would you hire someone

who believed in creationism or intelligent design instead of evolution. especially if it was for any job requiring science or math skills?

I know I wouldnt. belief in that crap show a lack of critical thinking ability and would make me question both their education and their ability to make logical reason based decisions

:shrug:

;)

I think everyone should who.

is also on the radio.

No, no!

First Base: Who
Second Base: What
Third Base: I Don't Know
Left field: Why
Center field: Because
Pitcher: Tomorrow
Catcher: Today
Shortstop: I Don't Care/I Don't Give a Darn/I Don't Give a Damn


http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirstTEXT.html

:hi:

I woo not want everyone who works for me to have the same religious (or non-religious) beliefs as me. I work with people of various religions, some with a multitude of deities.

But, I am at the bottom of the company totem pole. I coo not hire anyone.

:hi:

but when those beliefs replace science thats where i draw the line

If not, who cares?

as presented in the textbook. If they couldn't do that then they have no business being in a classroom.

Rejecting science for fairy-tales is certainly cause for passing over someone for a scientific or technical position.

and it's saying, "HELL NO!"

du so funny

to do the job, absolutely.

if i start hiring and not, per political beliefs, then i have to be ok with the other side doing the same thing

one of the things i love most about the teachers here in very red amarillo, is that though they have a different political view, they have ALWAYS allowed my children to express differing views, with absolute respect. i admire and value that ability in a person and especially in a teacher for children. it teaches the children a valuable lesson. it is easy to teach to all that agree with your views. it takes character to do it with people that dont agree with your views.

errors lest their education and their ability to make logical reason based decisions be questioned.

it was. I mean if someone brings that up right away "I believe in intelligent design" you have to know what they believe and why they belive it - are they are a "young earth creationist?"

On the other hand if they simply believe in a creating God - one who seems to operate through natural laws, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Bryant

Should a conservative Muslim be allowed to be a physician or surgeon?

There are many jobs that require science or math skills. Lots of people believe lots of "crazy" or unconventional things. An absolutely brilliant web page designer I know strongly believes in healing crystals and in the literal existence of fairies. Does that interfere in his work one little bit? of course not.

I don't think someone who believes in creationism or intelligent design should probably be a genetic researcher. In that case there is a direct link between their beliefs and their research analysis. But it is fairly unlikely that someone with those beliefs would want to be a genetic researcher anyway.

Most people are able to separate to some degree their religious beliefs from the practicality of their work.

If we start eliminating everyone from jobs that require a science or math background who lacks critical thinking in at least some aspect of their worldview - we would end up eliminating at least half the population from most highly skilled jobs.

A free society requires the largest possible range of people with the largest possible range of beliefs or no beliefs. If we start persecuting or discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs we are opening a huge and very, very dangerous Pandora's box.

if there were three candidates and you hired one based solely on his skills and it turned out in the end that he was a creationist...

Instead of pre-judging someone's intelligence based on his or her beliefs.


What a radical idea.

I don't care if it has nothing to do with their job. For a science job, probably not.

Wait a minute.





Okay, go.
:popcorn:

But you'd like that too much wouldn't you Leto?

But I have worked in a biotech lab with a creationist. And even though his arguments against evolution were out and out stupid, he was actually good at his job. However since we used to joke that trained monkeys could do our jobs, that's pretty ironic I suppose..,

If I was involved in selecting for a job, it probably *would* be a job that involved maths or science, and I would not want to select someone who was explicitly anti-science.

However, I wouldn't feel it my job to investigate what they believed inwardly, so long as they were willing to do the job properly and not 'conscientiously object' to it. I don't believe in 'thought police'.

and I would consider it unethical to devise a question that flies under the legal radar but still asked about a protected item of information, I think your question is mostly moot. There is, however, one scenario I can think of where I might be presented with this dilemma, and that is if the candidate volunteered the information in conversation. At that point, it becomes less about their critical thinking skills and level of education and more about "team fit". People who assert such faith in conversations where I am required by law to avoid the issue tend to ask their coworkers point blank if they've "accepted Jesus as their lord and savior." That kind of evangelism in the workplace can cause problems.

could hire neither someone who would emphasize creationism, intelligent design, or the opposite extreme, which would be that of emphasizing the impossibility of either of those. Science deals solely with objective, empirical evidence and to say that there is evidence for or against an intelligent designer is a completely subjective evaluation and consequently is nothing more than personal opinion or educated guess. Today we have some very educated and respected scholars who do hold and proclaim these extreme POV's at either end of the spectrum, but their opinions are nonetheless based on their personal interpretations and NOT on empirical evidence.

Baylor School of Medicine.

Duke School of Medicine.

Georgetown School of Medicine.

Yeshiva School of Medicine.

Loyola School of Medicine.

Two bible thumpers, one Hebrew, and two holy mackerels.

Spirits in the sky and medicine?

teach creationism as scientific truth? Not all religionistas do.

I don't know that any teach creationism as scientific truth, rather religious doctrine.

I believe we have evolved to the point that a person can have religion and do the math.

when we developed the capacity for Cognitive Dissonance.

Or at least learn how to use Google.

http://www.nwcreation.net/colleges.html

And yes, a person CAN be religious and not be a creationist, but the majority of Christians in this country believe in Biblical creationism.

I'm a bit ascetic though not for religious reasons.

I thought your question was specific to what I posted of the five medical schools.

Didn't mean to sound snarky. Sorry if that's how it came across.

As a skeptic have you given any thought as to what will happen when the religious right buys Google?

Or starts passing laws to control the web? Have I missed that too? LOL

that the earth is only 6000 to 10000 years old, then I would venture to guess that most Christians do not adhere to such a belief. The Catholic Church does not teach that, nor do many other Christian denominations. However, I really don't know the statistics on the matter. But, if you are referring to creationism generically as there simply being a creator, then the number would be close to 100%, I would suppose. In the latter case, you could probably refer to it as intelligent design.

and lousy guessing at that. If you'd bother to actual find anything out, you'd know the fact that polls consistently show 40-50% of ALL Americans believe that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago. Among Christians, (who make up 75% of the population) the number is higher than 50%. In the world the rest of us inhabit, that would be a majority, just as I asserted. Not sure how the math works on out your planet.

By the 2010 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, from which members in the United States are combined with Canadian members, and of the National Council of Churches, the five largest denominations are:

The Catholic Church, 68,115,001 members
The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,228,438 members
The United Methodist Church, 7,853,987 members
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,974,041 members
The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members

Out of these it is well known that the Catholic Church and the United Methodist Church don't advocate the young earth theory of 6-10000 years. Those numbers would indicate that you are probably quoting something you got from an bogus website. However, they all adhere to a Creator.

The truth of something doesn't have thing one to do with the personality, attitude or demeanor of the person stating it. Even if it did, you could verify the facts I gave you very easily, but you're obviously afraid to. Allow me:

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-poll-on-young-earth-creationism.html

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/how-many-christians-are-young-earth-creationists-t6197.html

http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

All bogus web sites? Right.


As usual, you're basing your arguments on sloppy and intellectually dishonest arguments, starting with the assumption that because YEC isn't the official position of a CHURCH, that you can make some judgement from that about what individual members believe. Check how many Catholics use artificial birth control to demonstrate how silly that notion is.

1/3 to 40%, much less than the over 50% you claim. Also, on the Rational Skepticism site it states, "There are two ways to measure this:
1. By position statements made by denominations (though this may will be ignored by their constituents)
2. By surveys of individuals (whom may or may not be in agreement with the official position of their denomination, if they have one.)

I used #1

It appears that we both based our positions "on sloppy and intellectually dishonest arguments." If you are going to quote sources that support your argument, then use sources that support your argument, not your opponent's.

Also, it is claimed that truly accurate percentage isn't possible for a variety of reasons.

that I took those numbers from a single "bogus website" I figured I'd put that to rest first. Unless you'd like to demonstrate that ALL of those websites and the polls they cite are nothing but lies, you should just admit that you were full of it.

And the poll reports exactly what I claimed...that 40-50% of ALL Americans have consistently professed belief in young earth Biblical creationism. The numbers are 44, 47, 44, 47, 45, 45, 46, 43, 44, 40 (nowhere does it get down to 1/3). The 50% or over that I claimed is for CHRISTIANS, who make up only about 75-80% of the population. Do the math (if you can). And next time, try to actually read and understand my argument before you try to attack it.

The sloppiness and intellectual dishonesty here are entirely yours. As usual. Using #1 had no rational basis, and was clearly wrong, as I demonstrated, but since using bad reasoning was the only way to support your argument, you did it. And no, no poll is 100% accurate..who ever claimed otherwise? Silly and transparent strawman. But when the same poll with the same question gives such similar results over so many years, you can rationally conclude that the real numbers aren't wildly different from that.

it is well pointed out that that poll or any poll can only give a very qualitative answer because so many factors can be added or changed. You have really nothing to back your claim of a majority of Christians are YEC's. All BS and blather as usual.

As was stated,"If you torture statistics enough, you can make them confess to anything." You are definitely torturing statistics here. GIGO, or If you ask subjective questions you get subjective answers.

when it realizes that its attempt at substantive arguments have been blasted out of the water.

This was NOT one poll. It was many polls, conducted over decades, all giving essentially the same result. A blanket dismissal of giving any weight to any of that puts the burden on the denier.

If 43% of all Americans believe in Biblical YEC, and 80% of American are Xstians, all it takes is arithmetic, not "torturing statistics" to get to a majority.

are YEC's. It is as simple as that. "If 43% of all Americans believe in Biblical YEC, and 80% of American are Xstians, all it takes is arithmetic, not "torturing statistics" to get to a majority." - that statement substantially says nothing. You are indeed torturing statistics because there are so many different ways to present the questions.

Show me an unbiased poll of a large representative sample of American Christians that asks the question, "Do you believe that the earth and all of its inhabitants were created by God out of nothingness 6000 to 10000 years ago? Not "Were human beings created, IN THEIR PRESENT FORM BY GOD, 6000-10000 years ago? Huge difference. Were there humans before that time unlike the present form?

Yes, you are indeed torturing statistics and trying to make them say something that they do not say.

Though not surprised. And finding this tactic laughably ironic after seeing truly irrelevant numbers flung around in a truly tortured way in post #50.

premise is wrong, which it is here. And you still have yet to provide even a shred of support for your claim. The poll itself does not address YEC. It addresses the origin of humanity as it exists today. To get the right answers you need to ask the right questions. Your "scientific poll" does not do that.

This is the exact same shit that went down during the presidential elections of '04 and '08. Pundits and politicians on both sides would constantly state "polls don't matter" and "you can make a poll say anything you want to" when they were confronted with polling data they didn't like, and then they turned around the next day and told everyone who would listen about the poll that said their candidate was ahead or their issue was most important.

That shit gets old. A scientific poll is a scientific poll, and in this case, with repeatability and statistical relevance, the poll in question here is a pretty solid measure of American sentiment on Young Earth Creationism.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

please display it. I prefer primary and secondary sources, which are much less liable to subjective interpretation.

"much less liable to subjective interpretation."
:rofl:

Catholics use "artificial" birth control. Well of course they do. It would be against the teachings of the Church if they used "real" birth control wouldn't it? You're very entertaining.

Well no, actually kind of a shitty try. The point was that just because the RCC's official position is that artificial contraception is not to be used by Catholics, that doesn't mean that a lot of Catholics don't believe and do otherwise, and that similarly, just because a CHURCH doesn't have YEC as it's official doctrine doesn't mean that many of its individual members can't. What your silly distinction between "artificial" and "real" here might be is not even comprehensible. Catholics CAN use "natural" birth control.

Next time, engage thought process first before typing.

You've projected your opinion that all catholics hold a belief that isn't part of church doctrine and then attempt to support your opinion by a poll that demonstrates less than half hold that belief.

The fact the catholics use birth control does not support your argument. It demonstrates that they do choose what doctrines they will follow. Absent a doctrine, there is no support to claim they would as a majority support YEC or not support YEC. The poll states the higher the educational level the less the belief in YEC. The same would hold true for birth control, my projection on that subject is the higher the educational level the more the use of birth control. That's just my opinion.

As a total of those catholics polled, less than 43% believe in YEC, that number is dependent on the question asked.

From the Baltimore Catechism: Q. Who made the world? A. God made the world. Put in this context, it would make sense that catholics would answer, god made the world. It's exactly how the question is asked and answered. A good poller would know that.

In support of your claim that a majority of catholics believe in YEC, the evidence of the poll does not support your claim. 43<50

Your frustration at this point is noted. As this makes three people who have tried to have a civil discussion on this topic with you, it may be a reasonable idea to reconsider your basis for the opinion you're presenting.

Personal attacks couched in your responses are also noted.

before you respond to it. You've demonstrated again that you don't.. Can you point to EXACTLY where I ever said that a majority of Catholics believe in YEC? We both know you can't, because I said no such thing. I said that a majority of CHRISTIANS believe in YEC (the poll applied to ALL Americans, not just Christians-do the math, for cripes sake). Do you not get the difference? Or did you just find it necessary to deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent my argument? If you'd like civility, try injecting a little intellectual integrity and grasp of the facts into your posts, and you might get some. Until you do, yes, you'll find that I don't suffer fools gladly or politely.

The poll is all americans. 100%

The majority of americans are christians. 80%

Your declaration on doing the math to get to 50% believe in creationism.

Humblebums query that you mean that the 50% believe in YEC?

Humblebums presents the figures of christians by denomination.

Catholics make up the majority of christians.

Humblebums counter argument: catholics do not adhere to YEC as doctrine.

Your declaration the the poll numbers demonstrate: the majority of christians believe in YEC.

Your statement: "point to were I ever said that a majority of catholics believe in YEC"

Summation: As the majority of Americans are christian and the majority of christians are catholic,
the case can be made that catholics in the majority believe in YEC.

What other evidence exists to point to this possibility? Birth control.

As catholics use birth control counter to the church rule, what's to say they don't adhere to YEC.

I think I grasp your argument.

And I have no desire to waste more time trying to enlighten you.

The issue is not the average believer holds views consistent with their denomination or accept or reject creationism/intelligent design/young Earth, but the person who might conduct research. Indeed, the very Gallup poll sited by your sources provides a different picture of such a candidate.



The person with more education will not only accept evolution, but will very likely accept some religiosity. Moreover, more Catholics would reject Biblical literalism than other Christians.

the issue is that 40-50% of ALL Americans believe in young earth Biblical creationism, and that a majority of Christians in this country do. Polls have consistently shown that for many, many years.

... to argue that Catholics may not hold a view consistent with their church's doctrine?

1. I'm using the results of THE SAME SURVEY. The second chart, specifically referring to belief in Biblical literalism by denomination, is the survey that Gallop did a few years earlier.

2. Only a few years ago, it shows that views among Catholics did not hold views on the Bible that would lead them to reject scientific views for religious reasons out of hand.

3. More educated people--the kind of people who would do scientific work--who are religious do not themselves largely hold views on religion that would cause them to reject scientific views out of hand. (Let's not pretend that someone without the sufficient education would even be considered for such work in this day before their religiosity was called into account.)

I'm using the Gallup survey to show that 40-50% of all Americans have consistently professed belief in YEC. Read please, and comprehend, before you respond.

That individual Catholics may not hold a view consistent with RCC doctrine doesn't even need a poll to demonstrate it for an intelligent person, but I'm sure I could find one if you need to be convinced. That was not my primary point though. It was only made to torpedo the unfounded argument of another responder.

I missed somewhere that humblebum had broadened the question to include all Christians. However, ALL THREE citings that you made YOURSELF are derived from the same Gallup poll that I cited, putting your second point in doubt. Whether or not individual Catholic may hold views consistent with doctrine IN OTHER AREAS is irrelevant since their views on Biblical literalism are MORE GERMAINE. That those divergences may be more secular (use of birth control) than what the RCC teaches doesn't strengthen your point.

"the majority of christians...."

There are two lines of discussion here. One "All" americans vs christians. YEC vs god created man.

The polling as far as I see supports the majority of americans support god created man line.

Specifically, less than half support YEC. When asked that question.

Christians by denomination have differ nt views. The larger RC not supporting YEC as polled.

What this has to do with the ability to comprehend science is well...I leave that up to you.

... views on creationism? You obviously didn't. It also seems silly to call it "Bible Thumping."

Modern Orthodox Judaism? That is a misnomer isn't it? I only know four Orthodox Jews, I think they are Orthodox compared to the Reformed Jews I know, they are definitely Orthodox by that standard and the subject has never come up. But, I will ask.

Bible Thumping is a common term here in Virginia. I apologize if that offends you.

I've known decent biologists and chemists--we're talking grad students at Tier 1 research institutions--that were creationists of some sort. Didn't matter. Data are data.

It didn't even alter one biologist's dissertation. He nicely went through all the data in his diss, showing how his analysis made predictions about speciation. That's evolutionary bread-and-butter stuff. Except for the fact that the guy was in on a conversation in which a mutual friend said that all creationists are idiots and probably wouldn't even graduate with their bachelors he'd have never brought it up. After all, he said, every science has evolution at its core.

So this guy stayed under cover and asked the guy mouthing off exactly how evolutionary biology affected his science. He was an astrophysicist looking at stellar formation. "Lots of speciation in those stellar nebulae?" The guy admitted that it didn't matter. Physics? "No." Chemistry? "No." Electronics? "No." Civil engineering? "No." Mathematics? "No." Metallurgy? "No." It only really counts in biology. It only really counts in certain kinds of biology. There are alternative ways to "get" pretty much all the same relevant insights of evolutionary theory for nearly everything but discussing biological evolution. After all, "evolution" is a nice catch-term but it's really speciation that ticks off old-Earth creationists. That's what this guy was. He seemed content.

Later they had a heated discussion about characters in Babylon 5. Would Delenn do X, would Sheridan do Y. And what about Kosh? The "biological evolution is at the core of every science" guy argued strongly for certain interpretations of characters. "Delenn would never do this." "No, that's not something Sheridan would ever do." At the end, the creationist asked how he could be so certain about such things, certain enough to get actually upset--after all, they're just stories made up for a tv show. Yet the evolutionist had managed to "get into" a fictional world. He assumed its postulates. He had learned that world through weekly broadcasts that he faithfully watched. He looked for inconsistencies and had tried to reconcile them within the constraints of the show.

Now, the difference is that for all his strongly held beliefs the evolutionist knew, when he backed up, that it was fiction. The ideas put to paper by a given person (whom he'd met, even), and then hired actors to speak while he had them filmed. On the other hand, the biologist still asserted that his view was a higher truth, more correct than evolution. Yet he knew that there was the data and while it didn't refute what he believed--remember that whole "non-falsifiable" business?--nonetheless evolution was the prevailing heuristic on how to interpret them, a hypothesis that had proved to have rich predictive abilities. His beliefs made no predictions. So he used evolution with enough elegance and finesse to defend his dissertation without his advisor having a clue. Don't know if he got a job or not.

This guy used evolution in much the same way I used Chomskian linguistics. I think it's whack. I did even when I was being taught the theory--not to mention when I wrote papers using it, made theory-internal arguments within its confines, and dueled with functionalists as to which was a superior theory. You want to be taken seriously, you want to have a formal, explicitly delimited theory that makes falsifiable predictions, that's the one you use. It's still the one I'd use.

If I were going to hire somebody it wouldn't matter if he was a creationist or not. The point is that analytical rigor and critical thinking skills are correlated with goofy religious beliefs, but no more than that: One can keep them separate with no great effort, esp. if the beliefs have little to say about their discipline. The idea that a thinking person must be ruthlessly consistent in the application of rigorous analytical thinking to all areas of their lives--from data analysis in the lab to choice sexual practices and the breed of dog you buy for your kid--is loony. But once you've conceded that even the most logical person has illogical bits in their thinking and this is okay, you've ceded not just the battleground but the whole theatre of operations.

That sort of thinking does not hinder his or her ability to flip burgers, dig ditches, or be a republican.

:shrug:

People are irrational about lots of things, but they usually compartmentalize their irrationality.

Discrimination on the basis of religion is generally illegal.