Culture Intelligent Design Philosophy Religion Science

Are Christians just “less hireable” in science?

Spread the love

That is the subject of a recent open access PLOS paper:

Abstract: Christians are one of the most underrepresented groups in science, and one potential explanation is that scientists have a bias against Christian students, which could discourage and actively prevent Christian students from becoming scientists. Although there is a general perception in society that there is bias against Christians in science, we do not know whether science students, who frequently interact with scientists, perceive this bias. Further, no researchers have attempted to experimentally document the existence of bias against Christians in science. To address these gaps in the literature, we designed three studies. In the first study, we found that college science students report a perceived bias against Christians in science and that evangelical Christians perceive greater bias than Catholic and non-Christian students. Then in two studies, biology professors evaluated Ph.D. program applicants and we examined whether the professors rated a student less favorably when the student revealed a Christian religious identity. We found no statistically significant differences in how biology professors rated a student who was President of the Christian Association compared to a student who was President of the Atheist Association or a student who was President of the Activities Association. However, in Study 3, biology professors did rate a Christian student who went on a mission trip with Campus Crusade for Christ as less hireable, less competent, and less likeable than a student who did not reveal a Christian identity. Taken together, these studies indicate that perceived bias against Christians in science may contribute to underrepresentation of Christians but actual bias against Christians in science may be restricted to a specific type of Christianity that scientists call fundamentalist and/or evangelical.

Are scientists biased against Christians? Exploring real and perceived bias against Christians in academic biology M. Elizabeth Barnes, Jasmine M. Truong, Daniel Z. Grunspan, Sara E. Brownell,  Published: January 29, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226826

Note: “Taken together, these studies indicate that perceived bias against Christians in science may contribute to underrepresentation of Christians but actual bias against Christians in science may be restricted to a specific type of Christianity that scientists call fundamentalist and/or evangelical.” Well, Christians pay taxes for science and it’s really up to them to launch actions against actual bias incidents. No?

Some of us recall that U Kentucky had to pay astronomer Martin Gaskell $100k because he was passed over for a position he was well qualified for. It turned out that a colleague in the department had been communicating with a Darwin-in-the-schools lobbyist who identified him as some kind of a threat on account of his association with a Christians in astronomy group. If everyone this kind of crap happens to started demanding that the crap dumpers pay for the privilege, it could raise the cost of acting on the basis of scuttlebutt and prejudice.

33 Replies to “Are Christians just “less hireable” in science?

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Should be: “a specific type of Christianity called Christianity.”

    The bias is broadly against actual believers of any denomination. Even though secular Jews are on top of the status stack in science as elsewhere, Orthodox Jews and Hasidim are on the bottom along with “fundamentalists”.

    Gaia is the only goddess and Greta is her prophetess.

  2. 2
    Ed George says:

    Given the competition to get undergraduate students I doubt there is very little discrimination against Christians in admittance as an undergrad.

    However, if I were a geology professor looking for a grad student, I doubt I would accept a young earth creationist. Or if I were a Palaeontology prof, I would not accept a grad student who believed that the fossil strata were caused by Noah’s flood. Or if I were a cosmology prof, I would not accept a student who believed in a literal translation of Genesis. Not because of any prejudice against religious belief, but because they have demonstrated an inability to examine evidence and come up with a plausible explanation. It would be no different than a chemistry prof not accepting a grad student who believed in alchemy, or a medical prof not accepting a grad student who believed in routine blood letting, the healing powers of crystals or that vaccines cause autism.

  3. 3
    Silver Asiatic says:

    It’s a fascinating paper and the research seems to be well-considered. My first question was “why would they be interested in this”? I could see it if this was a Christian group explaining the bias they perceive, but these are academics, reporting on science. Christians are under-represented … so what?

    They explain the reason for the study here:

    Historical and modern perceived tensions between “scientists” and the “religious” in society have arguably led Americans to trust scientists less …
    Given that Christians make up roughly three quarters of the American public, if efforts are made to mitigate this perceived bias, it may improve the public’s perception of scientists.

    Ok, it makes sense. As Americans trust scientists less, and Christians are 75% of the population, then bias against Christians is not going to improve the public perception of scientists. The reason atheistic scientists might want the public to like and trust them more is for reasons of funding, prestige, employment.

    So, it’s interesting. Hatred against Christians does have a cost. Now these researchers want to try to solve the problem.

    They understand that evolution is a problem:

    Evolutionary theory provides knowledge about the origins of humans, which increases the probability that a perceived conflict with religious beliefs will be encountered by those learning biology. The perceived conflict between evolution and religion is historically embedded and persistent; perceived conflict surrounding evolution and religion has been highly visible in politics and journalism since the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859 [27] and there has been no substantial decline in antievolution views in the US in the ~35 years since the inception of public polls on evolution [28]. For these reasons, it may be particularly informative to explore perceptions of bias against Christians within the biology academic community.

    After 35 years of indoctrination in the American school system, there has been “no substantial decline” in the population who reject evolutionary claims. In spite of that …

    One way that scientists might help relieve perceptions of discrimination against Christians is to use cultural competence when teaching topics that may conflict with a person’s religious identity. For instance, when teaching evolution, college biology instructors can try to openly acknowledge the religious beliefs of Christian students, provide examples of religious scientists, and emphasize that being a Christian does not have to be incompatible with a science identity or with an acceptance of evolution.

    Maybe people do not accept evolutionary theory because it is false. So, talking about “religious evolutionists” really doesn’t help.

  4. 4
  5. 5
    ET says:

    “Ed George”

    Not because of any prejudice against religious belief, but because they have demonstrated an inability to examine evidence and come up with a plausible explanation.

    Then all atheists are out. All materialists are out. All naturalists are out. Not one of those can come up with anything scientific that can explain our existence.

  6. 6
    Ed George says:

    Jawa

    Any comments on this:

    Not really. I have already made the point that a site’s ranking isn’t a measure of the importance or veracity of the discussions they contain.

  7. 7
    AaronS1978 says:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180312115359.htm

    So this study is kind of important to this discussion, the reason for this, is it shows that viewpoint and belief directly impacts the outcome of the science that is being done

    This was a study done not to long ago about freewill and wether had been disproven by neuroscience.

    They had reviewed a large number of papers I believe 40+ papers.

    What they found was none of the papers actually truly disproved free will in any which way shape or form, but what they did discover, which was more important, was that the perspective of the scientist doing the science predicted their conclusion and outcome

    Most of the papers denied that Freewill existed and if the scientist that did the paper was an outspoken denier of free will, that this could predicted their conclusion, and how they interpreted their results

    Belief does directly impact the signs that a person does, Science is only as good as the people doing it

    So a Christian viewpoint would affect the outcome and interpretation of the science

    But that doesn’t give justification for whether or not you hire somebody or except them into a scientific position

    In fact my point is is that atheistic viewpoints directly impact the outcome of your science and the interpretation of it

    It is a two-way street and it is a myth that is peddled by groups like new atheist, that they have no belief and their disbelief does not influence their decision, only the evidence influences their decisions, Which in the case of the study that I posted above the evidence did not influence their decision and their outcome they were already dead set on how they were interpreting that evidence

    Now coming from somebody that graduated from ASU back in 2014 I can attest to that biased

    I would watch it happen and if you spoke of your viewpoint there is a good chance that you would be ridiculed and treated like you were stupid

    People like Lawrence Krauss would always have a venue with Richard Dawkins while any type of Christian speaker wouldn’t actually get any time unless it was in front of the MU saying “Jesus loves you”

    It’s nice to see that the study was done, it was done here in my hometown Arizona, but honestly it only points out what was pretty obvious and to begin with

    And to be honest with you they probably should start adding scientists of those types of perspectives to balance out the grossly over balanced population of atheists that have dominated the scientific community and made sure nobody of a religious perspective could get it

    Yes one might not agree with their viewpoints I don’t entirely agree with evangelists viewpoints, But I do believe having somebody with a different perspective then yours might help balance out atheistic interpretations on everything.

  8. 8
  9. 9
    jawa says:

    Ed George @6:

    (regarding @4)

    It was clearly demonstrated that all the examples you presented to support your point were wrong at best. Actually,, your original point sounded different than what you’re saying now. Is that why you chose to run for the exit door and quit the discussion? When your arguments are proven wrong you just quit? Have you ever humbly admitted that you were wrong?

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    Before we can try to decide whether or not free will exists, don’t we need to define what we mean by ‘free will’? Is it a binary choice – we either have or we don’t – or is it a variable, in other words is it a question of to what extent we have free will.

    We can say with reasonable confidence that we did not choose to be exactly what we are. We inherited some of what we are from our parents and in our very early years we were being ‘shaped’ by our parents, relatives, friends and cultural environment before we were aware of what was happening. We had little or no choice over any of it.

    We also know from psychological and neurological studies that a great deal of processing is done outside of our conscious awareness. Again, It’s hard to see how we can have free will over something we are unaware of.

    Nonetheless, we do feel as if we have free will to some extent. I feel as if I could switch my computer off at this moment and not finish this comment if I chose. This leads me to think that we have free will when it come to choosing between a limited range of options in circumstances where I am aware of them.

    The problem is that, when we make even a choice between even a limited range of options, we do not usually decide it by a coin-flip – although we can – we do it for reasons. We also decide which reasons we bring to bear on the choice and which carry the greatest weight, Those choices are, in turn, influenced by other considerations, Given that all these choices are contingent – influenced by prior influences and considerations – we come back to the question of what we actually mean by ‘free will’.

  11. 11
    Ed George says:

    Jawa

    When your arguments are proven wrong you just quit? Have you ever humbly admitted that you were wrong?

    Have any of your comments demonstrated that the site ranking is a measure of the level of serious discussion taking place on the site? If you can prove that they have I will admit an error.

  12. 12
    jawa says:

    Ed George:

    In case you forgot the details, here’s the discussion we had in the OP:

    “At Oscillations: How The College Board Skews Students Toward Darwinism”

    Discussion that you started @85 in reaction to my post @84:

    84
    Jawa
    February 1, 2020 at 10:04 am
    This discussion thread made it into the top 5 most popular posts in the last month:
    Popular Posts (Last 30 Days)
    Karsten Pultz: Why random processes cannot produce… (1,320)
    Abortion, the leading cause of deaths worldwide in 2019 (1,147)
    Thinking More Deeply About Causation (1,130)
    At Oscillations: How the College Board skews… (1,003)
    Recognizing Design is to the Engineer, as Seafaring… (977)
    Susan Mazur continues to attract readers to her writings.

    85
    Ed George
    February 1, 2020 at 10:39 am
    Jawa
    February 1, 2020 at 10:04 am
    This discussion thread made it into the top 5 most popular posts in the last month:
    That doesn’t speak well for this site. A discussion with a few people arguing what “nature” means, a tangent on the grammatical correctness of a sentence, some nonsense about bonobos, and another tangent about who I am and whether or not I have ever been banned at UD.

    97
    Jawa
    February 1, 2020 at 5:12 pm
    Ed George @85:
    That’s an interesting observation you wrote.
    However, i think that the main topic in the OP for this thread is about important educational issues the society confronts these days.
    If you look at the information posted @82, note that this website UD is doing much better in internet traffic than other websites that are openly anti-ID, except the case of TO, which is not too far ahead of UD. See how PT, SW, TSZ and PS are o far behind UD. They all have in common that deal with boring nerdy issues that most people out there don’t care much about. That’s why the numbers are so high. But we compare websites with related topics: science, evolution, ID.
    Why are the websites PT and SW doing so badly these days? Any clues? Not so long ago they were doing much better. Actually they were in the same top percentile that UD is. Something must have happened recently, but I have no idea what it could be.
    Could it be that they don’t provide enough serious discussions as we have here in UD?
    Yes, it’s true that sometimes we have nonsense posted, like the case of PavelU’s comments, but also we have very serious comments by other contributors. Fortunately the latter are the majority.
    I have argued for the banning of PavelU’s posts, but this website is open enough to allow folks like PavelU to express their opinions, even if they are nonsense.

    98
    Ed George
    February 1, 2020 at 9:13 pm
    Jawa
    Could it be that they don’t provide enough serious discussions as we have here in UD?
    The Westboro Babtist Church site (godhatesfags.com) has an Alexa ranking of 482597, better than UD’s. I only mention this because a web site’s ranking isn’t a good measure of the level of serious discussion taking place on the website.

    99
    Jawa
    February 1, 2020 at 10:41 pm
    Ed George @98:
    The example you used has nothing to do with seriously discussing fundamental scientific issues. Philosophical questions can be discussed too. But it has to be done with respect of the dignity of every person.
    You’re comparing apples and alligators. That wouldn’t work.
    We have to compare websites that deal with the same issues. In this case discussing the origin and evolution of biological systems in a serious way.
    Some of the websites in the list don’t have discussions. But they are in the same category explained above.
    If you know of another website that can be compared, let’s include it too.
    But let’s stay away from anything that promotes hatred to other people.
    I believe that we all share a given condition called Imago Dei which implies dignity and requires mutual respect.
    The questions posted @97 are still awaiting serious response. Your attempt wasn’t serious. You may try again. Thanks.

    101
    Ed George
    February 1, 2020 at 11:10 pm
    Jawa, I picked an anti-gay site because of the many discussions held here about homosexuality and same sex marriage.
    Another common subject here is abortion.
    Pro choice.org…… 595617
    Another subject discussed here frequently is atheism/materialism, etc.
    friendlyatheist.patheos.com….,,8750
    And, occasionally, the discussions revolve around evolution.
    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php……….. 1704
    https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com/…..1231

    103
    Jawa
    February 2, 2020 at 1:56 am
    Ed George @101:
    Your examples are invalid. Don’t qualify.
    You’re still comparing apples and alligators.
    I’ll explain why later.
    But maybe you’ll figure it out before I explain it.
    Hint: look carefully at the information provided by Alexa.
    Actually, to be consistent I should remove AiG and RTB from my list. Perhaps even TO should be removed.
    They don’t seem comparable according to Alexa.

    104
    Jawa
    February 2, 2020 at 2:27 am
    Corrected list according to Alexa.
    Removed AiG and RTB.
    Alexa doesn’t show any (direct or indirect) relation to UD.
    Alexa Ranks for related websites:
    Website……………….01/31……………………………02/01……………………Top %
    EN:……………………….219,566………………………218,250………………….1
    TO:………………………636,215……………………….635,771……………………1
    UD:………………………662,429……………………..661,806…………………..1
    PT:…………………..2,522,379…………………..2,520,054…………………..3
    SW:…………………3,287,895………………….3,284,894…………………..4
    TSZ:…………………3,605,624…………………3,602,299……………………4
    PS:……………………………….?………………. not enough data available (extremely low traffic)

    105
    Jawa
    February 2, 2020 at 2:41 am
    Ed George @101:
    Make sure that Alexa shows direct or indirect relation to UD.
    None of your examples meet that criteria.
    This is why I removed AiG and RTB from my list above.
    When you enter friendlyatheist.patheos.com
    note that what Alexa processes is really patheos.com instead of the longer name you enter.
    When you enter this:
    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
    Alexa can’t find the page.
    The result you got was for berkeley.edu
    For this name
    https://natureecoevocommunity.nature.com
    Alexa measures nature.com
    None of that is related to UD according to Alexa information.

    106
    Jawa
    February 2, 2020 at 3:08 am
    Ed George,
    Now do you understand your error @85, @98 & @101?
    Basically all your examples were wrong.
    You may want to try again?

    Then in this current thread:

    4
    Jawa
    February 2, 2020 at 11:10 am
    Ed George,

    Any comments on this:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/suzan-mazur-on-how-the-college-board-skews-students-toward-darwinism/#comment-691996

    ?

    Thanks.

    6
    Ed GeorgeFebruary 2, 2020 at 11:58 am
    Jawa

    Any comments on this:

    Not really. I have already made the point that a site’s ranking isn’t a measure of the importance or veracity of the discussions they contain.

  13. 13
    Fasteddious says:

    One simple reason that Christians are “underrepresented” is that Christians tend to put up with attacks and misrepresentation; turning the other cheek is a very Christian thing to do. Much of the put downs, dismissals, negative stereotyping, subtle ridicule, and so on that Christians put up with in the media and elsewhere, would not be tolerated if directed at most other identifiable groups. Also, Christians believe in fair play and honesty, so generally do not stoop to the sort of often-nasty responses other groups engage in when attacked. Meanwhile, the negative stereotypes and assumed negative behaviours attributed to Christians in the media (such as the “anti-science” of Christianity) are absorbed by the public by osmosis and then assumed to be true, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Of course, as a Christian, I too am biased here, so don’t take my word for any of this.

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    This is an interesting situation.

    On the one hand, as kairosfocus is wont to point out, most of the great European scientists going back into history were – or claimed to be – Christian. We also have the BBC Radio interview with Prof John Lennox – cited by Jawa @ 8 – in which he claims that 65% of Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2000 believed in God. We also have evidence from a survey of high school science teachers in the US which showed that around 60% preferred not to mention evolution in biology classes and 13% openly advocated Biblical creationism. This suggests an influential Christian grass-roots movement against any science in general which is perceived as inconsistent with their beliefs and the theory of evolution in particular.

    This doesn’t sound like a crusade against Christianity so much as the faith playing the victim because they are aggrieved that they no longer have the prestige, social privilege and political power they once enjoyed.

  15. 15
    PeterA says:

    Fasteddious,

    Interesting commentary.

    Also looked at your interesting “Meanderings”.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, let’s face facts. What sort of hiring and promotion practices are going to be carried through by people who think like Monod, as I documented a few days ago:

    [T]he scientific attitude implies what I call the postulate of objectivity—that is to say, the fundamental postulate that there is no plan, that there is no intention in the universe. Now, this is basically incompatible with virtually all the religious or metaphysical systems whatever, all of which try to show that there is some sort of harmony between man and the universe and that man is a product—predictable if not indispensable—of the evolution of the universe.— Jacques Monod [Quoted in John C. Hess, ‘French Nobel Biologist Says World Based On Chance’, New York Times (15 Mar 1971), p. 6. Cited in Herbert Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt (1972), p. 66.]

    On those terms of ill-founded ideological imposition, the longsuffering taxpayer is more than justified to cry, establishment of an anti-church and demand that his or her taxes be not only withdrawn but refunded. Of course, the complicit media and ideologues entrenched in parliaments and courts will fight every inch of the way to protect their ideological captivity of the institutions that subsidise the church of a priori evolutionary materialism dressed up in the lab coat. But, on current developments, the media has now gone over the cliff and is in credibility free fall, along with its partners in cultural subversion and holocaust of our living posterity in the womb. KF

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    Seversky, you need to account before the cat out of the bag moment exhibited by Monod. KF

  18. 18
    Truthfreedom says:

    SV

    …science in general which is perceived as inconsistent with their beliefs…

    Nothing more inconsistent than the materialist *belief*, which is self-refuting.
    It kills it-*self*.

    Materialism is the enemy of science
    (knowledge).

    The scientific method does not demand materialism. But, the naturalist’s philosophical bias does.

    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

  19. 19
    Ed George says:

    Sev

    This doesn’t sound like a crusade against Christianity so much as the faith playing the victim because they are aggrieved that they no longer have the prestige, social privilege and political power they once enjoyed.

    That is the vibe I am getting as well. Whereas in the past Christine doctrine was simply accepted as “gospel” (pun intended), more and more people, Christians included, are questioning some of the Christian teachings and finding that they don’t stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny. The obvious ones are the church’s teaching on homosexuality, marital vows of obedience, the prohibition on birth control, etc. Thankfully, many Christians have now openly abandoned these edicts, and society is better for it.

    But if Christians think they are being persecuted, how many congressmen and Senators are openly atheist?

  20. 20
    Truthfreedom says:

    EG

    …and more people, Christians included, are questioning some of the Christian teachings and finding that they don’t stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny.

    Substitute Christian for *materialist*. Or solipsist, if you prefer. Scrutiny you said? 🙂

    “… materialism necessarily entails a self-defeating epistemology…”

    “Specifically, how do *materialists* know that *they* have a head, a brain, an occipital lobe, light waves, or even an external physical world at all?”

    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

    Ouch.

  21. 21
    jawa says:

    Ed George:

    This is FYI:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/suzan-mazur-on-how-the-college-board-skews-students-toward-darwinism/#comment-692065

    Maybe this will help you to avoid repeating the mistakes you made presenting wrong examples to support your bad argument.

  22. 22
    Bob O'H says:

    Polisra @ 1 –

    The bias is broadly against actual believers of any denomination.

    Err, no. The paper’s results don’t show a bias against Christians, only against evangelicals.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    We found no statistically significant differences in how biology professors rated a student who was President of the Christian Association compared to a student who was President of the Atheist Association or a student who was President of the Activities Association. However, in Study 3, biology professors did rate a Christian student who went on a mission trip with Campus Crusade for Christ as less hireable, less competent, and less likeable than a student who did not reveal a Christian identity.

    This finding makes absolutely no sense. The Christian President of the Christian Association, who is supposedly responsible for spreading Christianity on the campus, is somehow more likable than the Christian evangelical who goes on mission trips off campus with Campus Crusade for Christ (Cru)?

    Something definitely does not smell right!

    I think the limitations of their study, as they themselves admit, merit serious consideration:

    Limitations and future directions
    ,,, We were surprised by the results of Study 2 that showed no discrimination against Christians as our own research has demonstrated non-religious biologists expressed bias against Christians broadly [22]. Therefore, we think there could be other contexts, besides the selection of Ph.D. students, in which discrimination against Christians may manifest, particularly for topics such as evolution and human origins in which religious identities may be more salient [22,29].
    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226826

    To repeat their caveat that they themselves admitted to in their study,,,

    in which discrimination against Christians may manifest, particularly for topics such as evolution and human origins in which religious identities may be more salient

    And indeed that is precisely where Intelligent Design comes into play. ,,, And that is exactly where discrimination rears its ugly head time and time again in academia (and you do not even have to be an outspoken Christian to be discriminated against, you just have to oppose Darwinian evolution in general)),,,

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    Volume 1 of a trilogy, the disturbing premise of this book documents widespread discrimination by Darwin loyalists against Darwin skeptics in academia and within the scientific community. Multiple case studies expose the tactics used to destroy the careers of Darwin skeptics, denying them earned degrees and awards, tenure, and other career benefits offered to non-skeptics. The book exposes how freedom of speech and freedom of expression are widely promoted as not applicable to Darwin doubters, and reveals the depth and extent of hostility and bigotry exhibited towards those who would dare to question Darwinism. The book also shows how even the slightest hint of sympathy for Darwin Doubters often results in a vigorous and rabid response from those who believe such sympathies represent an attack on science itself.,,,
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
    – per amazon

    Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (full movie)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

    Slaughter of the Dissidents – Dr. Jerry Bergman – June 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5nAYU2GD0

    Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality.
    Scott Minnich
    Richard Sternberg
    Günter Bechly
    Eric Hedin
    Don McDonald
    David Coppedge
    Caroline Crocker
    Bryan Leonard
    Martin Gaskell
    Dean Kenyon
    Roger DeHart
    Granville Sewell
    https://freescience.today/stories/
    Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/

    “It was like the Darwinian Gestapo,” he said.,,,
    Darwin vs. Darwin – by Terrell Clemmons – January 2020
    Excerpt: In subsequent editions of The Origin, Darwin himself responded carefully to his critics and added, “I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality.” Attorney Herman Bouma thought Darwin had provided us with a good example of respectful engagement with criticism, and so he submitted a proposal to speak on that topic at the NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) 2019 national conference. His talk was approved months in advance and scheduled for 8:00 am on April 14, the final day of the conference.
    At about 7:40 am, as Bouma was setting up his equipment, three NSTA officials came in and said his presentation had been cancelled. Someone had contacted the NSTA the prior evening, he was told, whereupon NSTA officials had consulted the website for his nonprofit, the National Association for Objectivity in Science, and deemed it “fake science.” Beyond relating those details, they were “not at liberty” to discuss the cancellation. The officials then moved to the door to prevent anyone from entering, and four security guards arrived to ensure that Bouma left the room. An older gentleman, unaccustomed to being manhandled, Bouma was flabbergasted. “It was like the Darwinian Gestapo,” he said.
    He requested a follow-up meeting, but NSTA executive director David Evans said no, noting, “We firmly oppose advising teachers to ‘teach the controversy’ regarding evolution by natural selection, as there is no scientific controversy.”
    So now, Darwin’s theory is “science,” but Darwin’s engagement with criticism is “non-science.”,,,
    https://salvomag.com/article/salvo51/darwin-vs-darwin

    Academic Freedom Under Fire — Again! – October 2010
    Excerpt: All Dr. Avital wanted to do was expose students to some of the weaknesses inherent in Darwin’s theory. Surely there’s no harm in that — or so one would think. But, of course, to the Darwinian faithful, such weaknesses apparently do not exist.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38911.html

    So apparently you can be a Christian in college with no ill effects just so long as you do not believe that God might have actually created and/or Intelligently Designed all life on earth???

    Hmm, might it be too obvious to point out the obvious fact that to believe that God did not create life on earth is to render the Christian’s belief that God defeated death on the cross, for all practical purposes, null and void? i.e. God is either the source for all life or he is not!!!

    John 1:4
    In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Moreover, this discrimination against ID advocates would be understandable if Darwinism were an actual science, but, ironically, Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a rigorous and testable science in any meaningful sense in the first place (Popper’s falsification criteria), but is more properly classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, than it is to be classified as a testable science,

    November 2019 – Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
    https://uncommondescent.com/education/wealthy-scandinavian-benefactor-gives-us1-6-million-eqv-to-promote-id/#comment-687780

    On top of all that, and although the Darwinist may firmly believe he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory.
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Moreover, contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.

  24. 24
    Truthfreedom says:

    Bornagain77

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory.

    Look at their vocabulary:
    illusion, illusion, unreliable, illusory, appearance, no real empirical evidence, substitute, illusory meaning, nothing is truly real, nihilism.

  25. 25
    ET says:

    “Ed George”

    Whereas in the past Christine doctrine was simply accepted as “gospel” (pun intended), more and more people, Christians included, are questioning some of the Christian teachings and finding that they don’t stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny.

    And yet evolutionism, materialism and naturalism can’t even find a methodology to test their claims.

    The obvious ones are the church’s teaching on homosexuality, marital vows of obedience, the prohibition on birth control, etc.

    All of those stand up to scrutiny.

  26. 26
    Truthfreedom says:

    And yet evolutionism, materialism and naturalism…

    Those 3 above are just “atheism in plain, *cough cough* disguise”. They have failed miserably, and today they have morphed into *physicalism*.
    It does not matter, because atheism’s self-referential inconsistencies are its own demise.

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, your ideological a prioris are what drive your conclusions. The problems with those stand exposed since c 360 BC:

    Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

    [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

    [ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

    These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

    [ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

    and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

    KF

    PS: Those who may have concerns regarding the Christian faith may find here on helpful, and here on for worldview frameworks. Enough has been said elsewhere on currently fashionable fantasies regarding sexual behaviours and moral responsibility.

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, still waiting on your response to Monod’s cat out of the bag moment. (A recognition of the longstanding force of Plato’s points i/l/o Alcibiades et al and many others since would also be relevant. And BTW, accusations of cultural privilege sound rather hollow in the light of the inherent amorality and implied invitation to might makes ‘right’ Plato highlighted. As in, your remarks may raise questions of excuses for imposition of injustice by today’s domineering elites, especially when the real worldviews balance on comparative difficulties is put on the table. As in, ethical theism is well warranted and evolutionary materialistic scientism self destructs. Further to this, Christian theism’s foundation on the eyewitness testimony of the 500 has never been broken. Regardless of confident manner declarations to the contrary.) KF

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev et al, still waiting. KF

  30. 30
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, actually, physicalism was there from the outset. What happened is the success of sciences and technology conferred a prestige that was taken ideological captive. KF

  31. 31
    Truthfreedom says:

    …science and technology…

    The new “gods”. Easy to understand, giving “immediate” results. Very ego pleasing.

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    TF, there is a reason they say, it’s not rocket science. KF

  33. 33
    Truthfreedom says:

    @Seversky

    This doesn’t sound like a crusade against Christianity so much as the faith playing the victim because they are aggrieved that they no longer have the prestige, social privilege and political power they once enjoyed.

    You materialists can no stand that you are no longer the thinking elite .
    We now laugh at your cancerous cult.
    We do not need you telling us “poor peasants” how to interpret the world.
    Your snobbery no longer works. You are an obsolete currency. Deal with it .

Leave a Reply