student, on the other hand, should ask himself if he has chosen the right subject. He resembles a mechanic, who believes a car is driven by supernatural powers.
I'd recommend :D the aforementioned Theology to him.


I forgot to say, that I, by and large, appreciate the Prof.'s sound views on things. There is only this little caterpillar in the salad.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by heath


Nice rant. But still wrong.

If a plumber thinks fairies push the water through the pipes he can still be a damn good plumber.



But he'd be a realy lousy fluid dynamicist or other theoretical johnny.
Face it, the ultimate (non) answer to anything is "God did it". everything is therefore explained. Think of the theory and laws encompassed by "Let There BE Light" and you see what we're up against.
the good prof merely requires that you put the scientific method to use. If in so doing, you can support creational "science", then have at it.

Roger

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
The Prof., I think, should base his writing of recommendations solely on the ability of the student; that is, something on the lines of: "You will only get a recomend. if you earned an A-Grade" (So he does. Fine!), but not on the grounds of wheather the student can "truthfully and forthrightly affirm" something, however essetial this something might be, or not. Why shouldn't a student know everything about a theory he doesn't believe in.
This last sentence sounds like you are arguing with yourself. From the context, I assume you mean to ask "why should a student..."

The students in question wish to either go onto graduate school in biology or onto medical school. There are three issues at stake here. 1. Does such a student really understand science if he does not understand that evolution is a scientific fact and that the theory of evolution has held up for almost a century and a half? If he doesn't then how will he be able to judge medical journal articles when he becomes a doctor or a biolgist? 2. Assuming he wishes to become a doctor and understands science but somehow still can't grasp the overwhelming evidence of evolution, how will he understand the current problems in medicine: the evolution of resistant diseases and the advances in genetic medicine? Will he poo-poo the (evolutionary) need to withold wide-spectrum antibiotics where not indicated? Will he poo-poo the (evolutionary) need for his patients to complete the full, prescribed cycle of antibiotics or anitvirals?
The student, on the other hand, should ask himself if he has chosen the right subject. He resembles a mechanic, who believes a car is driven by supernatural powers.
This is exactly the point. I think you've simply missed how important evolutionary understanding is to the challenges ahead for the medical community.

Cheers,

Dear Mr. Blue Monk,


Regardless of anyone's beliefs, 2+2=4


2+2 in fact does not equal 4 in many systems of mathematics. You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition.


If you do not accept the fact that 2+2=4 then you should not receive a recommendation as a mathematician.


Therefore this doesn't apply, unless you are referring to real number addition, which I believe you are.


If you do not accept the fact that the earth revolves around the sun then you should not receive a recommendation as an astronomer.


A more competent astronomer would take the time to also note that both the sun and Earth are themselves revolving around something else.


If you do not accept the fact that the evidence supports evolution and not creationism then you should not receive a recommendation as a biologist.


If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
2+2 in fact does not equal 4 in [b]many systems of mathematics. You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition.
Fascinating. Do regale us with specific examples of other "systems of mathematics". Focus especially on those wherein 2+2 <> 4.
A more competent astronomer would take the time to also note that both the sun and Earth are themselves revolving around something else.
And how does that alter the fact of the relationship between Earth and Sun? It doesn't. It is an utter red herring, sir.
If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation.
False. A recommendation is never simply on the quality of the work done. The more important question is the potential to produce quality work in the next position or the next level of schooling. I've turned the number 4 screw faster, more accurately and with fewer mistakes than anybody else on the assembly line. Therefore I should get a glowing recommendation for medical school? Hardly.

Cheers,

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

2+2 in fact does not equal 4 in many systems of mathematics. You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition.



Very interesting. Perhaps you are speaking of a different number base? no- even in binary, 10+10=100, which is indeed 2^2, or 4. Works for any base I have tried. must be something else.
Lets try using Logarithms, (Ln or Log10) adding them is linear- ie, 2+2=4, which is to say 100*100=10000, 10^2*10^2=10^4
I'd like to know one of these other systems-and, if it's Andersontics, or enron agebra, I will at least know where the local school administration is coming from...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Therefore this doesn't apply, unless you are referring to real number addition, which I believe you are.



2j+2j=4j, so even imaginary numbers follow the linearity

Roger

Dear all,

I made a mistake by claiming that there are "many systems".

Mr. BillHoyt, here is my "regale".

I can only think of mod 4 (2+2=0), where there is no number "4", and mod 3 (2+2=1).

And


False. A recommendation is never simply on the quality of the work done.


I agree, which is why I said
(emphasis added)

"If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation."

There are a lot of factors that go into a recommendation. I don't think we disagree on this.

Also, don't overlook the fact that 2+2 rabbits > 4 rabbits. ;)

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[CurtC]

Lord Emsworth wrote:
The student, on the other hand, should ask himself if he has chosen the right subject. He resembles a mechanic, who believes a car is driven by supernatural powers.First, you argue that if a student's work is good in the course, then he should get a recommendation. But a recommendation is more than an "A" in the course - anyone can look and see that. A recommendation is the professor taking the trouble to tell prospective med schools "I recommend that this student would make a good doctor."

But like you said, a person who believes that a car is driven by supernatural powers would not make a good mechanic. It's also clear that a person who belives the human body is driven by supernatural powers would make a poor doctor.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I can only think of mod 4 (2+2=0), where there is no number "4", and mod 3 (2+2=1).
4 mod 4 = 0, so 2+2=4 mod ANYTHING. It doesn't matter in any case - trying to change the definition of 2 to make some point about relativism misses the point rather fundamentally.
"If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation."

There are a lot of factors that go into a recommendation. I don't think we disagree on this.
But we apparently disagree on whether demonstrated intellectual dishonesty ought to be one of those factors. The mental contortions required by an educated person to justify creationism are really that severe. How could anyone ever trust a creationist to assess evidence of anything?

Recommendations aren't grades, and students aren't owed recommendations. They are personal endorsements.
Also, don't overlook the fact that 2+2 rabbits > 4 rabbits. ;)
That's multiplication.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I can only think of mod 4 (2+2=0), where there is no number "4", and mod 3 (2+2=1).
The modulus function is a function, sir. You expressed it incorrectly. It should be "(2+2) mod 3 = 1" That equation works because 2+2 is still equal to 4 and 4 mod 3 = 1. You have still not demonstrated the claim of 2+2 <> 4.
"If recommendations are based on the quality of work done, which they are at least in part, then they should receive the recommendation."

There are a lot of factors that go into a recommendation. I don't think we disagree on this.
I'm glad we don't disagree about many factors going into recommendation. But if you agree there are many factors, then why do you say they should receive the recommendation "based on the quality of work done"? Either the other factors factor in or they aren't really factors.

Cheers,

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
This last sentence sounds like you are arguing with yourself. From the context, I assume you mean to ask "why should a student..."
The meaning I intended was: A person can know everything about a theory, even if he doesn't believe in it.
I'm sorry if my English sometimes seems a little bit awkward. I'm not a native speaker.

Originally posted by BillHoyt
This is exactly the point. I think you've simply missed how important evolutionary understanding is to the challenges ahead for the medical community.
I don't think I have. If here at Bonn-University somebody would turn up in the biological or medical department claiming he believes in creationism, he would get a loud, reverberating laughter.

Originally posted by CurtC
First, you argue that if a student's work is good in the course, then he should get a recommendation. But a recommendation is more than an "A" in the course - anyone can look and see that. A recommendation is the professor taking the trouble to tell prospective med schools "I recommend that this student would make a good doctor."

But like you said, a person who believes that a car is driven by supernatural powers would not make a good mechanic. It's also clear that a person who belives the human body is driven by supernatural powers would make a poor doctor.
It might be very, … , very improbable, but not impossible.

But I think you are right; merely understanding, and not believing, in Evolutution is not enough, if you want to become a Doctor or something like it.
If I come to think about it, I wouldn't want such a person as my doctor.

[Jethro]

If you're adding vectors 2+2 <= 4.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Jethro
If you're adding vectors 2+2 <= 4.
Fair enough, but we're no longer talking about adding 2 + 2. We're now talking about adding [2,x] + [2,y]. Totally different proposition.

Cheers,

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The modulus function is a function, sir. You expressed it incorrectly. It should be "(2+2) mod 3 = 1" That equation works because 2+2 is still equal to 4 and 4 mod 3 = 1. You have still not demonstrated the claim of 2+2 <> 4.

Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

I wasn't thinking of mod as a function, but rather as a group, Z_3 for example. In Z_3, 2+2=1. There is no "4".

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

I wasn't thinking of mod as a function, but rather as a group, Z_3 for example. In Z_3, 2+2=1. There is no "4".

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

Actually, 2+2 =1 only if Z_3=(0,1,2). The modulus function is still at the heart of the group operation.

Cheers,

[Phaycops]

All of the current, renewed discussion, ignores the fact that this student never took a class from this professor, never met him, and in fact left the university before suing him. So any discussion of what should go into writing a letter of recommendation is moot, because, as far as I understand it, most professors will refuse to just write letters of recommendation for students that they've never met or talked to. Just my two cents :)

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Actually, 2+2 =1 only if Z_3=(0,1,2). The modulus function is still at the heart of the group operation.


Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

When we write 2+2=4 and 2+2=1 we are implicitly talking about the group (Real's vs. Mod 3), and tells us what type of + we are working with (Real number addition vs. modular arithmetic), which is why I said "You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition." in the original discussion of '2+2 always equals 4'.
(although I was mistaken on "many systems", because I can only find two (Z4 has 2+2=0, not "4")

I am wondering how we can tie this back into 'Biology professor draws fire for not recommending creationist students'? If he doesn't recommend 2 creationist students that approached him, and then doesn't recommend 2 more creationist students that approached him, how many creationist students that approached him did he not recommend? ;)

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
When we write 2+2=4 and 2+2=1 we are implicitly talking about the group (Real's vs. Mod 3), and tells us what type of + we are working with (Real number addition vs. modular arithmetic), which is why I said "You are referring to the very specific subset of real number addition." in the original discussion of '2+2 always equals 4'.
(although I was mistaken on "many systems", because I can only find two (Z4 has 2+2=0, not "4")
Uh, no, we aren't. 2+2=1 could equally apply to Z_4=(1,2,3). The fact is 2+2=4. If one wishs to speak of the modulus function, then one writes (2+2) mod 3. When speaking of groups, one needs to define the group first: On the group Z_3=(0,1,2), 2+2 =1.[/B

Cheers,

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Uh, no, we aren't. 2+2=1 could equally apply to Z_4=(1,2,3). The fact is 2+2=4. If one wishs to speak of the modulus function, then one writes (2+2) mod 3. When speaking of groups, one needs to define the group first: On the group Z_3=(0,1,2), 2+2 =1.[/B

Cheers,

Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

The group Z4 is not (1,2,3), it is (0,1,2,3).

I agree that one needs to define the group first, and that is why I've said that in Z3 or Z4, 2+2 does not equal 4.

Ah, I believe I've thought of a way to indeed get "many" like I was claiming earler. Let me know what you think of this. We can make up an infinite number of sets where 2+2 is not even defined (so it doesn't equal 4 because it can't). The Naturals-{4} for example. These are called 'counter-examples'. ;)

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
The group Z4 is not (1,2,3), it is (0,1,2,3).
My error. I meant Z3. The point is the group does not need to follow 0..n-1. The other point is that there is an implicit modulus function here.
Ah, I believe I've thought of a way to indeed get "many" like I was claiming earler. Let me know what you think of this. We can make up an infinite number of sets where 2+2 is not even defined (so it doesn't equal 4 because it can't). The Naturals-{4} for example. These are called 'counter-examples'. ;)
No. The point is 2+2 is a mathematical notation that implicitly means we are dealing with addition for either integers or reals. And furthermore meaning it is equal to 4. The notation implicitly means regular addition in base 10. Any other types of numbers or objects have unique notations or assumptions that must be stated a priori in order to be understood.

2+2 = 4
[2,x] + [2,y] <= 4

You are confounding mathematical notation. And we are getting farther afield from whatever point it was you wanted to make concerning evolution.

Cheers,

Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

Regarding 2+2=4, which never gets old ;),


Any other types of numbers or objects have unique notations or assumptions that must be stated a priori in order to be understood.


I agree with that 100%, but note that saying 2+2=4 in fact has unique notations and assumptions behind it. The fact that they don't have to be stated a priori because it is more common to the general public, doesn't change that.


You are confounding mathematical notation. And we are getting farther afield from whatever point it was you wanted to make concerning evolution.


Would you be kind to explain how I am "confounding" my notation?

As a counterexample, consider the set of all natural numbers, with the number 4 removed, what I call N-{4} (a set difference, not simple real number subtraction, of course).

Then calculate 2+2 and please share what you get. When I do it, for some reason I don't get always get 4 because I never get 4.

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

Regarding 2+2=4, which never gets old ;),



I agree with that 100%, but note that saying 2+2=4 in fact has unique notations and assumptions behind it. The fact that they don't have to be stated a priori because it is more common to the general public, doesn't change that.

[/b]

Would you be kind to explain how I am "confounding" my notation?

As a counterexample, consider the set of all natural numbers, with the number 4 removed, what I call N-{4} (a set difference, not simple real number subtraction, of course).

Then calculate 2+2 and please share what you get. When I do it, for some reason I don't get always get 4 because I never get 4.
[/B]

Last time, sir. 2+2=4. That is the notation. That is the meaning. Your other example must be preceded by a definition of your special set, as you just did. If it is not preceded by such a description that takes it out of the standard meaning, 2+2=4.

Get back on track, please. The topic was Dini.

Cheers,

[Blue Monk]

Holy Cow!

I take the weekend off from posting and return to find that I have inadvertently sparked a heated debate over whether 2 + 2 does indeed equal 4, hehe.

I dare not speak of the delicious egg, cheese and bacon breakfast tacos I enjoyed this morning for fear of sparking further controversy. :)

Back to the point, Creationism has absolutely no basis in fact. Biology is a science and as a science it deals only in fact. If I were a biology professor I could not in good conscience give any recommendation to any student who cannot adhere to the most important and basic discipline required by good science, namely drawing conclusions based only on an objective understanding of established fact.

Anyone who would enter any field of science and then reject all established evidence that has been clearly and scientifically established in favor of subjective personal religious beliefs will by definition be a very poor scientist.

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Your other example must be preceded by a definition of your special set, as you just did. If it is not preceded by such a description that takes it out of the standard meaning, 2+2=4.


Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

The real numbers are a "special set". Just what set do you think you are talking about when you write 2+2=4? Integer addition is a "special" operation. The fact that mod arithemetic and creating sets where 4 is not an element are not as common knowledge to the general public as real numbers and addition does not mean much to the question of finding examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.

Clearly there are numerous examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.


Get back on track, please. The topic was Dini.


You can go post-for-post with me for many posts, and then tell me to get back on track? Shouldn't you have possibly noted that you yourself and anyone involved in this highly interesting discussion should get back on track too?

Obviously 1 delicious egg + 2 enjoyable tacos does not equal 3 Blue Monks even though you are what you eat. The explanation can be found in a standard book on group theory. ;)

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Obviously 1 delicious egg + 2 enjoyable tacos does not equal 3 Blue Monks even though you are what you eat. The explanation can be found in a standard book on group theory. ;)


Don't you think you're being a little disingenious here? I'd say the meaning is rather clear in the example given. You seem to be arguing this point for the sake of arguing.

What exactly does this have to do with creationism and recommendations from a professor? Hell, unless I'm mistaken, one can hardly REQUIRE a professor to give a personal recommendation.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Obviously 1 delicious egg + 2 enjoyable tacos does not equal 3 Blue Monks even though you are what you eat. The explanation can be found in a standard book on group theory. ;)Now you're comparing eggs and tacos to Blue Monks. :D

Originally posted by Valmorian

Don't you think you're being a little disingenious here? I'd say the meaning is rather clear in the example given. You seem to be arguing this point for the sake of arguing.


Dear Mr. Valmorian,

The 1 delicious egg, etc., was in jest.


What exactly does this have to do with creationism and recommendations from a professor? Hell, unless I'm mistaken, one can hardly REQUIRE a professor to give a personal recommendation.


Blue Monk said "Regardless of anyone's beliefs, 2+2=4, the earth revolves around the sun and the facts support evolution not creationism.", and "If you do not accept the fact that 2+2=4 then you should not receive a recommendation as a mathematician."

I responded by saying that 2+2 does not always equal 4, and BillHoyt responded with "Fascinating. Do regale us with specific examples of other "systems of mathematics". Focus especially on those wherein 2+2 <> 4.", so I gave examples. Rwguinn asked for examples too. Zombified showed curiousity too.

It doesn't have much to do with creationism and recommendations, that is clear. I alone can hardly be blamed (you didn't blame me, I'm just saying though) for getting the discussion off-topic, considering people specifically asked me to expand on the topic.

Very sincerely yours,

S. Holmes

Originally posted by RichardR
Now you're comparing eggs and tacos to Blue Monks. :D

Dear Mr. RichardR,

The problem now is that I am hungry. :)

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Blue Monk]

I understand what you are saying Sherlock but you are simply offering a split-hair defense.

When I stated that 2+2=4 everyone understood the example. For me to further clarify the example by explaining that I am in base 10 and the numbers in question are integers, etc. etc. is totally unnecessary and tedious. Trust me, you do not need to clarify in every post that you are not in fact, Sherlock Holmes, the fictional character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle but in fact a separate real life individual who has merely adopted that moniker.

The possible ways one can arrive at a different conclusion to the equation 2+2 is irrelevant to this discussion. Your deviations on this theme are only relevant if I were somehow posing that specific question which I was not.

So to further clarify, anyone who cannot accept the fact that in basic 3rd grade level mathematics that 2 + 2 = 4 (integers, base 10, etc.) will make a poor mathematician.

Likewise, anyone who rejects all established facts in the field of biology in favor of superstitious mumbo-jumbo will make a poor biologist and does not deserve a recommendation from a biology professor who is entrusted with the responsibility of teaching scientific fact, not religion.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Obviously 1 delicious egg + 2 enjoyable tacos does not equal 3 Blue Monks even though you are what you eat.

Hehe, if that were true then I'd have to start calling myself Ben and Jerry. ;)

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I alone can hardly be blamed (you didn't blame me, I'm just saying though) for getting the discussion off-topic, considering people specifically asked me to expand on the topic.

Sure, sometimes topics spark other topics.

I am sure I will forever be known as the guy that sparked the great 'breakfast taco' debate of '03.

:p

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Just what set do you think you are talking about when you write 2+2=4? Integer addition is a "special" operation. The fact that mod arithemetic and creating sets where 4 is not an element are not as common knowledge to the general public as real numbers and addition does not mean much to the question of finding examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.
I have said quite clearly what we are talking about. We are talking about the meaning of 2+2. The notation means to add by standard mathematical means along the reals or integers. Period. Other notations are used for the special cases we have discussed.
You can go post-for-post with me for many posts, and then tell me to get back on track? Shouldn't you have possibly noted that you yourself and anyone involved in this highly interesting discussion should get back on track too?
Yes I can. You are being obtuse, and you ignored my last comment germane to this thread's topic:
I'm glad we don't disagree about many factors going into recommendation. But if you agree there are many factors, then why do you say they should receive the recommendation "based on the quality of work done"? Either the other factors factor in or they aren't really factors

Cheers,

Dear Mr. Blue Monk,

I don't think I was offering a "split hair" defense at all. In fact, I don't consider it defending at all. I'm merely pointing out some examples. People asked for specific examples of where 2+2 does not equal 4. If they asked for examples of where 2+2 does not equal 4 only using integer addition, I'd say that I couldn't do it.


The possible ways one can arrive at a different conclusion to the equation 2+2 is irrelevant to this discussion. Your deviations on this theme are only relevant if I were somehow posing that specific question which I was not.


They are quite relevant I'd put forth, considering people were asking for examples.


So to further clarify, anyone who cannot accept the fact that in basic 3rd grade level mathematics that 2 + 2 = 4 (integers, base 10, etc.) will make a poor mathematician.


I would tend to agree with that, although they could be good mathematicians later on in life.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

The notation means to add by standard mathematical means along the reals or integers. Period. Other notations are used for the special cases we have discussed.


Dear Mr. BillHoyt,

One can have 2+2=1, 2+2=0, and 2+2={}. In each case, I don't need to explain the sets used and so on for these to make mathematical sense. Someone might say that 2+2 can't be 1 because 2+2=4, etc., but that person may not know about Z_3. I don't need to explain that Z_3 exists for 2+2=1 to make perfect sense.


You are being obtuse, and you ignored my last comment germane to this thread's topic:


Interesting! I am being obtuse when I have addressed all of your previous questions? Could there be any other reason? Perhaps I missed the question (because I was looking for 2's) ;), as opposed to intentional ignoring.

Thank you for bringing it up though. I will address it


But if you agree there are many factors, then why do you say they should receive the recommendation "based on the quality of work done"? Either the other factors factor in or they aren't really factors


"Work done" is one of the big factors, perhaps the biggest. However, it is just one among several other factors.

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I responded by saying that 2+2 does not always equal 4, and BillHoyt responded with "Fascinating. Do regale us with specific examples of other "systems of mathematics". Focus especially on those wherein 2+2 <> 4.", so I gave examples. Rwguinn asked for examples too. Zombified showed curiousity too.



While strictly speaking, you are being accurate here, the meaning of his statement was plain, don't you think? Why would you even say something like '2+2 does not always equal 4' when it has absolutely no bearing on what BillHoyt was explaining, unless it was to try and goad him into an argument?


It doesn't have much to do with creationism and recommendations, that is clear. I alone can hardly be blamed (you didn't blame me, I'm just saying though) for getting the discussion off-topic, considering people specifically asked me to expand on the topic.


I'm just not really sure why you even brought it up?

I think the professor is certainly within his rights to only give recommendations to those students who exemplify what he considers to be traits worth recommendation.

It sounds like "not ignoring blatant evidence" is one of them.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I have said quite clearly what we are talking about. We are talking about the meaning of 2+2.

I can't believe I actually read that sentance. Me, a normal, reasonably rational person, is actually reading an argument about whether or not 2+2 actually = 4. Huh. I think I've gotta get me some hobbies :D

Originally posted by Valmorian

While strictly speaking, you are being accurate here, the meaning of his statement was plain, don't you think? Why would you even say something like '2+2 does not always equal 4' when it has absolutely no bearing on what BillHoyt was explaining, unless it was to try and goad him into an argument?


Dear Valmorian,

If someone tells me that if I don't accept the fact that 2+2=4 then I am not a good candidate for being a mathematician, I'm going to naturally respond that there are cases where 2+2 does not equal 4, and moreover, a good mathematician would be aware of this fact.

Consider BillHoyt responding to me. I hardly "goad"ed him into it. I'm not moving his fingers and pressing "Submit Reply" for him. :)

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Valmorian,

If someone tells me that if I don't accept the fact that 2+2=4 then I am not a good candidate for being a mathematician, I'm going to naturally respond that there are cases where 2+2 does not equal 4, and moreover, a good mathematician would be aware of this fact.

[/b]

Again, I believe you are being disingenious here. The specific claim itself is not vital to the point being made, as I'm sure you are intelligent enough to see. The point was should someone who holds views completely contrary to all the evidence in the field they are proposing to enter be considered a 'good' candidate?

I'm sure you're aware of what he meant, and just chose to throw out a red-herring instead of actually considering the point he was making.




Consider BillHoyt responding to me. I hardly "goad"ed him into it. I'm not moving his fingers and pressing "Submit Reply" for him. :)


Nor is any other troll that gets responses, but that doesn't mean they weren't baiting.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'm not moving his fingers and pressing "Submit Reply" for him. :)
[/B]

OK, I admit it, I am. With my mind!

Where do I collect my one million?

Originally posted by Valmorian

Again, I believe you are being disingenious here.


Dear Valmorian,

That is an interesting belief. Please read again the part where I was asked to show examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.


Nor is any other troll that gets responses, but that doesn't mean they weren't baiting.

Considering the subject of 2+2=4 was not brought up originally by me, and I'm not the only one talking about it, but yet I am apparantly the only one accused of baiting, that is an interesting comment.

Very interesting,
Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Darwin]

My thumbs tend to go more up than down for this guy.
Considering what may result from a person with previously mentioned bias entering biological education is obvious,I think we do have examples of this and ruthless attempts to retard science we do have enough of.
The analogy of fairies pushing water inside the pipes is a decent one I must admit.
Certain issues may follow though:
1.Whether it is right to keep the student from graduating due to his/her beliefs (presupposing that he/she will let them effect his/her work)
2.Whether it is ethical to assume that the student´s religious background will necessarily appear to oppose the scientifical position he/she is about to attend.

And so on.

Dear all,

What do people think about if it had to do with, say, theories of gravity, rather than evolution? Do you think the same hoop-la would have been made about it?

Also, does anyone know what the student is doing now? That is, did he find someone to recommend him?

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
What do people think about if it had to do with, say, theories of gravity, rather than evolution? Do you think the same hoop-la would have been made about it?
I don't think anyone would be surprised or shocked if a flat-earther or geocentrist didn't get a recommendation. (The gravitational equivalents of creationists.) Even most fundamentalists have pretty much given up on those points of view. Eventually it will be the same with creationists.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zombified
.Eventually it will be the same with creationists.

After dredging through the dross in this thread, question: what does the pejorative "creationist" mean to you people?

Am I for example a "creationist"? If so, why?

Can I agree the scientific method yields universe age 16 billion years & the theory of evolution and still be a creationist? Why not?

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes


Dear Valmorian,

That is an interesting belief. Please read again the part where I was asked to show examples where 2+2 does not equal 4.

[/b]

Please read where I was talking about bringing up the "2+2 doesn't always equal 4" in the first place. THAT is what I'm pointing out, not the subsequent argument which is completely irrelevant to the point being made.



Considering the subject of 2+2=4 was not brought up originally by me, and I'm not the only one talking about it, but yet I am apparantly the only one accused of baiting, that is an interesting comment.



Apparently I was mistaken in assuming you could understand the point he was making. I would have thought it was obvious that the specific examples he was giving were unimportant.

Unless, of course, you're simply continuing to troll. Something that I'd not be surprised to discover.

[Zombified]

(edit to add) In reply to Hammegk:

I'm sure it means different things to different people, but for my part, "creationist" is shorthand for people who:

- believe the earth/universe is orders of magnitude younger than current evidence suggests (young earth creationists), or

- reject evolution of the various species from some single original source (maybe old earth, but reject "macro" evolution), or

- consider humans to have been specially created seperate from animals (old earth, accept macro, but plead exceptions for people for theological reasons).

The borderline case is those people who regard evolution as being used by God for purposes of creation. There are cases of suboptimal design produced by evolution (consistent with the theory) that raise inconvenient theological questions, and teleological interpretations of evolution are not really scientific (because they're not operational), but I don't really consider these people "creationists" because they by and large don't reject evidence.

When comparing creationists to flat-earthers, I am of course thinking primarily of young earth creationists, whose rejection of evidence is so complete its not even ignorance, its dishonesty.

Does that answer your question? It's not clear from your question which group of possible creationists you're thinking of, though clearly not the YECs. I would infer, however, that you apply the term creationist to anyone who believes the world was deliberately created, regardless of timing or process.

Please read where I was talking about bringing up the "2+2 doesn't always equal 4" in the first place. THAT is what I'm pointing out, not the subsequent argument which is completely irrelevant to the point being made.


Dear Mr. Valmorian,

Blue Monk brought up the "2+2=4" line of argument, not I. I was responding to it because there are cases where that is not true.


Unless, of course, you're simply continuing to troll. Something that I'd not be surprised to discover.

I'd be interested is knowing how you distinguish 'responding' from "continuing to troll". I'd also be interested in knowing how you categorize yourself as 'responding' and not "continuing to troll".

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[jj]

I can't believe that this case of religious harrassment of a good scientist is still under any discussion.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by hammegk


After dredging through the dross in this thread, question: what does the pejorative "creationist" mean to you people?

Am I for example a "creationist"? If so, why?

Can I agree the scientific method yields universe age 16 billion years & the theory of evolution and still be a creationist? Why not?

For me a 'creationist' is one who holds beliefs that are contrary to scientific fact. In that sense it is merely a label and not entirely accurate.

Of course it is possible for one to accept all scientific fact and still believe that God is still the catalyst and everything that follows is merely the mechanism he has chosen. I guess that would make one a 'creationist' in the strictist sense of the word but that is not what I think of when I use that term and also if one reads the criteria set out by Dini for recomendations I do not believe that opinion would disqualify one.

All he asks is that his students provide a scientific explanation for the emergence of life. The problem arises when a student holds 'alternative' views for which there is no scientific explanation and cannot provide a scientific explanation.

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with freedom of religion as the recomendation is for a student that can demonstrate a clear understanding of the scientific data.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Blue Monk


Of course it is possible for one to accept all scientific fact and still believe that God is still the catalyst and everything that follows is merely the mechanism he has chosen. I guess that would make one a 'creationist' in the strictist sense of the word but that is not what I think of when I use that term and also if one reads the criteria set out by Dini for recomendations I do not believe that opinion would disqualify one.

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with freedom of religion as the recomendation is for a student that can demonstrate a clear understanding of the scientific data.

We agree, with the "revised" guidelines. The old guidelines were imo blatently -- possibly illegally -- anti religious, and had zilch to contribute to "science".

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I'd be interested is knowing how you distinguish 'responding' from "continuing to troll". I'd also be interested in knowing how you categorize yourself as 'responding' and not "continuing to troll".[/B]

That's simple.

If I do it it is reasoned, insightful, intelligent, relevant and often witty and enlightening discourse.

If you do it it is trolling.

Just be sure to remember that it is all about me and if you have any problems in the future just ask yourself, "What would Blue Monk do?"

:p

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by hammegk



We agree, with the "revised" guidelines. The old guidelines were imo blatently -- possibly illegally -- anti religious, and had zilch to contribute to "science".

We agree!? :eek:

Wow, I better reread what I posted, hehe.

jk.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Phaycops


I can't believe I actually read that sentance. Me, a normal, reasonably rational person, is actually reading an argument about whether or not 2+2 actually = 4. Huh. I think I've gotta get me some hobbies :D

2 + 2 can equal "22" if "+" is a concatenation operator. :D

Originally posted by Blue Monk

That's simple.
If I do it it is reasoned, insightful, intelligent, relevant and often witty and enlightening discourse.
If you do it it is trolling.
Just be sure to remember that it is all about me and if you have any problems in the future just ask yourself, "What would Blue Monk do?"
:p

Dear Mr. Blue Monk,

:) :) :)

Sincerely,

S. Holmes

Originally posted by aggle_rithm

2 + 2 can equal "22" if "+" is a concatenation operator. :D

Dear aggle_rithm,

I like the idea, but the + isn't exactly acting the same way as addition. :)

Very sincerely,

S. Holmes

[fishbob]

Sherlock Holmes asks:Also, does anyone know what the student is doing now? That is, did he find someone to recommend him? If I recall correctly, the student had not taken Prof Dini's class. Hmm, I wonder what Blue Monk would say about this?

[Darwin]

"What do people think about if it had to do with, say, theories of gravity, rather than evolution? Do you think the same hoop-la would have been made about it?"

Depends on whether you mean that the one in charge of whoopla rejects the theory of gravity or simply rejects it due to a belief that goes beyond scientific method.

Theory of gravity would hardly be rejected out of a religious belief,of course this is obvious.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by fishbob
Sherlock Holmes asks: If I recall correctly, the student had not taken Prof Dini's class. Hmm, I wonder what Blue Monk would say about this?

Not only had the student not taken the class, the student didn't ask for a recommendation and in fact transferred to a different university entirely before suing the professor. I really don't understand why this is even an issue at all. Isn't there some kind of "frivolous lawsuits" guideline or something? Oh, wait, I forgot. This is America! :rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by Phaycops


Not only had the student not taken the class, the student didn't ask for a recommendation and in fact transferred to a different university entirely before suing the professor. I really don't understand why this is even an issue at all. Isn't there some kind of "frivolous lawsuits" guideline or something? Oh, wait, I forgot. This is America! :rolleyes:

That is also my understanding from news reports.

This is why I refer to it as religious harrassment of an innocent professor.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Phaycops


Not only had the student not taken the class, the student didn't ask for a recommendation and in fact transferred to a different university entirely before suing the professor. I really don't understand why this is even an issue at all. Isn't there some kind of "frivolous lawsuits" guideline or something? Oh, wait, I forgot. This is America! :rolleyes:

The beauty is how this so goes to demonstrate the point.

The guy is basically saying that he is so certain in his creationist belief that no science class will change his mind.

Yeah, that's what we all want from our doctor, someone who's mind is made up and admits that he will never change it no matter what he encounters.

I don't want him diagnosing me.

I mean, at least take the class and then claim you aren't convinced. But to basically say that there is nothing that could change your mind? Bah.

[thinkren]

I'm a relatively late-comer to this discussion, but as I've followed along I noticed that most of the discussion tended to be about the merits and appropriateness of Dini's position. I'd like to point out something else that many have overlooked, that is, the man behind all this controversy.

If anyone has looked at the rest of his webpage at the Texas Tech website, one can see that he has been on the other side of the fence. The man had a 14 year history with Catholism in his younger days. (http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/autobiog.htm)

I think there might have been some tendency to see him as some nose-in-the-air elitist with no respect for religion at all, but it seems to me he has the experience of having grappled with tough ideas like many of us here.

What makes him a REAL hero to me, though, is his philosophy on education. (http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/philosophy.htm) By his own account, he was a high school teacher before he started teaching at the university level. Many of his observations are right on the mark. Any responsible skeptic would hail his remarks as calls of attention to the real root of the problems in today's society of ignorance.