This debate is, as I'm sure is obvious to everyone, going round and round with no hope of resolution. Just as obviously, the points made have little to do with the "morality" of (not) writing letter of reference and quite a lot to do with the participants' personal convictions about evolution. (Lest anyone think it matter, my own view is that evolution is the best-supported theory we've got at present -- though it has a few wrinkles and bumps that are in the process of being smoothed out by various non-adaptationist theories -- and that "creationism" is a hopeless anachronism.)
Nevertheless, allow me to propose a solution (in the hope that this pseudo-debate will stop clogging up my mailbox): Perhaps the professor in question *should* write the letter of reference, mentioning, among other things, that the student is a creationist. That way the student gets what s/he wants -- an honest letter of reference -- the letter-writer gets what s/he wants -- an honest letter of reference -- and the school/dept./supervisor *receiving* the application get with it/s/he wants -- an honest letter of reference. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================= "Paul C. Smith" wrote: > Al Shealy wrote: > > > That's a convenient way of making yourself feel better about it; but we > > all know that beliefs about evolution are strongly correlated with > > religious beliefs. So we can excuse our discrimination while there's no > > evidence that students with these beliefs will be less successful in > > graduate school or practice. > > The discrimination is between truth and falsehood, and that's not > something that many of us are willing to abandon, nor should we. We have a > right to our personal religious beliefs. We do not have a right to impose > those beliefs on others, for example by insisting that they treat the false > beliefs among them as though they were as valid as true beliefs. Nor should > we be forced to support graduate programs that fail to make that kind of > distinction. There's a moral issue here, and we can't just brush it aside or > disguise it with accusations of discrimination. > > On top of all of that is the fact that still gets swept under the rug - > that creationist beliefs are often if not typically connected to the > intentionally dishonest work of the organized creationist groups. Even if it > were reasonable to ask professors to accommodate honest confusions about the > subject matter, is it not at all reasonable ask professors to accommodate > the product of this kind of deliberate lying. Belief in creationism is no > longer so clearly an honest misunderstanding (like for example belief that > ulcers are caused exclusively by stress). It far more closely resembles > Holocaust denial or the tobacco marketers' campaigns, the product of a > deliberate campaign of deception that has nothing to do with the normal > processes of disputes within science. If honest believers in creationism are > suffering as a result, it is the creationist movement they should blame. > > The consistent and apparently utterly shameless dishonesty of that > movement has left us in a place such that negative assumptions about > creationists no longer constitute prejudice: they constitute a common-sense > response to what we know about the situation. There are people who have a > sincere though generally naive belief in creationism, but there are many > people who make a living lying in support of those beliefs. I would not give > a recommendation to a Holocaust denier (even if there were no evidence that > Holocaust denial is related to success in a graduate program), because > besides the fact that my name would be attached to a person with that > specific belief, my name would also be attached to a person whose sense of > "truth" and "falsehood" was so seriously flawed that the person could not be > trusted in completely important conceptually unrelated areas. The same is > true (though admittedly to a lesser degree) with respect to the sincere > creationist. It is true to an even stronger degree with respect to the > creationist who is active in the creationist movement. > > It's a complete waste of time to argue this point in a framework of the > assumption that belief in creationism is, in general, nothing more than an > honest disagreement over some scientific facts. Creationism has long since > lost that status. The existence and in fact strong influence of the > organized creationist movement is an important part of any discussion of > this issue, just as the motivated lying of the tobacco lobby colors disputes > about the dangers of smoking. Telling the truth matters, regardless of the > creationist movement's efforts to the contrary. Holding a value for > truth-telling is NOT discrimination. > ----------------------------------------------- > Okay, so "political correctness" isn't high on my list of motivations... > <grin> > > Paul Smith > Alverno College > Milwaukee > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
