Bias against creationism in biology

[AceHero]

Part of the reason is because many creationists abandon creationism when they begin to get more advanced in such studies.

And scientists who believe in God tend to accept the facts of evolution.

Ever heard of Francis Collins? He is a devoted christian and a physician, geneticist and former head of the human genome project. Look up his take on the theory of evolution. His take is, the evidence to support the theory of evolution is so strong, doing biology without evolution, is the equivalent of doing physics without math.

He also has a book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

 

[Euler]

Bias against creationism in biology?

I certainly hope so!

And I hope there's a similar bias against astrology, tarot reading, alchemy and chicken entrail reading in biology!

 

[EternalDragon]

Bias against creationism in biology?

I certainly hope so!

And I hope there's a similar bias against astrology, tarot reading, alchemy and chicken entrail reading in biology!

Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe there is a strong bias against creationism in the field of biology.

Indeed. There's also a heavy bias against Stork Theory in the field of embryology. And against "Intelligent Falling" and "Pink Graviton Fairies" in the field of physics.

I believe we should have more creationists with doctorate level degrees in biology.

That would require them to actually study biology instead of a 2500 year old religious text though...

Peace to all. I am short on sleep, but hope to hear your opinions on the idea of having more creationist biology doctors.

My opinion is similar to the opinion on Stork Theory embryologists. Quite literally a contradiction in terms.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html

Biased source. Again.

 

[JayFern]

Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/nature_admits_s090321.html

You're really not very bright are you? evolutionnews.org is a creationist website set up to fool creationists into thinking that even people who accept evolution are not happy with it.
One day if you are very lucky you will be free of creationism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're really not very bright are you? evolutionnews.org is a creationist website set up to fool creationists into thinking that even people who accept evolution are not happy with it.
One day if you are very lucky you will be free of creationism.

I will agree with you, the name deception is a rather underhanded tactic used by that site.

I don't think ED is unaware that it is a creationist site though.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nature Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design.

<i>Nature</i> Admits Scientists Suppress Criticisms of Neo-Darwinism to Avoid Lending Support to Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

Why don't you show us where in the Nature article that they admit any such thing?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, then we are left with experts in unrelated fields making claims that are based on claims by other non life sciences experts to support a created world.

I was told by a 12 year old that plate tectonics was a extremity non evidence based claim. His source was his biology teacher.

I had great deal of trouble arguing that considering that I only completed one college level course in geology. My professor had several doctorate degrees in the sciences, primarily inorganic chemistry.

For the most part, that is the creationist strategy. They try to create a false front of authority figures to create a false sense of support for creationism. For people such as yourself, this can be an effective strategy. However, when these same "authority figures" are faced with real science in a real scientific venue, their stories fall apart. Modern creationists are the modern version of snake oil salesmen.

 

[JustMeSee]

For the most part, that is the creationist strategy. They try to create a false front of authority figures to create a false sense of support for creationism. For people such as yourself, this can be an effective strategy. However, when these same "authority figures" are faced with real science in a real scientific venue, their stories fall apart. Modern creationists are the modern version of snake oil salesmen.

Less snake oil sellers, but more evidence based doctors of biology to ask the right questions and look for concrete support for a created life origin.

I am ignorant to the evidence for a created origin. Either, I study/test for the evidence, or I encourage others to have the education necessary to test, study, and ask the right questions to support a created origin of life on this planet.

Six to ten years of formal education in biology to have authority and skills to perform tests in the right questions. I am told that scientists (supporters of ToE) are myopic in their approach to research and peer review publishing.

What better way to defend the position of created origins than to provide credible evidence. Hands on evidence, not empty distortions of other people's work.

 

[Loudmouth]

Less snake oil

They still have the snake oil to sell after their presentations. Hovind was famous for having tapes and books to sell. He is currently in jail for not paying taxes on his snake oil profits.

 

[JustMeSee]

They still have the snake oil to sell after their presentations. Hovind was famous for having tapes and books to sell. He is currently in jail for not paying taxes on his snake oil profits.

Sorry, I hit send way too early. Sticky fingers.

Please reread my post.

Hovind is not a scientist to my knowledge.

 

[Phred]

I believe there is a strong bias against creationism in the field of biology.

There is. Creationism is NOT biology. Creationism is NOT science. It's like saying that there's a strong bias in shoe stores against selling pants.

I believe we should have more creationists with doctorate level degrees in biology.

Good luck with that. In order to be a creationist you have to rail against science. In order to get a degree in biology you have to understand and pass tests about evolution.

I hope to do my part in protesting at universities to stop discriminating against creationist seeking post graduate degrees in the fields of biology, primarily evolutionary biology.

And I will do my part to protest at shoe stores in hopes of getting them to start selling pants. Shoe stores discriminate against pants and I feel they should all be forced to start selling pants.

I believe the University of Pennsylvania will be a good start for this peaceful protest.

You do that.

Peace to all. I am short on sleep, but hope to hear your opinions on the idea of having more creationist biology doctors.

I'll say it again. Creationism is not science. Creationism is not biology. If someone who is a creationist wants to learn actual science and actual biology then they can become PHDs. But they can't become PHDs by spouting creationist rhetoric.

 

[Loudmouth]

Less snake oil sellers, but more evidence based doctors of biology to ask the right questions and look for concrete support for a created life origin.

Those doctors were already given their chance back in the 1800's. They lost, and none of the evidence found since then has supported creationism. All of the evidence we have supports evolution and an old age for the Earth/Universe.

Six to ten years of formal education in biology to have authority and skills to perform tests in the right questions. I am told that scientists (supporters of ToE) are myopic in their approach to research and peer review publishing.

Of course you are told that by creationists. The fact of the matter is that creationists are not submitting research papers because they are not doing any research that could be published. You can't censor non-existent research papers.

 

[EternalDragon]

Double post

 

[EternalDragon]

Why don't you show us where in the Nature article that they admit any such thing?

Do you bother to click on and read the links I post? It is right there.
(EES rejects some of the core tenets or neo-Darwinism by the way.)

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders -- such as physiologists or developmental biologists -- flood into their field.


(Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) (emphasis added).)

-----
Here is another whole article with even more examples.

Shining Light on the Latest Errors and Omissions in <i>Cosmos</i> - Evolution News & Views

 

[EternalDragon]

Triple post.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Do you bother to click on and read the links I post? It is right there.
(EES rejects some of the core tenets or neo-Darwinism by the way.)

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders -- such as physiologists or developmental biologists -- flood into their field.
(Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) (emphasis added).)

-----
Here is another whole article with even more examples.

Shining Light on the Latest Errors and Omissions in <i>Cosmos</i> - Evolution News & Views

The Nature article is an opinion piece discussing the possibility of more depth in the explanations of evolution not the abolishment of the theory altogether. It really doesn't support creationism. That many scientists are reluctant to embrace these "new" mechanisms in evolution is not that they are afraid the emperor will be seen naked. They are concerned that creationists will see the minor conflicts and blow it out of proportion.
Of course your second referenced article shows that creationists did just that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you bother to click on and read the links I post?

Of the links to Evolution News and Views that I have read, they have been outright falsehoods. That is why I asked for a quote from the actual Nature article, not the lies on the creationist site.

It is right there.
(EES rejects some of the core tenets of neo-Darwinism by the way.)

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day. Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders -- such as physiologists or developmental biologists -- flood into their field.


(Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka, and John Odling-Smee, "Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently," Nature, Vol. 514:161-164 (October 9, 2014) (emphasis added).)

And as expected, it does not match with the claims made by the creationist site. How predictable.

-----
Here is another whole article with even more examples.

Shining Light on the Latest Errors and Omissions in <i>Cosmos</i> - Evolution News & Views

Please present the actual science as written by the real scientists. No more lying creationist sites.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Was your tongue in your cheek when you created this thread? It's confuzzling...

I believe there is a strong bias against creationism in the field of biology.

There's also a strong bias against Hare Krishna creationism and Greek mythology in the field of biology. There's a strong bias against aromatherapy being used as a primary method of disease treatment in the field of medicine.

I believe we should have more creationists with doctorate level degrees in biology.

Creationists are at liberty to pursue admission to doctorate programs in biology at any university. Unless they disclosed they were creationists in their statement of purpose, or one of their evaluators revealed it in a letter of recommendation it's unlikely the school would even be aware of their beliefs when deciding whether to admit them.

There's also nothing preventing creationist universities like Liberty from adding PhD programs to their biology department. They already have undergrad and a grad degree program. Biology/Chemistry | Official Page | Liberty University

I hope to do my part in protesting at universities to stop discriminating against creationist seeking post graduate degrees in the fields of biology, primarily evolutionary biology.

Lol.

I believe the University of Pennsylvania will be a good start for this peaceful protest.

Why Penn?