Religious discrimination

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The entire point with biology is that evolutionary theory completely underpins the entire pursuit. Without evolutionary theory it degenerates to little more than stamp collecting.


[edit; and my point with English is not whether you personally would teach it, but philosophically whether you would mandate its teaching with core elements removed.]

I know what your point was, I was jus taking the piss. I have taken many biology courses myself, and consider myself very knowledgable in some areas of biological science. Yet in all of my studies I have only learned of the idea of evolution. While it may be of great interest to understand specifically why we came to be how we are, it is not necessary in order to have a good understanding of how biological systems work in the present. Not teaching grammer in an english class would be akin to not teaching about basic biological structures such as DNA. Not teaching about evolution is more akin to not teaching about the latin routes of all the words. It is useful information that comes in handy when you're not sure what a word means, but it is not a necessary prerequisite for being able to write well. That being said, any form of god or creationism has no place in a science classroom as they are strictly matters of faith, so one would hope that anyone with a PhD would know enough to treat them as such.

Originally posted by whiterose
I know what your point was, I was jus taking the piss. I have taken many biology courses myself, and consider myself very knowledgable in some areas of biological science. Yet in all of my studies I have only learned of the idea of evolution. While it may be of great interest to understand specifically why we came to be how we are, it is not necessary in o ...[text shortened]... ers of faith, so one would hope that anyone with a PhD would know enough to treat them as such.

You clearly equate evolution with the historical decendancy of life. That is not the case. The theory of Evolution not only covers the past but also the present including Natural Selection, population dynamics and many other areas of Biology at the species level, at the individual level and at the gene level.
How can you learn about DNA without understanding how it interacts with itself and the rest of the organism? How can you study diseases without understanding the evolutionary aspects?
Biology without evolution is like a creationist studying geology or astronomy. You can see rocks and collect them, you can see stars and catalog them, but if you don't study how they work and where they came from then you are "stamp collecting" as scottishinnz put it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly equate evolution with the historical decendancy of life. That is not the case. The theory of Evolution not only covers the past but also the present including Natural Selection, population dynamics and many other areas of Biology at the species level, at the individual level and at the gene level.
How can you learn about DNA without understan ...[text shortened]... ow they work and where they came from then you are "stamp collecting" as scottishinnz put it.

You do not necessarily have to study where something came from to understand how it works. I agree that natural selection and the concept of population dynamics are key aspects of biology. However, since you can apparently have a PhD in biology and be a creationist (as I am assuming evangelical christians are), then the concept of creationism, which deals with the past, is not at odds with the concepts of natural selection and population dynamics as they occur in the present. Therefore, the only possible difference in evangelical teaching would be that life came from god instead of evolving from non-life. While this concept is non-scientific and should be kept out of the classroom, it does not preclude the teaching of current scientific concepts such as population dynamics and the epidemiology and pathology of disease.

Originally posted by whiterose
You do not necessarily have to study where something came from to understand how it works. I agree that natural selection and the concept of population dynamics are key aspects of biology. However, since you can apparently have a PhD in biology and be a creationist (as I am assuming evangelical christians are), then the concept of creationism, which deals ...[text shortened]... t scientific concepts such as population dynamics and the epidemiology and pathology of disease.

Not all people who call themselves 'evangelical Christians' are creationists.

Many creationists accept what they term micro-evolution, while claiming that it is limited and has certain constraints which make the full Theory of Evolution invalid. However they are never quite able to put a finger on what those limits are.

The issue of how life got started is not covered by the Theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not all people who call themselves 'evangelical Christians' are creationists.

Many creationists accept what they term micro-evolution, while claiming that it is limited and has certain constraints which make the full Theory of Evolution invalid. However they are never quite able to put a finger on what those limits are.

The issue of how life got started is not covered by the Theory of Evolution.

Didn't what we call life supposedly evolve from "non-living" organisms? If evangelical christians are not creationists, then there should be no problem with them teaching anything differently in a biology class, as was previously implied. If they are teaching creationism at this university, but still accept the concept of micro-evolution, then there should still be no problem with them teaching anything differently as specifics of macro-evolution are not usually taught in biology anyway. If they do not accept even the concept of micro-evolution, then it would be impossible for them to find someone with a PhD in biology willing to teach for them.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Exactly! But it's an educational establishment (apparently). Isn't unbiased education more important than that? Shouldn't the government have the right to arbitrate educational standards and enforce minimum standards? Should this institution be allowed to use the title University (which has a specific definition, in that it has the ability to confer legally recognised degrees)?

Unbiased education? A fascinating concept. Here's a case in point:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

Dr. Richard Sternberg's perspective:

http://www.rsternberg.net/publication_details.htm

A hasty google search didn't yield any link to the Smithsonian's perspective, although I'd love to have their take on the relevant ssue.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I saw this in a job advertisement on an international academic jobs website

A minimum of a Master's degree in Biology, or an associated field, is required. A Ph.D. in Biology is preferred. The successful candidate will document effective classroom teaching and exhibit a commitment to professional development. [b][i]The candidate should be an active e ...[text shortened]... In the EU this would be illegal, but apparently not so in the US. What say ye, good people?

I'm coming to this a bit late Scott, so apologies, but are you really this surprised.
Look at it from the viewpoint of the employer, they can and should be able to hire whoever they like. They are the ones that have to live with whatever hiring situation they decide on.
Now I agree with you that this of course must be done within the law, but assuming that it isn't illegal, they should be able to hire whoever they like.
I'll give you another example: imagine a mining company, who are looking for a geophysicist, being told they have to hire a biologist, because they can't discriminate. Admittedly, slightly different situation - but from the point of view of the employer, this is where they're going to be coming from.

When I applied for my current job - teaching in a Catholic secondary school - it was for a job that required that I 'show support for the Catholic ethos'. Now I'm an atheist, so you might say, how could I do that? Well, I reckon the Catholic ethos is pretty much about loving your brother and I have no problem with that.
And they had no problem with hiring me either.
But they were quite within their rights to look for someone showing such support.
When students come to this and other religious-based schools, they don't have to be Catholic or religious, but when put into the waiting list, Catholic students are placed higher.
I don't have any problems with this, and while the example you cite is a little extreme, it's not surprising. They're a religious institution and will hire people accordingly.
As someone else said, if you weren't an evangelical christian why would you want to work there. You said you'd like the right to work there, but for what purpose. That's carrying anti-discrimination to ridiculous lengths.

Originally posted by amannion
I'm coming to this a bit late Scott, so apologies, but are you really this surprised.
Look at it from the viewpoint of the employer, they can and should be able to hire whoever they like. They are the ones that have to live with whatever hiring situation they decide on.
Now I agree with you that this of course must be done within the law, but assuming tha ...[text shortened]... but for what purpose. That's carrying anti-discrimination to ridiculous lengths.

Sorry Amannion, but your example isn't valid.

Your hypothetical mining company wants to hire a geophysicist. They have two equally qualified, equally skilled applicants. They hire the white one.

Or worse. They have two applicants. One is far more qualified and experienced. And Black. They hire the white one.

Should that be allowed?

Originally posted by Halitose
Unbiased education? A fascinating concept. Here's a case in point:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

Dr. Richard Sternberg's perspective:

http://www.rsternberg.net/publication_details.htm

A hasty google search didn't yield any link to the Smithsonian's perspective, although I'd love to have their take on the relevant ssue.

I believe the problem is more down to the fact that what he was trying to publish was not science. ID is what is known as "speculation".

Originally posted by whiterose
Didn't what we call life supposedly evolve from "non-living" organisms? If evangelical christians are not creationists, then there should be no problem with them teaching anything differently in a biology class, as was previously implied. If they are teaching creationism at this university, but still accept the concept of micro-evolution, then there should ...[text shortened]... would be impossible for them to find someone with a PhD in biology willing to teach for them.

Neither creationism nor ID are scientific - how do you design an experiment to "test" for God? How can this be acceptable? The US judiciary has clearly and roundly rejected ID as a scientific explanation of life on earth.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Neither creationism nor ID are scientific - how do you design an experiment to "test" for God? How can this be acceptable? The US judiciary has clearly and roundly rejected ID as a scientific explanation of life on earth.

You should read through the thread before you post. "While this concept(ID) is non-scientific and should be kept out of the classroom, it does not preclude the teaching of current scientific concepts such as population dynamics and the epidemiology and pathology of disease"
I agree that ID has no place in a biology classroom. I never said it did. I simply said that biology could be taught well at an evangelical christian school.
This does not mean tha they can't teach creationism at all. It is perfectly acceptable to teach it in a class on religion, of which I assume this school has many seeing as the offer advanced degrees in ministry.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Sorry Amannion, but your example isn't valid.

Your hypothetical mining company wants to hire a geophysicist. They have two equally qualified, equally skilled applicants. They hire the white one.

Or worse. They have two applicants. One is far more qualified and experienced. And Black. They hire the white one.

Should that be allowed?

I already explained the difference between religion and race. I am white. Anyone who looks at me can see that. I cannot change it (well, bar some serious surgery, but I don't think that is a viable option for most of us). However, unless I was wearing some sort of religious atttire or other symbol you would not be able to tell what religion I was. I could tell you I was an atheist or an evangelical christian or satanic and you would have to take my word for it because there is no way to check. People can, and do, change their faith on a daily basis. I could be saved tomorrow and learn to love Jesus (very doubtful, but you never know, the jehovah's witnesses are still hopeful). Can you immagine someone comming to your door and trying to convert you to being black? I think the annalogy with the goephysicist and the biologist was a good one. If you don't get hired because you are not a geophysicit, you can always go out and become one if you really want the job. This is not the case for race, but it is the case for religion.

Originally posted by whiterose
I already explained the difference between religion and race. I am white. Anyone who looks at me can see that. I cannot change it (well, bar some serious surgery, but I don't think that is a viable option for most of us). However, unless I was wearing some sort of religious atttire or other symbol you would not be able to tell what religion I was. I could ...[text shortened]... e if you really want the job. This is not the case for race, but it is the case for religion.

And I'm sorry, but I;m disagreeing with you.

In the case of this job I would be as well qualified (or more qualified than someone with an MSc) as anyone else to teach a biology class. The sole reason I would not get the job would be nothing to do with my competency at the job, but because of another reason (in this case the fact that I am not religious). You tell me that a persons religion is "choice". Try telling that to Lucifershammer or another of the God squad. All religions claim to be the only true one. I contest that none of them are. However, if the claim is true - and one, and only one, of those religions really IS true, is leaving that religion a choice? It's certainly not the same as choosing Ford over Toyota when buying a new car now, is it?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And I'm sorry, but I;m disagreeing with you.

In the case of this job I would be as well qualified (or more qualified than someone with an MSc) as anyone else to teach a biology class. The sole reason I would not get the job would be nothing to do with my competency at the job, but because of another reason (in this case the fact that I am not reli ...[text shortened]... It's certainly not the same as choosing Ford over Toyota when buying a new car now, is it?

You definitely do have a choice in what you believe, and I think the god squad would agree with me. Otherwise why would they be trying to convince people to CHOOSE to be saved? You also have a choice in how you express your beliefs. Every university has a belief system that must be adhered to over and above teaching. You could be a great teacher, and get fired for sleeping with one of your students. This has nothing to do with your knowledge of the subject area, but with your ability to follow the rules of conduct (i.e. belief system) of the university. Since this is an evangelical university, part of their belief system is being an evangelical christian. Therefore, regardless of how good a teacher you may be, you could get fired for not adhering to this belief system. People get fired(or don't get hired) all the time for disagreeing with a company's "mission statement" or "code of conduct" or whatever other label you want to use, and the companies are well within their rights to do so.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And I'm sorry, but I;m disagreeing with you.

In the case of this job I would be as well qualified (or more qualified than someone with an MSc) as anyone else to teach a biology class. The sole reason I would not get the job would be nothing to do with my competency at the job, but because of another reason (in this case the fact that I am not reli ...[text shortened]... It's certainly not the same as choosing Ford over Toyota when buying a new car now, is it?

Wait a minute, your competency at the job IS in question here.
The employers believe that you are NOT competent if you don't have the particular qualification - in this case, membership of a particular religion. Therefore, you're disqualified from the position.