Bias against creationism in biology

[JustMeSee]

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

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.

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

Lol.

Why Penn?

My OP was a bit off target. It was a bit tongue in cheek, but had a great deal of honestly and desire. As the thread progressed thinks became a bit clearer.

It boils down to an argument about claims about existing doctors of life sciences being deceitful or myopic.

More created origin doctors of life sciences, less accusations of deceit and myopic.

Penn? That is the ivy league university from which my mother received her nursing degrees. It is fairly local, and I spent time on campus as a kid. I would love to creation discussions with on campus college people.

Idk, the thread was a weary spur of the moment thought.

 

[Queller]

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

He can't because the Nature article doesn't say any such thing. Luskin is lying with that headline.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Sure. But there is no such evidence. And what do you expect from people, even if they manage to get their phd, who start their "research" with their conclusion already formed in their heads? So formed, that they'll assume their research to be wrong if it doesn't agree with their a priori beliefs?

There's a reason why the scientific community simply ignores these people.

It's the same reason as why proponents of a flat earth, geocentrism and stork theory are ignored.

 

[JayFern]

There is no bias against creationism only against deliberate ignorance.

 

[JustMeSee]

There is no bias against creationism only against deliberate ignorance.

Well, I try not to be deliberate in my ignorance. When I believe something is true, I push it. Often, I am humbled to find that I was wrong in my tidbit of knowledge. I immediately push to share how wrong I was. Sometimes, it involves an apology.

"When you think you have all of the answers, speak softly. "

 

[bhsmte]

Well, I try not to be deliberate in my ignorance. When I believe something is true, I push it. Often, I am humbled to find that I was wrong in my tidbit of knowledge. I immediately push to share how wrong I was. Sometimes, it involves an apology.

"When you think you have all of the answers, speak softly. "

Nothing wrong with pushing something if you believe it to be true.

If you are choosing to push something in the scientific community, they will ask for objective support for your position, because that is how science works.

Of course, this is where the creation/science discussion typically breaks down.

 

[JustMeSee]

Nothing wrong with pushing something if you believe it to be true.

If you are choosing to push something in the scientific community, they will ask for objective support for your position, because that is how science works.

Of course, this is where the creation/science discussion typically breaks down.

I believe something is true from memory, experience and trust in some authority. Any of these things can wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

I believe something is true from memory, experience and trust in some authority. Any of these things can wrong.

A lot of things can be wrong, this is why science relies on the great equalizer; empirical evidence, that doesn't lie and is not bias towards any one side.

Some believe something to be true based on faith beliefs and others do so based on objective evidence.

At the end of the day, people pick which one suites their fancy.

 

[JustMeSee]

A lot of things can be wrong, this is why science relies on the great equalizer; empirical evidence, that doesn't lie and is not bias towards any one side.

Some believe something to be true based on faith beliefs and others do so based on objective evidence.

At the end of the day, people pick which one suites their fancy.

Some are successful at having faith and evidence as their fancies in life. They don't have to conflict.

This I believe as truth, based upon trusted sources. Jewish, Christian, and Buddhist sources.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Closed at OP request.


ADMIN HAT OFF