<p>Now I’m totally confused. Here’s what I originally said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other than the fact that you used more specific language, I’m not really sure how that’s different from this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn’t realize you weren’t the person I originally replied to!</p>
<p>I’m glad to know my understanding wasn’t totally off!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Due to the angle at which the light reaches the surface, the poles get far less light per square meter of surface than the tropics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. This has been what I’ve been trying to say, but you said it quite a bit better! ;)</p>
<p>Prejudice does exist, but it’s certainly not right in any way, shape, or fashion. I wouldn’t hire anyone I knew who acted upon prejudice nor do I think highly of them. I suppose that’s my own prejudice…</p>
<p>When a job depends upon something, that’s different. I wouldn’t want anyone who didn’t understand the sun/earth situation teaching astronomy. I wouldn’t want Curious Jane teaching about YEC (based upon her false statement concerning their beliefs about bacteria). (I wouldn’t be qualified to teach about it either without significant more research…I only know the basics.) I wouldn’t want someone not trained in evolution (from believers in it) to teach about it. Learning info solely from those who disagree with it often leads to incorrect info in many fields (politics, religion, whatever). But 99% of jobs aren’t affected by any of the above.</p>
<p>I think the worst info I’ve been officially “taught” was at a NP where a ranger was telling the group the reason wet sand holds together is because water is magnetic. I suppose I’m a “coward” according to some as I didn’t speak up and correct her. (I consider it polite - esp in a group setting.) I did make sure my boys learned about cohesion, adhesion, and polar covalent immediately afterward and didn’t go around repeating the misinformation. I also let them try to move water with a magnet… I never did ask the ranger where she went to college (or if she did). I never asked her religious beliefs or how old she thought the world is. I have wondered how many people heard her info and have repeated it, but it probably doesn’t affect their jobs.</p>
<p>Misinformation happens. It’s not the end of the world. If I were hiring, I’d make sure she knew the difference in properties of water (and diamagnetism) whether she were teaching it or not for my job, but if it weren’t related to her job, I wouldn’t discriminate against her as a candidate. I can probably go up to almost any non-science involved adult and find some incorrect “knowledge” they have. It’ll all depend upon what their experiences have been and what their memory is like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, your live and let live would indeed extend to the job applicant whom you know attends Ku Klux Klan rallies on the side? What’s the limit of your tolerance? It’s awfully liberal to be so intolerant …
</p>
<p>As a non-science person, I undoubtedly have plenty of “incorrect knowledge” (and I didn’t have any clue about what you’re talking about re the seasons / temp not being dependent on how close the sun is, as I’ve never taken a physics or astronomy class in my life). However, my personal “ignorance” isn’t the issue here. If I had attended a class at my college on those topics, they would have taught scientific truth, not deliberate falsehoods. LIberty does. That’s enough to make me think less of it.</p>
<p>Misinformation HAPPENS, but that doesn’t mean colleges should be given a pass for perpetuating it. The majority of adults couldn’t tell you the name of a current Supreme Court justice, but that doesn’t give a college a pass for teaching that the current justices are Mickey Mouse, Elvis Presley and Taylor Swift.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given some of the recent decisions, Mickey, Elvis, and Taylor could probably do a better job.</p>
<p>
Hmm. What if, just as an example, you were interviewing a person for a job in business or law, and he happened to mention that the stork brings babies. You think he’s joking, but when you probe, he tells you that this is what his mother taught him, and he believes that his mother always tells the truth. You ask him, what about all the biology you learned in school? It must be wrong, he says. Would you have any concerns about hiring this person for a position of responsibility? I think I would feel that he wasn’t very bright, or that he was very gullible, or maybe nuts. But it’s hard to draw a line. If he mentions that he believes in the parting of the Red Sea, I wouldn’t have the same reaction (although others might). Believing in Young Earth Creationism is perhaps somewhere in the middle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re still not getting it - one should be reasonably able to trust that what is being taught in a college classroom is in keeping with historical and scientific fact. </p>
<p>To use Hunt’s example, whether or not a given individual believes that the stork brings babies, no college should actually be TEACHING that the stork brings babies. And you can’t excuse a college teaching that the stork brings babies by saying, “Oh well, some people might believe that, and other people might not.” But that’s what you do when you suggest, “Oh well, some people might believe YEC and others might not.” Irrelevant. What counts is the truth of what the college is doing / teaching. They are teaching a deliberate falsehood when there is universal agreement among scientists to the contrary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And here’s where your argument falls apart. There isn’t universal agreement with this topic. There are plenty of PhD carrying folks are on those faculty pages with PhDs from all secular colleges. It’s a minority view, that’s for certain, but it’s not universal as you’re falsely claiming. The handful of folks I know who are YEC aren’t academically dumb. That’s what spurred my curiosity in the first place way back when. They just align with the minority view. Since their view doesn’t affect today’s reality (whether medical, biological, or whatever), I see no harm in it. It’s in no way equal to the stork/baby suggestion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having never been to a KKK rally, I’m not quite sure how I’d know who goes to them. Do I take someone else’s word? What if they’re wrong? Did it come up in an interview? If so, I’d seriously question the applicant’s people skills. If someone goes to meetings, but in reality works well with everyone they come into contact with, I’d see no reason to discriminate. Working with others might actually help change their views. If someone has harassment issues on the job (for any reason), that’s it’s own issue and will be dealt with - no discrimination - just policy.</p>
<p>It’s tough to want to limit tolerance. The more I read of recent history in China - esp the Cultural Revolution where having an education meant intolerance - or current issues in the Middle East (whose right is right?) the more I advocate for tolerance and living + let live. As soon as we start dictating the way one MUST believe (in issues that don’t matter for the job), trouble begins. Whoever “wins” is only the most powerful, not necessarily the “right” ideology as has been proven over and over.</p>
<p>I don’t think they’re teaching a deliberate falsehood. I guess my problem is that I think that a scientist who believes in YEC is, by definition, academically dumb. It’s one thing to believe that a miracle happened–it’s something else to try to convince yourself that the scientific evidence confirms that the miracle happened when it doesn’t. As I said before, I think I’d feel better about this if the YEC people simply admitted the evidence is against their position and say they don’t know why God did it that way.</p>
<p>Let me put it this way: is there a single YEC adherent who doesn’t also believe in Biblical inerrancy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no idea. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This has been on my mind during work this morning. Has there EVER been a time in history where shunning someone or forcing them into a lower level of society has “worked” to change an inner belief? I’m not talking about the “convert or die” aspect common throughout history - that might have changed actions, but not beliefs. I’m talking about inner beliefs.</p>
<p>If we were to take kids at school who are racist and tell them, “we’re not letting you take classes with _______” do you think that would change their opinions?</p>
<p>If we were to take adult racists and not let them work with ______ do you think that would change their opinions?</p>
<p>Did sending the academic elites to the work farms in China or Cambodia help with relations?</p>
<p>How about the whole Middle East situation? Does it help when we separate those with differing beliefs?</p>
<p>Has it helped GLBT people gain acceptance by the majority deciding they wouldn’t want to hire them due to their minority view being different? (Remember, majority doesn’t make right, but nonetheless, it’s a majority view (still) so fits the question.)</p>
<p>IME, the only way to possibly change opinions is to let people interact and bring down the stereotypes through that interaction. Yes, we don’t want to tolerate actions and do what we can punishment-wise to see that actions don’t happen, but to truly change beliefs, ostracizing won’t work. It will only lead to greater stereotyping and polarization - then wars of all sorts.</p>
<p>Interaction might not work, but sometimes - many times - it does.</p>
<p>
There’s a clear difference between “misinformation” and intentionally conveying information which completely contradicts the evidence. If you had gone aside and mentioned to the magnetic water speaker that water is not, indeed, magnetic, and she might want to look into properties X and Y, and she had said that she was well aware of the evidence but chooses to believe otherwise because the bible says so, that would be different than her just not knowing the correct property.</p>
<p>
Why are the only options “tolerance = silence” and “dictating the way one MUST believe”? Speaking out against a view and it’s resulting behavioral consequences, arguing a counter position, is not “being tolerant”, but neither is it “dictating”.</p>
<p>Funny - the place you’re defending - Liberty U - certainly isn’t an advocate of “letting people interact and bringing stereotypes down.” Which they don’t have to be, of course - but it’s amusing that you’re defending it. I mean, their whole worldview is based on - if something doesn’t fit our preconceived notion of biblical inerrancy, out it goes! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s intellectually honest for a professor to say, “The vast majority of scientists / learned people in my field assert X, and here’s why - X1, X2, X3. I, myself believe the minority view of Y, and here’s why - Y1, Y2, Y3.” That’s not what Liberty is doing, however. They are just putting their heads in the sand and pretending X (X1, X2, X3) don’t even exist. What’s laudable about that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My not hiring a Liberty grad for a position because I have questions about their academic chops is not = “dictating the way they MUST believe.” They are, of course, fully free to believe that the earth is 6000 years old and the moon is made of green cheese too if they like. But part of the consequence of holding beliefs outside what is commonly accepted science is bearing the consequences of those choices. I’m obligated to “let” you believe that the earth is 6000 years old. I’m not obligated to hire you to teach a fifth-grade science class or work in a lab.</p>
<p>PG-you are now now talking out of your hat. You have no idea what or how the class on creation versus evolution is taught, do you? They are doing essentially what you just said they do not–here is what they say, here is what we see and here’s how we explain what they say vrsus what we say. </p>
<p>[Creationist</a> students visit evolution headquarters: The Smithsonian – Science & Technology – Sott.net](<a href=“http://www.sott.net/articles/show/178997-Creationist-students-visit-evolution-headquarters-The-Smithsonian]Creationist”>http://www.sott.net/articles/show/178997-Creationist-students-visit-evolution-headquarters-The-Smithsonian)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They aren’t the only options. Around the lunch table and with friends in appropriate settings I do support the way I believe on various topics - as do we all. </p>
<p>What I won’t let it affect is any hiring decisions unless it’s necessary for the job (a credential or people skills issue). The only time I tend to be quiet about my personal views or take whatever the opposing side is (not with YEC) is when I’m dealing with kids at school and teaching them to think and/or see where the other side is coming from. And there are times when I support my views there too - like with true tolerance. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is getting kind of old. Please go back to several posts I’ve written where I’ve specifically said I’m not defending the institution, but rather, individuals. Sometimes I wonder if you actually read posts or just stereotype everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you stated you thought the individual was intelligent, not a Bible thumper, yada, yada, yada, until you learned he had a Liberty undergrad degree. To me, that speaks of discrimination and stereotyping. You said you didn’t even know why he went there or what he now believes. That’s what got me speaking up in this post (other than the fact that for a degree after a job, it won’t matter where the OP gets it from in the vast majority of the cases). I hate intolerance. I can’t always fix it, but I can point it out when I see it. ;)</p>
<p>
You are, as it were, intolerant of intolerance. Do you point it out to yourself? ;)</p>
<p>The ACLU is famous for defending the rights of the unpopular opinion holders from far left groups to the KKK. </p>
<p>[Case</a> of the Month October 1999](<a href=“http://www.aclufl.org/take_action/students/case_of_the_month/1999/faqs1099.cfm]Case”>http://www.aclufl.org/take_action/students/case_of_the_month/1999/faqs1099.cfm)</p>
<p>He’s still intelligent, he’s still not a Bible thumper (at least in a workplace context). For all I know, he was forced to go there by his parents, or won some fabulous scholarship and otherwise couldn’t have afforded college. I guess I’ll revise my statement to say that it realy surprised me because he didn’t fit the stereotype, which I suppose is a good thing. I absolutely wouldn’t treat him any differently in a work context now. The funny thing is, I did hire him to work for me at one point (he worked for a competing company that had shut down, so my company was grabbing onto the rising young stars, of which he was one) but I must not have noticed that on his resume or known anything about it as it was probably 15 years ago. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the article you linked. Hey, good for them if they are visiting the Smithsonian, etc. But if most paleontologists date the T-Rex to 65 mm years ago, how can anyone with any scientific background stand there and say the earth is 6000 years old?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good for them! I don’t agree with every single thing the ACLU does. I do agree one could make a good case that you could refuse to hire the Liberty-educated science teacher, but not the Liberty-educated accountant. Though practically speaking how would you ever prove it - no one has a “right” to be hired for any given job. You’re sounding awfully liberal there barrons - all those years in Madison must have gotten to you :-)</p>
<p>And anyway, there is a difference IMO between holding unpopular OPINIONS and incorrect FACTS. Justin Bieber is a better singer than the Beatles is a (hopefully unpopular) opinion. Justin Bieber has sold more records than the Beatles is a (hopefully inaccurate) fact.</p>