Tenured Nazarene U prof laid off, supporting evolution

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 14, 2015

Academic Freedom, Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the context, “evolution” typically means Darwinism, survival of the fittest. Anyway here:

President David Alexander of Northwest Nazarene University (NNU) sent a letter to the campus over the weekend, defending the decision to lay off tenured theology professor Thomas Jay Oord. Alexander said budget cuts necessitated the move. A professor in the school’s counseling department was also affected by the layoffs.

Oord was notified of his firing by email while on break, which Alexander said lacked compassion.

“I want to publicly apologize to Dr. Tom Oord for the way in which he learned of the change,” said Alexander in his email. “Discussions occurred via mail and email due to spring break and the March 31st notification deadline. That was not respectful of Dr. Oord and his many contributions to the university.” More.

If they don’t have compassion, they are half-Darwinists already.

That said, if the Nazarene U really believes “We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind,” well then they really believe what Darwin’s followers absolutely do not. So the separation is at least understandable.

How similar to or different from the story of Peter Enns is this case? See Theologian Peter Enns talks about why BioLogosdid not renew his contract Thoughts?

Comments

OT: Casey Luskin on Why Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits in Populations http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/listen_casey_lu095241.html podcast - In this segment, Casey discusses the (why) natural selection struggles to fix advantageous traits in populations.bornagain77_{April 15, 2015
April
04
Apr
15
15
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

In a Christian school one can demand compliance from paid stadd to Christian doctrines. Evolutionism is wrong and not worthy in a Christian school. However if they say they have a contract for no questioning profs on these matters. AF, then he shouldn't be fired if thats the reason. Its in the public schools, and most universities are that in reality, that freedom must prevail for its the freedom of the people and its doctrine for same freedom. rEligious schools are different. They say its just budget and so deserve faith in their intergrity. its not like secular schools eh. The prof should change his position after reflection on evidence. The best to him anyways. The best to us too.Robert Byers_{April 14, 2015
April
04
Apr
14
14
2015
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

The second thing wrong, with the Darwinist's belief that you cannot teach views contrary to Darwinian evolution in public schools because of the 'separation of church and state' clause, is that Darwinism itself is based on Theology and is not based on any hard science/math. In fact, Charles Darwin's college degree was in Theology not science (I've even heard said that Darwin hated math). Thus, even if the 'separation' clause were actually true, and were not a contrived clause as it really is, then if the 'separation' clause were applied fairly then it would apply equally well, if not more so, to Darwinism evolution since Darwinian evolution is based primarily on (bad) theology and is therefore a full fledged religion in its own right, and should be 'separated' from the public school classroom accordingly.
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X
to this day, 'evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going',,,
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740 Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Atheistic Philosopher
Moreover as if all that was not bad enough, Darwinian evolution, besides being based primarily on (bad) Theology instead of on hard science/math, is in reality, due to its lack of a rigid foundation in science, more properly considered a pseudo-science along the lines of tea leaf reading instead of a proper science such as physics:
Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science Excerpt: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria) 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis) 5. Darwinism hinders scientific progress (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..), https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
Verse and Music:
John 15:18 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. Jeremy Camp - He Knows (Lyric Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsccUg4TDd8
bornagain77_{April 14, 2015
April
04
Apr
14
14
2015
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Although I have no reason to doubt that budget cuts had a major part to play in the firing, it's sad that Darwinists are all for academic freedom when it comes to the rare occasion that a Darwinist gets fired, but have nothing to say when IDists are openly fired, or censured, solely for teaching views contrary to neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. The persecution from Atheistic Darwinists on those who oppose them is rampant, systematic, and widespread:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ” Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
Even atheists themselves, who break ranks with the Darwinian ‘consensus’ party line, are severely castigated by the neo-Darwinian atheists. There was even a peer-reviewed paper in a philosophy journal by a materialist/atheist that sought to ostracize, and limit the free speech of, a fellow materialist/atheist (Jerry Fodor) who had had the audacity, in public, to dare to question the sufficiency of natural selection to be the true explanation for how all life on earth came to be.
Darwinian Philosophy: "Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose" - Casey Luskin - August, 2012 Excerpt: In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/blind_darwinian063311.html
Moreover, there is a dramatic difference between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits
On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits - September 2011 Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry. *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/on_the_fundamental_difference_050451.html
Of related interest, many Darwinists will say you cannot teach views contrary to Darwinian evolution in public schools because of the 'separation of church and state' clause. There are two things wrong with this belief. First, the phrase 'separation of church and state' never actually appears in the constitution but was a phrase that was taken completely out of context of one of Thomas Jefferson's letters to a Ana-Baptist preacher. The context in which Jefferson used the phrase was to assure the preacher that the government would never encroach on his preaching. Hence it was a 'one way' wall between the government and the church. The phrase was never meant to protect the government from the church but was meant to protect the church from the government.
The Fallacy Of The Doctrine Of Separation of Church and State - video http://empowerliberty.com/videos/wall-of-separation-between-church-and-state-myth-reality-results the preceding family research video analyzes the Jefferson letter to the Baptists in full starting at around the 26 minute mark of the lecture and shows how the ‘separation’ phrase in the letter has been severely twisted out of overall context. At around the 30 minute mark Jefferson's ‘church planting’ acts as president are gone over.
bornagain77_{April 14, 2015
April
04
Apr
14
14
2015
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply