pz

No, it doesn't. He asks them to "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question".

Doubting Didymus

Now things are getting complicated.

PZ makes the good point:

Yes, I do think I was hoodwinked by a biased article, which specifically mentioned belief. Now we are in very muddy waters.

Dini still requires that his students affirm evolution, which they obviously should be able to do if they have learned anything. However, why should this be a prerequisite? Specifically, why should students have to affirm that they accept evolution, but not have similar questions asked of them concerning the krebs cycle and germ theory? I suspect that the truth is that this issue is politically motivated.

I take serious issue with this:

Technically, perhaps you are right but technically he could require his students to affirm the opposite, that evolution is a crock, or any other strange theory. When professors want to set hard and fast rules, it is perfectly justifiable to critisise those rules. It would not be right for a professor to require his students to accept some obscure half baked theory of his. Can does not mean should.

Rufus:
What if they were an excellent student? Top of your class? What if they never let their personal beliefs affect their research? What if you had never even known, until you demended that they reveal themselves at the interveiw? Would you change your mind and take it back, even if you were planning to give it to them up until that point?

There is a slippery slope here. For example, what about theistic evolutionists, who accept only most of evolution. I imagine they are through okay, but what about people who accept intelligent design as part of the evolutionary process? Are their aspirations doomed? remember that, although Behe and co are idiots, they are representing a tiny minority of qualified biologists. Should students be turned away for thinking that Behe might be on to something?

Where does the cut off point lie? At what stage are your opinions too wacky for you to be a doctor? Wouldn't it be best to focus entirely on how good a biologist the student would make? In that case, why should any immutable laws from on high be involved? This should be taken on a case by case basis, with ONLY the students biological prowess under consideration.

pz

Yes. They ought to be stomped on, discouraged, and thoroughly rejected.

You don't seem to understand what a scientist's job is. We're supposed to ruthlessly criticize ideas, and the more ridiculous the idea, the more fiercely it ought to be trashed. If there is some merit to it, it will win out against any opposition. These hypothetical students will have to fight back with equal fierceness if they ever expect to be taken seriously.

Asking a scientist to be sensitive to someone's superstition is simply ludicrous.
I'm at a complete loss to understand how you can argue that Dini is not assessing the student's biological prowess.

RufusAtticus

Well, I detest students who memorize instead of understand. In this day and age, if a student understands evolution but still rejects it because his preacher told him to, I have serious doubts about his capacity to be involved in any science, not just biology.

Well, football games go four quarters, not three. The interview is not over until it is over.

Depends on the ID. If they state that natural forces cannot explain the diversity of life and that science must show that "god did it", I would have serious doubts. If they believe that God was somehow involved, that is their theological conclusion.

Their aspirations of getting a good reference from me are probably doomed.

Yes, until Behe et al. start doing scientific research to support their political movement. Any student that is persuaded by popular writtings over the scientific literature, is not going to get a good recomendation from me when it comes to science.

RufusAtticus

Should an astronomer write a geocentrist a recomendation to a physics grad school?

Doubting Didymus

If this were the case, then I should not be able to go out and find any medical practitioners who agree with ID, as their letters of reccomendation would all have been rejected.

We are talking about letters of reccomendation for biomedical science here, not evolutionary theory. The issue is whether evolution should have this magical special status that every science student is forced to accept.

The situation is such that a student could ace anatomy and physiology, come top of the class in microbiology and biotechnology and blitz the biomed subjects, but because of their single idealogical handicap they get screwed. This is how Dini can be not assessing a students biological prowess. Even if the student can understand the concept and apply the knowledge with astounding success and are a real shining light for the future of brain surgery, they are still screwed because they currently don't accept this one (admittedly large) field of scientific enquiry.

Here is a question: what if they never even studied evolutionary theory? This would certainly be possible in the biomedical strands I know of. Are they to be condemned just because their lack of research into the field has led them to certain common perceptions?

Valentine Pontifex

When did I say that they should? I will give you a hint, I did not. Nor would I. The creationist idiot might be, but then again I really don't give a hoot about he wants or what his feelings are. The bioligist should not make an concessions to creationist nonsense when teaching. But there is a difference between teaching something and requiring a belief.

What do you think of the creationists statements of belief that YEC organizations and institutions require? I suppose you think that they a bad idea. So do I. Why though? There are two major reasons why one would opposed them: 1) such policies are in and of themselves wrong and/or 2) the statement whose belief is required is a false statement. I go with the former. If the YEC organizations were completely correct in their beliefs, requiring statement of belief would still be wrong. Actually that YECs so widely have required statements of belief is good reason, in and of itself, that they are full of it.

For us to oppose a tactic when the other side does it but support it when our side uses it is a double standard.

Because evolution is true is reason why it does not need a professor to protect it. Someone who does not accept evolution is almost certainly ignorant or incompetent. If a professor has had enough contact with a student to judge the student's knowledge and academic competence--something which goes without saying if he is going to be making such a judgement--then that student's lack of knowledge or competence will disqualify the student without requiring a belief.

And that this professor's actions are making it far more likely that creationist dogma will be in the classroom only makes it even more obscene.
The public relations fallout is bad and if it forms a basis a finding of fact that professional biologists will dogmatically exclude on the basis of belief then it will be a disaster in any legal fight.

DMB

Will someone please clarify this issue for me? Does a letter of recommendation have to be only laudatory? Can not the writer say that student A appears to have a sound grasp of X and Y but lacks a thorough understanding of Z? I feel uncomfortable that this appears to be an all-or-nothing issue that can be presented by the columnist as being about belief. Is that the only question the prof would ask before deciding whether to write a letter of recommendation?

Doubting Didymus

I strongly second this question. I do not have a full understanding of the process that these letters involve, particularly not of the american system.

If what DMB says is true, and letters can focus on specific areas of prowess or limitation then what is the justification for flatly refusing a reccomendation based on one question? The letter could say 'student excels in anatomical and biomedical studies, but does not accept evolutionary science'. Surely even the creationist student would be comfortable with that?

pz

No, it should not be purely laudatory. When I write them, I try to present an honest picture of the student's strength and weaknesses. When I read them, I tend to discount letters that just go on and on with excessive praise.

If a student asks for a letter, I also tell them if there are such weaknesses that I will mention; sometimes they will change their mind. If I had a hypothetical creationist biology major like the one described here, who had gotten "A"s in everything but still believed in hoary old hogwash, I'd tell him I could write a letter praising his discipline and ability to memorize, but that it would also express reservations about his conceptual grasp of the subject of biology.

At least, that's what I'd do here, at the small school where I teach now. When I was at the big state institution, I would have just said "no." I used to get 50-60 requests for letters that all seemed to come at the end of Spring term, and I only had time to do maybe 10.