As far as the original article: What good is a letter of reference if you had to sue to get it? If you were hiring, would you accept it?

__________________
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." — Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

441!!!! :)

The analysis stands for itself. Of course no one is saying that success would necessarily follow from using a closer relative. No transplant is ever 100% gauranteed. All that is being said is that failure was more likely with the baboon heart than with a primate that is more closely related to us. There was some shoddy research that went into the arbitrary decision of choosing a baboon... namely no research at all.

I don't know if anyone can really say to anyone else that they haven't experienced such a feeling. That's a fairly subjective thing. Not all of us grew up in households that were familiar with scientific paradigms and not all of us have the same religious backgrounds. Certainly venues are available for discussion about such subjects.

If you spent your entire life believing the Earth was flat, you'd feel the same way. However, we assume that as humans we all have the ability to critically analyze data. This ability to think scientifically is limitted only by our willingness to learn and the amount of time we need to invest for our level of intelligence. Of course, learning about such things comes easier to some than it does to others, but in principle, we can all learn about science through our own investigations.

Therein lies the problem: it's one of venue. In a philosophy class one might address the question of what different human beings believe, but when it comes down to what human beings actually observe scientifically, that's something we assume to be empirical. Such is a basic assumption of science. Some people don't agree with it, and that's their prerogative... however they shouldn't hope to receive recommendations for working in a scientific field, then.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2003-02-11 14:56 ]</font>

nebularian: But these students weren't trying to use the laws and courts to force the rest of the world to believe their "silly ideas." They were using the laws and courts to fight for their first amendment right to freedom of religion.

I don't see it that way at all. Nobody has a right to a letter of recommendation. It is a privilege, granted or not granted, by the letter writer, on grounds that are arbitrary & subjective. The way I see it, the students are not fighting for any freedom. Rather, they are fighting for the right to force the professor, by law, against his will, to write letters of recommendation, even for students who do not (in his view) deserve it. That is an obnoxious assault on the professor's freedom, and goes far beyond the measure of protecting any freedom of the students.

kilopi: Dini's posting of the criteria was fairly obnoxious of itself--I figure he was just itching for this furor. Should we deny him his fun?

He may indeed have expected it, I wouldn't know. But it seems better, to me, that he posts the criteria clearly, ahead of time. Everybody knows what to expect, and prospective letter seekers know where not to bother. It's better than sneaking up on some poor student who expects a letter that they either won't get, or won't like.

It may well be that discussions of evolutionary biology are outside the scope of this board. But certainly not discussions of the viability of cosmology & astrophysics (stellar evolutiuon, for instance). Those are the areas I have concentrated on over the years.

So, to you, "how do you account for the scientific origins..." reads as what is your personal account? I read it as "what is the scientific account". Probably just a matter of semantics.

These discussions on this topic have raised two legal issues. The first question is whether the professor's policy discriminates against religion. The second question is whether such discrimination is illegal. The discussion between myself and JSP concerns the first question, while TT's posts address the second question. The first question is certainly very complicated, but it wouldn't matter, because of the resolution of the second question:

With respect to the second issue, several cases have discussed the right to a letter of recommendation. Pantchenko v. C.B. Dolge Co., 581 F.2d 1052, 1055 (2nd Cir.1978) (allegation that refusal to provide reference was in retaliation for filing EEOC charge sufficient to avoid summary judgment). Similar results have been reached when unfavorable recommendations have been given in retaliation for exercising a protected right. See, e.g., Smith v. Secretary of Navy, 659 F.2d 1113, 1121 (D.C.Cir. 1981); London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 817-18 (9th Cir.1981); Shehadeh v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 193 U.S. App. D.C. 326, 595 F.2d 711, 722-23 (D.C.Cir.1978); Czarnowski v. DeSoto, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 1252, 1258 (N.D.Ill.1981); see also Rutherford v. American Bank of Commerce, 565 F.2d 1162 (10th Cir.1977) (prospective employer informed of applicant's EEOC charge); Sparrow v. Piedmont Health Sys. Agency, Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1107, 1119 (M.D.N.C. 1984) (agency's retaliatory refusal to provide a letter of recommendation violated Title VII). What distinguishes these cases from the Texas Tech case is that it is not the department that has such policy, but instead an individual professor. Since there are many other professors from whom a student can receive recommendations, it is impossible to prove harm as a result of the individual professor's refusal to provide one. If it were the policy of the biology department, then this would be a vastly different case.

Some hold by the "God did a poor job, so God didn't do it!" argument.

Yet complex systems, even "poorly designed" ones all require a Creator. Not all pocket combs or airplanes are "perfectly designed", but only a fool would deny that they were created. The easy to state, testable, repeatable falsifiable hypothesis is: "All complex systems owe their existence to acts of creation by one or more intelligent beings". We have billions of confirming experiments & observations, & no falsifying ones, making this a principle of science.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2003-02-11 18:15 ]</font>

I have seen systems of sand dunes that were vastly more orderly than any comb.

Silas

And the atoms that make up the sand dunes are even more ordered!

Creation by a transcendent Creator predicts that man will never figure out "reasons" for everything. If he would, the Creator would not be transcendent. Since neither Creationists nor Evolutionists can truly explain the reason for everything screams out about this transcendence.

How did this thread escape my attention until now? I don't know, but I suspect it's not a miracle.

This ain't astronomy. Take it to another board if you want to argue religion. I may open a creationism forum at some point, if I ever get my act together to debunk creationist astronomy.

But even then, I won't allow a straight evolution/creation debate here. Locked.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com