Christian Darwinism Darwinism Media News

New York Times’ story about Bryan College prof uproar is really about the New York Times

Spread the love

Profs are said to be departing over being asked to affirm the existence of a historical Adam and Eve. See “Bryan College Is Torn: Can Darwin and Eden Coexist?”

Fetching title.

While not quite “the fantastic cross between a circus and a holy war,” as Time magazine put it, that captivated the nation in 1925, a similar debate is again playing out in Dayton, this time at an evangelical Christian college named for Bryan, which is being sued as part of a controversy over its own stance on the origin of humans.

The continuing debate at Bryan College and beyond is a reminder of how divisive the issues of the Scopes trial still are, even splitting an institution whose motto is “Christ Above All.” Playing out at a time when the teaching of evolution remains a cultural hot spot to a degree that might have stunned its proponents in Bryan’s era, the debate also reflects the problems many Christian colleges face as they try to balance religious beliefs with secular education.

Would the Times like to address the “profs leaving over new evolution statement” in relation to the revival of Darwinian racism by one of its own recently retired writers, Nicholas Wade? Like, can we buy the Darwin without the racism? Can we even have a discussion of this, or do we default back to fetching titles and coy ridicule of fundamentalists (for absolutely no good reason under the circumstances?

No, we didn’t think the Times would like to address that either.

The point of the revival seems to be so far that you can say anything with impunity if you say it in Darwin’s name (the chatterati will listen even if many scientists don’t). And maybe that’s a victory for the Times cocktail set that is worth all the rest.

Except for one small cloud on the horizon, no bigger than a man’s hand. Surveying such a landscape, a broader question arises: In the age of Facebook, Blogger, and Twitter, people can write about themselves at much less expense than the New York Times entails, for the sole purpose of writing about itself and its chatterati class. (We can now get news as such from global resources 24/7, so we don’t need the chats.)

That doubtless explains why the Times’ financial performance has been so poor in recent years. Also, fewer people admire, emulate, or even identify with them. They haven’t performed.

Incidentally, here’s Institute for Creation Research’s take on the thing, from one side of the inside:

The trustees over Tennessee’s Bryan College altered the school’s long-held statement of faith. It used to say, “the origin of man was by [command] of God in the act of creation as related in the Book of Genesis,” but since February it says in part, “We believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. They are historical persons created by God….”1 Some have connected certain faculty members’ disagreement with the clear statement that Adam and Eve were real persons with their departures from the school. Students have circulated petitions and sent dozens of letters to the school board over the change and its fallout. Could these political problems stem from deeper issues?

Apparently, the administration chose not to renew contracts of some of those professors who noted their disagreement with the statement’s re-wording.2 Nine of 44 full-time faculty will not be returning next fall, but the reasons for their departures may also tie to the school’s financially tight times.

Read that and other notes from the field at your own discretion, and don’t bother with the chatterati, whose only purpose in even covering the story is to sneer at everything that both sides of the controversy believe. That was how they used to maintain their power.

But there are no gatekeepers of news now.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “New York Times’ story about Bryan College prof uproar is really about the New York Times

  1. 1
    goodusername says:

    Would the Times like to address the “profs leaving over new evolution statement” in relation to the revival of Darwinian racism by one of its own recently retired writers, Nicholas Wade?

    Why do you keep referring to a single book by someone who has long wrote on the same subject, a “revival”?
    And the Times did address the book. They published a review that you’ve referred to many times.

    can we buy the Darwin without the racism?

    What is “the racism” in this context? Can we buy ID without “the racism”?

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    Is racism timeless?

    Is racism historically contingent?

    In what sense was Darwin a racist?

    In what sense were Darwin’s writings racist?

    What does any of this have to do with intelligent design?

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    NYT no doubt smells it could advance anti creationism in a evangelical colledge.
    They are historically a enemy of true America i think.
    Private schools make their rules fair and square.
    they could be careful about these things. If a prof is good otherwise and his views don’t touch on bible truths like these then don’t toss him.
    However who knows the facts or should care.

Leave a Reply