Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by kattracks
I misread the post (substituting church for order in my mind) ... and didn't click on the link until later, so a little time passed before I realized my error. My mistake. I apologized.
It would seem that Kelley Shackelford is arguing that Creationism is a religious belief, contrary to some Creations who disavow that claim.
Intelligent Design is not a religious belief, but creationism is. Do you have a source for someone claiming creationism is not religous?
The fact is, FourtySeven, that this prof is discriminating on the basis of religious convictions. If someone has a different BELIEF (not practical knowledge, by the way) than the prof, the prof is going to treat them as second class citizens.
But you sure don't seem to find anything wrong with that, judging from your bigoted response : "I'm guessing the same religious fervor that seemingly has the ability to even suspend rational thought will also push this thread past 1000 posts.."
Suspend rational thought? Nowhere is that evident from the statements of the legal team NOR from the student.
That insult originated in your own preconceptions.
That insult was a symptom of your inability to consider those who have a personal faith as your equals.
Tell you what, FourtySeven. As soon as you are able to produce a body of work- personally- as impressive as that produced by Anselm, Isaac Newton, C.S. Lewis, & Herman Melville. Then prove that they were, to a man, limited by their "religious convictions" which you claim "interferre (sic)... with their ability to reason."
THEN you might be able to make a point and not have it be anything more than smug, blind, bigoted blather.
I would perfer people based their actions on both. I don't see the either/or situation the professor seems to believe. I think you can be educated and maintain your beliefs and values. The knowledge base of man barely scratches the surface of knowing all there is to know. A true intellectual acknowledges this huge void. It is the ones who think man knows almost everything that really worry me.
I agree! IMHO, it is a self-imposed blindness to presume that the natural realm is all that there is.
You're interpretating his words very narrowly. He could be talking about any kind of political or ideological views or prejudices here. If what one has taught one's children has a sound basis, I don't see what there is to fear from exposing young people to new knowledge and debate.
I interpret his words in the context they were spoken. The man has no little for people who are uneducated. I also find the man's policy hypocritical. From his Bio it appears he was struggling with his religious beliefs for some time and only after years of graduate study did he seemingly lose some or most of his faith or at the very least significantly altered his faith. This man could not give himself a letter of recommendation if he was that stuggling undergraduate student he once was. I guess he figures after one semester of his class, he expects his students to reach the same level of enlightment he believes he has now obtained.
He could be talking about any kind of political or ideological views or prejudices here. If what one has taught one's children has a sound basis, I don't see what there is to fear from exposing young people to new knowledge and debate.
If Dini just stuck to knowledge and debate of the subject that he taught that would be one thing. But Dini uses coercive tactics to try to alter religious beliefs of students, and I find that repulsive. The more I learn about Dini, the more repulsed of him I get.
Gee Patrick, why do you need all them placemarkers when you never have anything to say?
Seems to me that you are wasting a lot of precious bandwith with your nonsense postings and I know how you hate to waste bandwith. I mean, all those electrons being used up with your nonsense posts, it's criminal!
Save electrons! Stop the placemarkers!
Dini is an atheist, regardless of what post 1160 says or what the press has to say. Hitler was born a Christian, Stalin was probably born a Christian too. That does not mean that they continued to be Christians.
Firing Professor Dini as a perfect example of abuse of power would be a good first step.
Firing Professor Dini as a perfect example of abuse of power would be a good first step.
IMHO, because Texas Tech has publicly stated that it supports the professor and his policy doesn't conflict with the university's --- they have forfeited any chance to discipline Dini, in any fashion, for any related cause.
However, based on correspondence with the Department of Justice and this lawfirm, they might determine that Dini's policy must change. Should that happen and he refuse to comply, then it would be a new "game."
Even beyond that point though (because I do not want to get into the tired "evolution/creation" debate, because there are simply people out there that won't beleive no matter what) the whole point of my post was that SOME people suspend their rational thought processes (which naturally lead to conservative values {rational thought does}, something I think you and I can agree on) when it comes to their religious convictions (fervor). In other words, some people who CALL themselves "conservatives" really aren't when the whole theory of conservatism tramples over their religious beliefs. This thread is a perfect example.
Let's put it in a different way, and see if this whole argument stands up to scrutiny:
If this professor was being sued (or investigated by the DoJ) because it was claimed that he wasn't giving "ENOUGH" letters of recommendation to minorities, would that be something he should be held to? In other words, are letters of recommendation something that someone is ENTITLED to, no matter what, or is it something they recieve through hard work ALONE?Please note that here I'm not asking how it IS, I'm asking how it SHOULD be.
I don't know of any conservative worth his/her salt that can possibly say a letter of recommendation is something that someone is entitled to, irreguardless of how much effort was made to actually obtain one. Now, what you and others on this thread might have argued is that "creationism is equal to evolution", and therefore this professor is just being obstinate by not accepting it, and therefore by not giving out letters of recommendation to those that believe in creation he's descriminating, based on no good reason at all. That's the point there; that it's descrimination because his refusal is based on no good reason at all.
Well, I would be willing to wager that if that man had the time and the inclination, he could probably provide some good points for believing in evolution, some valid scientific points. So it's not really descriminiation, it's merely personal choice based on a set of convictions. Something a true conservative should be supportive of; after all, if it were reversed, and there was a creationist professor out there who refused to give letters of recommendation to an evolutionist student, I would be supportive of that too. After all, the whole CONCEPT of a "letter of recommendation" is that that PARTICULAR person believes the person who receives the letter is deserving. It's an opinion piece; it's free speech. People like you are trying to infringe on the professor's right to free speech! And you can't make the argument (and I don't even know if this is true or not anymore, because it's been a while since I read the article, but just to cover my bases...) that, "these students HAD to take his class"....."it was for their major!".....etc.......can't make that point. Who forced them to go to that school? Is the school so small that there's only ONE professor that teaches the class? Is one letter of recommendation REALLY going to hold them back in life?
Like I said at the beginning of this post, I'm not going to get into an evolution/creation debate, because quite frankly I'm tired of beating my head up against a wall. (and that's what that debate really is like). So you can respond to this post with things like, "Well, I believe that creation is real, and I have some scientific reasons to believe it's true, so that professor IS descriminating"...or some other similar response. You can do that, all you want.
But as a conservative, I honestly can't see why the professor's belief can't have as much weight as your own, at least, since the issue at hand is a recommendation letter (i.e., a PERSONAL OPINION), and whether or not he should be forced to put his name to something (or someone) he doesn't want to, when you have to admit at LEAST that there's no firm scientific answer one way or the other. This is not analagous to discrimination based on skin color (an act that can easily be proven to be scientifically invalid); this is a case of a special interest group demanding special treatment.
I'm guessing the same religious fervor that seemingly has the ability to even suspend rational thought will also push this thread past 1000 posts, when it should have stopped at yours!
You bring up valid points. (by the way, I see no conflict between my knowledge of scientific theory, and my deep conviction of the absolute truth of the Scriptures.)
The kicker in all of this, is that he (the professor) simply screens everyone for a Faith that he himself agrees with. He treats those who have a Faith which does NOT agree with the idea of evolution as pariahs. As second-class citizens. And it is based on Faith.
I consider the letter of recommendation as an official duty, as the student will not be accepted into the program without one. This makes the "screening" for the letter an official action by the professor. The professor is discriminating based on the Faith of the student. This is wrong.
If he was making the determination on race, and stated, "Unless you are at least 1/4 Aryan, I will not give you a recommendation" everyone would quite correctly judge this as a wicked and wrong method to determine who is granted "approval" to (in an official capacity, mind you) continue in the program.
The fact that he bases his "filter" on whether someone can state that their faith is of a certain sort (not if they understand the theory fully - but that they accept and believe no alternative) is the point that is most heinous. THAT is the reason that he is so clearly in the wrong.
It isn't a point of how many letters he gives - it is that he NEVER gives them to those who BELIEVE differently - regardless of whether they have learned the subject.
Again, I am deeply ashamed of wronging you, and note that you are quite correct in your amplification of your point (fervor versus rational). I offer no justification of it, and sincerely ask for you to forgive me.
I think you miss the whole point if that is how you framed the arguement. No one has suggested anything like quotas or that this kid is entitled to anything other than an honest evaluation of the student based on his abilities and character, not on his particular religious beliefs. The appropriate analogy is if the professor stated he would not give a letter of recommendation to a black student. Do you think that would be right? That's how we see the professors position.
Dini's website used to say this:
Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?
Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology prominent among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology. It is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make poor clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance may partly be the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known; just as one can refer to the "fact" of gravity, even if all of the details of gravitational theory are not yet known. One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and the scientific method. Scientists do not ignore logical conclusions based on abundant scientific evidence and experimentation because these conclusions do not conform to expectations or beliefs. Modern medicine relies heavily on the method of science. In my opinion, modern physicians do best when their practice is scientifically based.
The designated criteria for a letter of recommendation should not be misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone's personal beliefs. Rather, the goals of these requirements are to help insure that a student who wishes my recommendation uses scientific thinking to answer scientific questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.