Clutch

The important point is the one made by a few people: there is no obligation to write letters of recommendation for any particular student. But a good professor will give cues about the kind of letter s/he can write when asked. I tell a few students every year that they would be better to ask someone else for a letter, since I would have to mention their low grade/indifferent scholarly industriousness/unremarkable responses to constructive criticisms, or whatever. They do not always find this easy to hear, but I try to point out obliquely that, ruling out dishonesty, the alternative is to torpedo them with a crappy letter.

The prof is this case is being totally above board in telling students two things: that a known rejection of evolutionary theory warrants a bad letter; and that he won't write them a bad letter. It's honest, and even considerate of him to do so.

Pseudonymph

And then...



This is mere rhetoric and a dead-end to the student. Sure, no student should DEMAND a letter when it is not deserved. But if you are going to write a letter condemning the student for not "believing" in evolution, by all means please do. But saying that you have "reservations about his conceptual grasp of the subject of biology."
And "This student is palpably ignorant of basic principles of biology."

This does nothing to say anything about the ability of the student to whom you are referring. Essentially, you are ostentatiously calling said student a dumbass. Which is all well and good if they indeed are. But your speak is indicative of someone who has a personal bone to pick. For example...

Without listening to their claims first? Very dogmatic of you if you don't mind my saying so.

Let me ask you this: If I was a student of yours, who wanted a letter of recomendation and I could demonstrate evolution to you inside and out, shit...I'm almost as good as you at explaining it. But...during my interview, you DEMANDED that I "accept" evolution as universal undisutable truth and I told you that I did not think asking me was appropriate, (seeing as how whether or not I believe it has nothing to do with how well I can perform required tasks), what would you do?

Would you deny a bright young student who is clearly adept at what he loves to do, a letter because he wouldn't conform to your dogmatic practice?

Evolution is not dogma...adhering to it in this way however, simply stepping on someone who does not agree or wishes to remain silent on the subject does nothing to help the cause and makes one look no less like a fundy...holding his ears and singing to keep dissenting opinion away.

Professor: you want a letter? Hmm...you are surely qualified and very intelligent. But you must answer me this question...what do we know 2+2 to equal?

Student: all evidence points to 4

Professor: show me how you arrived at this conclusion

Student:/does incredibly complicated math problem on board...formulas and all 2+2=4

Proffesor: Very good! before I sign this letter, you MUST tell me you ACCEPT this theory without question and that you "truthfully and forthrightly" believe in it.

Student: why does it matter? I can save lives by performing 2X2 equals 4...why does it matter if I believe that 2+2 equals 4?

Professor: It just does.

Student:

If I had a student that came to me and laid down a Behe book and said...See? Evolution is false!

I would do my part as a teacher to educate him otherwise. Teach him the errors in that line of thinking. Not just shoot him down for christs sake.

You people are actually teaching out there? I hope I don't end up in one of your classes.

You seem to be confusing students with collegues. Ones who SHOULD be shot down if they propose some junk theory. Students however, look to you for guidance and knowledge. Teach them...

sciteach

This is why Biology departments are full of evolutionists (atheistic or deistic, but mostly the former--sfunny?) Its not good enough to learn all the data, processes, terms etc., but you have to accept our THEORY about how the whole shooting match came together in the first place! I wish that more ID-friendly students would take these courses and excel in them, just to expose these assumptions that belief in ID means that the brain is functioning below normal and therefore this student cannot contribute good science to the biological endeavor. No wonder the Discovery Institute was set up, there's no room for them at the inn. If you guy are not threatened by ID, why dont you let them in the door??

Coragyps

Any of you in this discussion who haven't yet read Dr Dini's website, please <a href="http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/" target="_blank">do that.</a> Both the "letter of recommendation" and the autobiography pages shed some light instead of heat on the topic.

pz

This isn't about dogma, it's about competence. A biology student is not bright and adept if he is unaware of the overwhelming evidence for evolution. And yes, I would not endorse a student who had been through several years of solid training in biology and was still a creationist.

It's not my dogma that is the problem -- it's his.
I see you've also bought into the misrepresentations in the creationist story. Students aren't told what to "believe", they are asked to affirm a scientific answer. What is unreasonable about that?
I know this guy is from Texas, but I hope you don't take those words literally. Professors do not actually pull out a gun and open fire on students who fail to grasp basic ideas in biology.

I "shot down" a student who came into my office complaining about the falsity of evolution a few weeks ago -- in this case, he didn't plonk down an article by Behe, but one by Wells. "Shooting him down" did not involve any violence or abuse. I handed him a paper I'd written on the very subject, discussed some of the bogosity in _Icons_, and sent him off with a list of web sites to look up.

He was pretty committed to his dogma, though, so I don't have much hope that he understands yet. He's got a few more years here, though, so there's hope.
Yes. Sometimes, though, teaching involves telling people that they are simply wrong, and then showing them in painful detail why they are wrong. Believe it or not, college students really are supposed to be adults, and it is doing them no favor to mollycoddle them.

scigirl

Was this letter for medical school?

Most professors, in my experience, will refuse to write a letter unless it's kept confidential. So the student really has no idea what the letter says - so they are taking a risk.

I think it was better, and more honest, of the prof to refuse the bad letter and explain why, than write a bad letter without the student's knowledge.

Letters of rec aside, I do not like to think about science schools requiring any type of statement of faith. Yes they should accept basic tenets of science such as gravity and evolution. And they shouldn't be able to weasel out of a tough science class because of religion. But questioning science "dogma" is how science works.

scigirl

scigirl

Yes that is interesting - a bunch of people who study the so-called "obvious" designs by (your definition of) God. Yet they do not believe. . . hmm, how "obvious" is this design anyway?

Yes but we don't even really know how the whole shooting match came together.

We really have NO idea how gravity works - but most people (including christians) believe there is a scientific explanation, and thus they are looking for one. Is that wrong? If not, why not?

Is it ok to accept the theory of gravity even though we don't fully understand WHY gravity exists?

Well for your information, I know plenty of both theistic evolutionists and intelligent design advocates who DO excel in the sciences, and make valid contributions. The difference between the successful religious scientist and the crackpot is . . . .they realize that the Bible is not a science text, and they accept fundamental tenets of science. Their belief in God (or Allah or whoever) helps them to get excited about science.


I'm not threatened by ID per se. . . I'm threatened by the fact that people are more willing to believe an ancient book of fairy tales than they are good science. That, in my opinion, is not only stupid, but dangerous as well.

scigirl

RufusAtticus

It's also why most astronomy departments are full of heliocentricists, why most geography departments are full of round-earthers, why most med programs are full of germists, and why most meterology departments are filled by static-electricitists. Good science wins out over bad interpretations of 6000 year old goat-herder mythology.

You have to accept science for what it is, the best explaination available for the current data. There is no justification for a student, who wants to continue in science, holding onto ideas scientifically disproved generations ago.

Of course there is no room at the inn. A "public policy institution" established by a lawyer with the desire to make an end-run arround the quality control mechanisms of science has no buisness participating in the scientific community. ID will be pseudoscience as long as IDist refuse to actually do science with it.

~~RvFvS~~

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Albion

Well, yes - on account of theories are the whole point of science; at the college level, learning data, processes, terms, etc, is not what science education is about, it's about understanding and using science in general, and that involves dealing with THEORIES. Biology departments are full of evolutionists because evolution is a rather major biological theory.

I don't think anybody's saying that people who accept ID are intellectually lacking. I think the point is that they don't understand the parameters of science. If people want to change those parameters, that's a different issue. But while science doesn't include appeals to an intelligent designer (or even Designer), students will just have to live with it. When they become practising scientists, they can try and remake science in the image that they prefer. It isn't up to college kids to do it, though.


All of science is threatened by ID. That's the whole point. ID wants to replace science with something that only vaguely resembles science and to do away with the entire basis of the scientific method, which has worked very well for several hundred years, just so that they can insert God into the process; how can science not be threatened by it? It isn't using science to push its ideas, it's using law, publicity, and politics, while still claiming to use science. Its objective is philosophical and religious, not scientific, despite what the DI people say about science. That makes it very dishonest. If scientists don't feel threatened by this attempt to destroy science, they're naive.

sciteach

Yes, I agree, that for ID'ers to be taken seriously they have to produce good science using ID as a starting premise,lets see some good predictive data. Your appeals to the scientific method minus the god quotient are quite ironic considering that Francis Bacon was quite a bible believing christian. What is your response to the idea that science is an endaevor that was started by christians: Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Harvey, Linnaeus, Boyle, Pasteur--all are at least deists and mostwere believers in scripture and saw science as a way to "think the thoughts of God after Him"