Does Tenure Create Creationists?

[JohnR7]

If you have seen Dr Francis Collins on TV you will notice that he is a middle aged man and getting a little gray around the edges. When he is asked about why he waited so long to write a book about his faith, he will attribute that to his age and having reached a point in time where he is allowed to speak his mind and say what he wants to say. When he was younger and his career was no so established, he did not have the freedom that he has now. He is still a government employee and so he is limited in the comments he can make on thinks like stem cell research.

The point is we know that 40% of science believe in a personal God that answers prayer. But they usually do not talk about it because they are young and worried about their job security. But as they get older and become more secure in their work, then they are more inclined to take strong positions against evolution or for creationism or anything else they may have strong beliefs in.

Perhaps some people after holding it in for years are all the more willing to take a stand for what they believe. As it is there are lots of people in science that take a stand against evoluton. I think a lot more people would come out against evolution or at least come out and take a stand for creationism, if they were not worried about their job security and losing their job.

So does that make evolution a open and honest debate in academic circles? It is not a open debate at all when people are not free to express what they feel if what they believe goes against the party line.

There are already a LOT of people who are against evolution. I think there would be a lot more if the conditions favored them coming out of their closet and taking a stand for what they really believe.

 

[PKJ]

Actually there are fewer creationists than you think. Most of them are actually EVOs in the closet, just waiting to come out, but scared to be rejected by their church and family.

 

[Athene]

40% of scientists may believe in a personal God, but less then 5% believe in creation - not like you to be misleading at all John is it?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If you have seen Dr Francis Collins on TV you will notice that he is a middle aged man and getting a little gray around the edges. When he is asked about why he waited so long to write a book about his faith, he will attribute that to his age and having reached a point in time where he is allowed to speak his mind and say what he wants to say. When he was younger and his career was no so established, he did not have the freedom that he has now. He is still a government employee and so he is limited in the comments he can make on thinks like stem cell research.

The point is we know that 40% of science believe in a personal God that answers prayer. But they usually do not talk about it because they are young and worried about their job security. But as they get older and become more secure in their work, then they are more inclined to take strong positions against evolution or for creationism or anything else they may have strong beliefs in.

Perhaps some people after holding it in for years are all the more willing to take a stand for what they believe. As it is there are lots of people in science that take a stand against evoluton. I think a lot more people would come out against evolution or at least come out and take a stand for creationism, if they were not worried about their job security and losing their job.

So does that make evolution a open and honest debate in academic circles? It is not a open debate at all when people are not free to express what they feel if what they believe goes against the party line.

There are already a LOT of people who are against evolution. I think there would be a lot more if the conditions favored them coming out of their closet and taking a stand for what they really believe.

Once again, after your initial bit on Collins, you fail to provide any evidence of the claims you make. Evolution has been around in academia for close to 150 years. By now there would have been plenty of time for tenured professors to come out against evolution. Nothing more than armchair speculation.

Personally, I'm up for tenure next month, and I don't think I'm going to become a creationist anytime soon.

 

[WakeForest13]

Are you just grasping at straws? Please tell me if I'm following your "logic" correctly:

"95% of academia is either delusional or in a massive conspiracy to try to get others to hate god! What? Evidence? Bah! Motive? Who cares! Did SATAN need a motive?? But oh wait...this one guy, out of tens of thousands of academics, came out against what the other 95% say! Even though I previously knew that there is a solid 5% of academics who believe in creation, I REFUSE to put this new guy in with them, so he HAS to be part of the 95%...This can mean only one thing: there's a conspiracy among the 95% to suppress itself and to hate god!!! So in actuality, everyone loves god, but the vast majority of them are double-faking everyone out and trying to convince others to hate him!"

Please tell me there's some other logic involved, because I don't see any.

 

[notto]

So does that make evolution a open and honest debate in academic circles? It is not a open debate at all when people are not free to express what they feel if what they believe goes against the party line.

Scientific debates are based on objective evidence, the presentation of that evidence supported by data, and the scientific method.

It has nothign to do with 'feeling's or 'beliefs'.

People in science have all the free exercise they need to present data and research. That creationists think that somehow personal faith or feelings affects science shows their dismall understanding of the practice of science.

In science the 'party line' is the one with the most objective evidenece. If you want to overcome it, it will need to be done with more evidenece, not personal religious beliefs and poor logic.

And finally, Evolution does not equal atheism.

 

[WakeForest13]

And finally, Evolution does not equal atheism.

You actually expect him to understand this complex mathematical equation???

 

[vitodabona]

The need for vacation homes probably has more to do with these folks becoming scientists who support creationism. Call me a cynic.

 

[truthmonger89]

The fundamental principle of science is that a good idea, belief, or theory is one that can withstand scrutiny. Ideas that don't withstand scrutiny are dismissed. If creationism is a good idea that can withstand scrutiny then the fact that a scientist would be afraid to publicly present his belief suggests that he is aware that it cannot withstand scrutiny. One has to wonder why a scientist would hold a belief which he fears will not withstand scrutiny, or if he even holds such a belief at all.

 

[Chalnoth]

The fundamental principle of science is that a good idea, belief, or theory is one that can withstand scrutiny. Ideas that don't withstand scrutiny are dismissed. If creationism is a good idea that can withstand scrutiny then the fact that a scientist would be afraid to publicly present his belief suggests that he is aware that it cannot withstand scrutiny. One has to wonder why a scientist would hold a belief which he fears will not withstand scrutiny, or if he even holds such a belief at all.

Yup. I wouldn't call such a person a scientist at all. I mean, maybe they could get away with believing in creationism if they are in a field completely disconnected from it (like, say, solid state physics), and are willfully ignorant of the evidence for evolution and an old universe. But if they are presented with the evidence and don't believe what it says, well, I wouldn't call such a person a scientist.

 

[JohnR7]

40% of scientists may believe in a personal God, but less then 5% believe in creation - not like you to be misleading at all John is it?

They do not believe in YEC and science is very vocal in their unbelief of YEC. Perhaps for good reason because the YEC's attack science so much.

In a broad sense TE is just another creationist theory. Collins is actually TE. It could be that a lot of those 40% of the scientiest who endorse God are TE.

According to Frances Collins in his book: "The language of God"
Taken at face value, the term "creationist" would seem to imply the general perspective of one who argues for the existence of a God who was directly involved in the creation of the universe. In a broad sense, many deists and nearly all theists, including me, would need to count themselves as creationists."

 

[JohnR7]

Once again, after your initial bit on Collins, you fail to provide any evidence of the claims you make. Evolution has been around in academia for close to 150 years. By now there would have been plenty of time for tenured professors to come out against evolution. Nothing more than armchair speculation.

Personally, I'm up for tenure next month, and I don't think I'm going to become a creationist anytime soon.

There is a pretty good body of evidence against Evolution. There are a lot of books available that come out against the theory of evolution. (common descent)

 

[Opcode42]

There is a pretty good body of evidence against Evolution. There are a lot of books available that come out against the theory of evolution. (common descent)

You've said this several times before, yet you continue to fail to actually back up this claim.

Please present this evidence for discussion. Here in this thread. Not links to Amazon.com, not links to opinion and personal belief. Actual physical evidence with an explanation as to why it contradicts evolution.

You know, like what a scientist would do to back up his theory.

Or, you can stop stating your opinion as fact.

 

[Chalnoth]

There is a pretty good body of evidence against Evolution. There are a lot of books available that come out against the theory of evolution. (common descent)

Just because the books come out doesn't mean they have any real evidence to speak of. Please, post the one single argument that you find most compelling in these books that you've read.

 

[notto]

There is a pretty good body of evidence against Evolution. There are a lot of books available that come out against the theory of evolution. (common descent)

There are lots of books about UFO's, bigfoot, and the conspiracy of 9/11 - books are not evidence, objective and reviewed data is evidence.

 

[Mistermystery]

The point is we know that 40% of science believe in a personal God that answers prayer.....they are more inclined to take strong positions against evolution or for creationism or anything else they may have strong beliefs in.

By now the fallacy that "believing in god does not equal evolution". So even if only 40% (which I believe is higher, but whatever) believes in God, that doesn't mean that an equal number is against evolutionism.

Perhaps some people after holding it in for years are all the more willing to take a stand for what they believe.

And perhaps there are an equal amount of people who explore their faith at an earlier age.

Seriously I don't see the point of this thread, I know a scientist who works on geneticstuff and who believes in God, but in no way has to fear about her job. So unless there is some secrect evil atheist conspiracy out there in the scientific community that I'm not aware off, that boots scientists who are expressing a form of believe, I think it's pretty saef to say that most scientists believe in Evolution because of the evidence it helps explain.

As it is there are lots of people in science that take a stand against evoluton.

Source? how many of them are in biology related fields? Oh that's right.... Saying it is so much easier then researching it.

 

[Mistermystery]

There is a pretty good body of evidence against Evolution. There are a lot of books available that come out against the theory of evolution. (common descent)

Oh please John, Please! List us your evidence against evolution!

 

[JohnR7]

You've said this several times before, yet you continue to fail to actually back up this claim.

Do you want a list of the anti evolution books or just a list of the authors that are anti evolution?

 

[JohnR7]

Oh please John, Please! List us your evidence against evolution!

Do you want a list of the anti evolution books or just a list of the authors that are anti evolution?

 

[Edx]

In a broad sense TE is just another creationist theory. Collins is actually TE.

No a Creationist is someone that believes in a literal belief in their holy scriptures and specifically going contary to mainstream science, and almost always wanting science to include supernatural explanations. THATS a Creationist. Thats why even if ID people arent literalists they are still Creationists because they want to claim their faith in supernatural design is science. TEs cannot be said to be Creationists because they have no problem with methodological naturalism.

It could be that a lot of those 40% of the scientiest who endorse God are TE.

Could be?