Issues in Scienceville.

[Inan3]

^ This is what I was referring to. (questions)

And no, it's not discrimination. Science has rules, and religion fails to follow them. For the reason I posted (which story?) I wouldn't take their claim or mission seriously. If they had (need more information) indeed been legitimately been discriminated against then that is indeed bad, but I'll need more evidence for that.

Science has rules??? So?? That's just your way of closing your eyes. You don't want to believe that you and so many others have been duped. Evolution is NOT a proven theory it has only been "accepted" as such. Have you or ANYONE for that matter seen the evidence data. NO!! No one has. You just keep passing the same vote of confidence and acceptance speech along for it and yet, you have never seen it and still believe. Sounds like faith to me.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Science has rules??? So?? That's just your way of closing your eyes. You don't want to believe that you and so many others have been duped. Evolution is NOT a proven theory it has only been "accepted" as such. Have you or ANYONE for that matter seen the evidence data. NO!! No one has. You just keep passing the same vote of confidence and acceptance speech along for it and yet, you have never seen it and still believe. Sounds like faith to me.

Yes, it has rules. And these were scientists..... I think you see the problem with your reasoning. And regarding the rest, yes, I've seen the evidence, and it's very convincing.

Still unfounded claims as far as the eye can see.

 

[Hespera]

That's just your way of closing your eyes. You don't want to believe that you and so many others have been duped. Evolution is NOT a proven theory it has only been "accepted" as such. Have you or ANYONE for that matter seen the evidence data. NO!! No one has. You just keep passing the same vote of confidence and acceptance speech along for it and yet, you have never seen it and still believe. Sounds like faith to me. [/COLOR]

]Science has rules??? So??

Well yes it does. We believe in things like due diligence, rather than reckless disregard for good practice.
For example you are not supposed to put the conclusion first and then try to support it with no data.
If you do that you are the opposite of a scientist.

Evolution is NOT a proven theory it has only been "accepted" as such.

ok one more time. Nobody tries to prove a theory, as it is a logical and practical impossibility.

Only those with not a clue about science would even talk of such a thing.

It makes a person look terribly unsophisticated to say things like that.

It has not been "accepted" as proven, with or without the quotation marks.

I dont know why it seems ok to state falsehoods in such a reckless way.

Have you or ANYONE for that matter seen the evidence data. NO!! No one has.

We dont call it "evidence data".

And nobody has seen all of it, there is a volume far far beyond any human's capacity to see it all.

So I have seen some, a good deal actually, studied it, understood it.

We are not the duped ones. The people who actually have studied, and know a lot about something very seldom are the ones who get duped.

 

[Inan3]

is a prize exhibit of nonsense.

Hespera, you don't get it do you? What if I said that your opinions were "a prize exhibit of nonesense."

the core of what you are saying tho is that scientists around the world conspire to suppress knowledge and in various other ways constantly violate the most basic concepts and principles of their profession.

Nope, the core of what I am saying is that there are those who DO conspire to suppress knowledge and that scientists around the world either don't know it or close their eyes to it BECAUSE they don't want to be on the other end of the suppression. So it is better to shut up than to speak up. Don't make waves and you won't get thrown overboard.

The "intimidation and suppression" is not true, and I would kind of think a good christian would hesitate... but maybe not.

Please do not attack my personal life as a Christian again or I am going to report you. I do not attack your personal life as a non-chrisitan and I expect you to keep your comments about my Christianity to yourself. What you deem to be a "good christian" seems to be whatever you think you can use against me at any time I do not say or do not do something that you want me to say or do.

The Bible says to take the MOTE out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of someone else's. Now if you want to discuss your reasons why you do not agree with what I have posted and you can prove that these people have not been oppressed and suppressed as they say, then go ahead, but do not attack my personal life for the last time.

The essence of "creation science" is to violate the most basic principles and code of conduct in science.

Really? How so?

Conclusion first and then try to demonstrate it with no data.

Here I ask.. DID YOU read the whole article?

IF a person is trying to get accepted for doing research inside out and backwards they can expect what they get. No respect.

Do you have proof that this is what they did?

Sometimes a person with a radical new idea has a hard time getting it accepted

.

Creationism is not a radical new idea though... is it? Even if it was they should not be ridiculed because they hold to it as was the case for these people.

If he has data on his side, it will win out eventually.

Not if it isn't even allowed to be presented. BUT I ASSURE YOU Creationism WILL "win out eventually." It will be presented and NOT suppressed and every one who rejected it will hang their head in shame to the Creator.

If evolution were a c rock, some physicist at the U of Beijing would find a way to neatly falsify the whole thing. maybe a chemist in Mumbai.

Oh and how would they do that? Perhaps they have but it was shot down and not even given a chance to be heard.

 

[Inan3]

Yes, it has rules. And these were scientists..... I think you see the problem with your reasoning. And regarding the rest, yes, I've seen the evidence, and it's very convincing.

Still unfounded claims as far as the eye can see.

Are you suggesting that by your little phrase "and these are scientists" that I am suppose to "see" some problem with my reasoning? I guess you were not quite as effective as you thought. I don't see ANY problem with my reasoning.

Where is the evdence that you personally saw? When did you see it? WHAT is the evidence that you have seen. I'm talking about actual data not just so and so told me and I was convinced or I saw it on wikipedia and now I am convinced or I read it in a book. That's not evidence that hearsay. So please do provide us with the evidence that you actually saw documented and written down in actual science lab by an actual scientist showing you the proof.

No unfounded claims. These people had actual real life situations that happened to them in SCIENCEVILLE.

 

[Incariol]

Are you suggesting that by your little phrase "and these are scientists" that I am suppose to "see" some problem with my reasoning? I guess you were not quite as effective as you thought. I don't see ANY problem with my reasoning.

Where is the evdence that you personally saw? When did you see it? WHAT is the evidence that you have seen. I'm talking about actual data not just so and so told me and I was convinced or I saw it on wikipedia and now I am convinced or I read it in a book. That's not evidence that hearsay. So please do provide us with the evidence that you actually saw documented and written down in actual science lab by an actual scientist showing you the proof.

No unfounded claims. These people had actual real life situations that happened to them in SCIENCEVILLE.

Have you ever actually been part of the scientific discipline? Presented research? Got published? Collected data?

 

[Inan3]

Have you ever actually been part of the scientific discipline? Presented research? Got published? Collected data?

No, but that is not a prerequisite to understanding. I do know how it works, though. Have you? And by the way, the scientists that were in the article I present were very familiar with it.

 

[Incariol]

No, but that is not a prerequisite to understanding.

No, they just often go hand in hand.

I do know how it works, though.

Your conspiracy theory posts indicate otherwise.

Have you?

Yes.

And by the way, the scientists that were in the article I present were very familiar with it.

Good for them. They aren't the only ones, and the overwhelming majority of their peers feel their position is ludicrous and untenable in light of the data.

 

[Jro]

Where is the evdence that you personally saw? When did you see it? WHAT is the evidence that you have seen. I'm talking about actual data not just so and so told me and I was convinced or I saw it on wikipedia and now I am convinced or I read it in a book. That's not evidence that hearsay. So please do provide us with the evidence that you actually saw documented and written down in actual science lab by an actual scientist showing you the proof.

No unfounded claims. These people had actual real life situations that happened to them in SCIENCEVILLE.

If you're being completely honest about wanting to know the why's and wherefore's of science, I'd suggest picking up a textbook. No really. Go find Doug Futuyma's textbook "Evolution." It's an advanced undergrad/lower grad school textbook that is chock full of references for every step of evolution. These are the data that scientists are exposed to.

Stop relying on third party websites that aren't even affiliated with the scientist they're supposed to be 'representing.' Have you read Sargent's paper? Have you read Kettlewell's? Have you read the other critics of Kettlewell's (Majerus, Coyne)? Have you read the defenses of Kettlewell? These sources and their data are available to you. Yet you've decided to go with a third party book review of a book written by a journalist, not even the scientists involved with the projects themselves. Trust me, the story isn't that simple. The squabbling is part of the process.

 

[sandwiches]

Operative word "scientists" these are scientists that are being intimidated and suppressed just because they disagree. Other scientists KNOW this happens and therefore they don't make waves and "accept" the so-called evidence that so-called "proves" evolution etc. This has been going on for a century so that new scientists don't even challenge or know the "so-called" evidence because it seems to be solid and accepted.

How are they being supressed?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Are you suggesting that by your little phrase "and these are scientists" that I am suppose to "see" some problem with my reasoning? I guess you were not quite as effective as you thought. I don't see ANY problem with my reasoning.

You said that science having rules is silly. (it isn't) Not keeping in mind that those complaining were scientists, therefore implying that they observe the rules of science in their work...

Where is the evdence that you personally saw? When did you see it? WHAT is the evidence that you have seen. I'm talking about actual data not just so and so told me and I was convinced or I saw it on wikipedia and now I am convinced or I read it in a book. That's not evidence that hearsay. So please do provide us with the evidence that you actually saw documented and written down in actual science lab by an actual scientist showing you the proof.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

The evidence is out there... All over the place. The problem is looking for it.

No unfounded claims. These people had actual real life situations that happened to them in SCIENCEVILLE.

But you (or they) are making claims about their situation. How have they been oppressed? In what ways? Do they represent the majority?

 

[mzungu]

Science has rules??? So?? That's just your way of closing your eyes. You don't want to believe that you and so many others have been duped. Evolution is NOT a proven theory it has only been "accepted" as such. Have you or ANYONE for that matter seen the evidence data. NO!! No one has. You just keep passing the same vote of confidence and acceptance speech along for it and yet, you have never seen it and still believe. Sounds like faith to me.

Have you or anyone seen GOD

 

[Psudopod]

Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview

Summary
The writer interviewed over 100 persons who were active in what is known as the creation-intelligent design movement. Most felt that the standard evolutionary paradigm of origins was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions. The creationists interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of origins, and about half would be identified with the seven day literal 24-hour day non-gap universal Noachian deluge creationist position. Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often. The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.



Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview

The thing is, this is equivalent to a church not hiring someone to lead services who admitted to being a practising Muslim. No church would want someone leading a Christian service from the Quran, would they? Creationists aren't fired for being Christian, there are lots of practicing Christians in science, they are either fired or not hired at all because they are not doing science.

Science is a way of doing things, a methodology. If you do not follow this method, you are not doing science. Now, you may not feel that it is the best methodology, and that's fine. But instead of complaining that they methodology is wrong and you should be allowed to work in your different way and call it science, what you should be doing, is taking your new methodolgy and show that you can get better results than scientists. (This is a generic you, btw, not aimed at Inan3 specifically).

Again, I ask, where is the evidence that creationists have been doing it right and been suppressed simply because of their results? Where are the failed papers, that were rejected for ideological reasons? Creationists have their own journals these days, so they can't claim they aren't able to be published at all. Is there anything in these journals that over-turns our current understanding? If not, why not?

 

[Hespera]

is a prize exhibit of nonsense.

Hespera, you don't get it do you? What if I said that your opinions were "a prize exhibit of nonesense."


Nope, the core of what I am saying is that there are those who DO conspire to suppress knowledge and that scientists around the world either don't know it or close their eyes to it BECAUSE they don't want to be on the other end of the suppression. So it is better to shut up than to speak up. Don't make waves and you won't get thrown overboard.


Please do not attack my personal life as a Christian again or I am going to report you. I do not attack your personal life as a non-chrisitan and I expect you to keep your comments about my Christianity to yourself. What you deem to be a "good christian" seems to be whatever you think you can use against me at any time I do not say or do not do something that you want me to say or do.

The Bible says to take the MOTE out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of someone else's. Now if you want to discuss your reasons why you do not agree with what I have posted and you can prove that these people have not been oppressed and suppressed as they say, then go ahead, but do not attack my personal life for the last time.


Really? How so?


Here I ask.. DID YOU read the whole article?



Do you have proof that this is what they did?

.

Creationism is not a radical new idea though... is it? Even if it was they should not be ridiculed because they hold to it as was the case for these people.



Not if it isn't even allowed to be presented. BUT I ASSURE YOU Creationism WILL "win out eventually." It will be presented and NOT suppressed and every one who rejected it will hang their head in shame to the Creator.



Oh and how would they do that? Perhaps they have but it was shot down and not even given a chance to be heard.

Hespera, you don't get it do you? What if I said that your opinions were "a prize exhibit of nonesense.

Get what? If I aid something as nonsensical as "prove a theory" i hope you or anyone else would call me on it.

Nope, the core of what I am saying is that there are those who DO conspire to suppress knowledge and that scientists around the world either don't know it or close their eyes to it BECAUSE they don't want to be on the other end of the suppression. So it is better to shut up than to speak up. Don't make waves and you won't get thrown overboard.

Seems like a rephrase of the same falsehood, that involves scientists around the world acting in direct contravention of the most basic concepts of science and for most, the very reason they went into research... curiosity, wanting to know. its as outlandsih as if I said most preachers want us not to hear about god.

Please do not attack my personal life as a Christian again or I am going to report you. I do not attack your personal life as a non-chrisitan

it not your personal life its what you wrote here, but fine we will speak no more of you being a christian. i guess the piont really is that i dont see how reckless disregard goes with anyones ethics.

Now if you want to discuss your reasons why you do not agree with what I have posted and you can prove that these people have not been oppressed

i did point out a couple of things already. But this shift burden of proof biz is ridiculous. Prove a negative is ridiculous.
I dont think anyone has been "oppressed" for the reasons you cite, but rather if someone misses out it is for what i said...bad science, no science, trying to be accepted for conclusions with no data.

The essence of "creation science" is to violate the most basic principles and code of conduct in science.
​

Really? How so?
Here I ask.. DID YOU read the whole article?

if you look at the very next line after you asked that i wrote conclusion first, no data. And yes i did read it.

 

[Inan3]

[/b]The thing is, this is equivalent to a church not hiring someone to lead services who admitted to being a practising Muslim. No church would want someone leading a Christian service from the Quran, would they?

IF science were a religion then this might be the case but it is not it is secular. BTW this is not Preachers wanting to have a science degree or tenure so they can preach to all of Scienceville. This is people who believe in creation who want to be scientists, who didn't say anything about wanting to PROVE creation, they just want to be scientists and pursue their love of the sciences and they are being denied!!! That is more like YOU being denied a degree because you are from Great Britain or someone being denied a degree because they have a different color skin or they are the wrong gender. This is discrimination rearing it's ugly head and it is an issue in Scienceville.

This is more like Islam taking over the church because it moved in and FORCED them to become Muslim. Which IS happening all over the world. A person who goes through the education process and receives the grades etc. in the field of science should not be denied tenure or a degree JUST BECAUSE he is a Christian. This is discrimination. Science has no right to deny someone based on their religious beliefs. That is against the law. If they want to deny their data based on the data or if these people were disruptive in character or actions then that is another case but just on the basis of being a Christian... this is discrimination.

Creationists aren't fired for being Christian, there are lots of practicing Christians in science, they are either fired or not hired at all because they are not doing science.

"The thousands of creationists with tenure in science departments usually achieve it by one of two ways. One survey found that the most common method is to stay in the closet—not openly identify oneself as a creationist (43 percent); and the second method (38 percent) is to become a creationist after achieving tenure.42 This study did not locate a single out-of-the-closet conservative creationist awarded tenure in any state university in the last ten years, and very few before. These results take on more meaning in view of the fact that two decades ago tenure was usually automatic." Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview

Science is a way of doing things, a methodology. If you do not follow this method, you are not doing science. Now, you may not feel that it is the best methodology, and that's fine. But instead of complaining that they methodology is wrong and you should be allowed to work in your different way and call it science, what you should be doing, is taking your new methodolgy and show that you can get better results than scientists. (This is a generic you, btw, not aimed at Inan3 specifically).

They are not even being allowed to get to this point. This has NOTHING to do with methodology. You can't do things "science's way" if you are DENIED an access into Scienceville. Although, I will say it was a great ploy and strategic maneuver on the part of all those atheistic hatemongers. Once again conservatives are caught off guard by the devious and demonical forces of hell. But that never stopped the truth before because when the dust settles the fight will be on and justice and right will prevail.

Again, I ask, where is the evidence that creationists have been doing it right and been suppressed simply because of their results? Where are the failed papers, that were rejected for ideological reasons? Creationists have their own journals these days, so they can't claim they aren't able to be published at all. Is there anything in these journals that over-turns our current understanding? If not, why not?

No, it's even worse than that. This is about being DENIED before they even get a degree just because they ADMITTED they believe in creation. It's like' because you are a creationist you don't even GET ON the bus.

Imagine how horrible it is for a little boy who all his life wanted to be a scientist and then grows up and AFTER he PAYS FOR his education and works very hard to get the grades to have his hopes DASHED and find out they have denied the degree because he happens to believe in God. Can you spell DISCRIMINATION???!!!

All I can say is that discrimination has been fought and won many times before so don't expect this to go on forever. It's not going to continue without a fight.

 

[Nathan Poe]

IF science were a religion then this might be the case but it is not it is secular. BTW this is not Preachers wanting to have a science degree or tenure so they can preach to all of Scienceville. This is people who believe in creation who want to be scientists, who didn't say anything about wanting to PROVE creation, they just want to be scientists and pursue their love of the sciences and they are being denied!!!

because they want to flood Scienceville with pseudoscientific nonsense.

Scienceville has a pretty strict immigration policy -- what it useful and supportable gets in; garbage stays out.

That is more like YOU being denied a degree because you are from Great Britain or someone being denied a degree because they have a different color skin or they are the wrong gender. This is discrimination rearing it's ugly head and it is an issue in Scienceville.

Not true -- anyone from any country can be a superstitious bumpkin; none of them are going to get any respect in Scienceville regardless of race, creed, or country of origin.

This is more like Islam taking over the church because it moved in and FORCED them to become Muslim. Which IS happening all over the world. A person who goes through the education process and receives the grades etc. in the field of science should not be denied tenure or a degree JUST BECAUSE he is a Christian. This is discrimination.

It's also a fantasy.

Science has no right to deny someone based on their religious beliefs. That is against the law. If they want to deny their data based on the data or if these people were disruptive in character or actions then that is another case but just on the basis of being a Christian... this is discrimination.

If the person's Christianity has skewed their data collection to the point of uselessness -- which is the case with Creationism -- then it's not discrimination.

"The thousands of creationists with tenure in science departments usually achieve it by one of two ways. One survey found that the most common method is to stay in the closet—not openly identify oneself as a creationist (43 percent); and the second method (38 percent) is to become a creationist after achieving tenure.42 This study did not locate a single out-of-the-closet conservative creationist awarded tenure in any state university in the last ten years, and very few before. These results take on more meaning in view of the fact that two decades ago tenure was usually automatic." Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview

Most Holocaust deniers find they have to use one of the same two methods in order to get History tenures. Discrimination?

Also, notice how you switched from "Christian" to "creationist" as if they were interchangable?

They are not even being allowed to get to this point. This has NOTHING to do with methodology. You can't do things "science's way" if you are DENIED an access into Scienceville.

It's called the "scientific method" for a reason. If you're going to chant supplications to the spirits and stick pins in little dolls, do it on your own time -- and don't bother to call it "science."

Although, I will say it was a great ploy and strategic maneuver on the part of all those atheistic hatemongers. Once again conservatives are caught off guard by the devious and demonical forces of hell. But that never stopped the truth before because when the dust settles the fight will be on and justice and right will prevail.

Is this an example of the ragining paranoia and persecution complexes that creationists are trying to ramrod into Scienceville? Can you honestly read the drivel you've just typed and wonder why it's not accepted?

No, it's even worse than that. This is about being DENIED before they even get a degree just because they ADMITTED they believe in creation. It's like' because you are a creationist you don't even GET ON the bus.

And for good reason -- Scienceville is a meritocracy; once you've admitted that you bring nothing to the table but fairy tales and superstition, you're not going to impress anybody.

Imagine how horrible it is for a little boy who all his life wanted to be a scientist and then grows up and AFTER he PAYS FOR his education and works very hard to get the grades to have his hopes DASHED and find out they have denied the degree because he happens to believe in God. Can you spell DISCRIMINATION???!!!

Can you spell CONFLATION? You've done it again. Belief in God is not the same as Creationism.

All I can say is that discrimination has been fought and won many times before so don't expect this to go on forever. It's not going to continue without a fight.

And you will lose this fight. Look at your own post -- misunderstanding of terms, sloppy methodology, attempts at deliberate obfuscation, and hysterical rantings.

Is there any place for any of that in Scienceville? Keep it in Creationville where it came from.

 

[mzungu]

IF science were a religion then this might be the case but it is not it is secular. BTW this is not Preachers wanting to have a science degree or tenure so they can preach to all of Scienceville. This is people who believe in creation who want to be scientists, who didn't say anything about wanting to PROVE creation, they just want to be scientists and pursue their love of the sciences and they are being denied!!! That is more like YOU being denied a degree because you are from Great Britain or someone being denied a degree because they have a different color skin or they are the wrong gender. This is discrimination rearing it's ugly head and it is an issue in Scienceville.

A new immigration law has been passed in Scienceville:

Creationists are allowed entry visas on the condition that an atheist evolutionist biologist be allowed to preach in church on Sunday mass.

Also the existing law that allows believers in God to become scientists will remain as is.

 

[Hespera]

I do not attack your personal life as a non-chrisitan

The Bible says to take the MOTE out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of someone else's. Now if you want to discuss your reasons why you do not agree with what I have posted and you can prove that these people have not been oppressed and suppressed as they say, then go ahead, but do not attack my personal life for the last time.



.

Creationism is not a radical new idea though... is it? Even if it was they should not be ridiculed because they hold to it as was the case for these people.



Not if it isn't even allowed to be presented. BUT I ASSURE YOU Creationism WILL "win out eventually." It will be presented and NOT suppressed and every one who rejected it will hang their head in shame to the Creator.



Oh and how would they do that? Perhaps they have but it was shot down and not even given a chance to be heard.

I do not attack your personal life as a non-chrisitan

The Bible says to take the MOTE out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of someone else's.

Really? Then what is the mote thing? But regardless; you entered into the argument a statement that is as factually false as it can get, about proving a theory. I added an editorial comment about reckless disregard, and how i dont see how (anyone) can feel good doing it.

Creationism is not a radical new idea though... is it? Even if it was they should not be ridiculed because they hold to it as was the case for these people.

No its an ancient idea. and of course nobody should be ridiculed in a professional setting for their beliefs. A campus is a very very pc place you dont dare to say anything to offend. its why a korean friend and I used to have fun saying things to shock.."Hey we dont let Chinks on this elevator!!" for example.

But that is as off topic as your "ridicule because they hold to".

No, the problem is if a person does bad research and generates no data, then it doesnt matter what his beleif is. a gard student who somehow spent all his time trying to prove astrology can expect bleak career prospects.

Not if it isn't even allowed to be presented. BUT I ASSURE YOU Creationism WILL "win out eventually." It will be presented and NOT suppressed and every one who rejected it will hang their head in shame to the Creator.

Data is always interesting, data for creationism would be intensely interesting. IF data ever gets generated... kinda weird that none has, it should be everywhere...then it will get a lot of attention. Meanwhile, nobody anywhere has come up with a mote of evidence for it.

Oh and how would they do that? Perhaps they have but it was shot down and not even given a chance to be heard

here is the thing about research. it doesnt go in big leaps, people make tiny incremental advances here, here here, never knowing where it might lead. By the time enough had accumulated to overthrow evolution, say, all of the lead-up work is already out there published, and no conspiracy would be able to stop it.

But as for how a physicist might do it. lets say he discovers something fundamnental about the nature of atoms such as to show that all we think we know about atomic decay is out. Like "dad's" "different state past".
That with the new understanding, we see tht the oldest date of anything is really only 10,000 years.

That would sure falsify the ToE.

A geologist from Beijing who found a cow in the permian would also do a number on the ToE.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists are allowed entry visas on the condition that an atheist evolutionist biologist be allowed to preach in church on Sunday mass.

Sure thing -- as long as he isn't hypocritical about anything.

And the first thing he will have to do before he preaches is participate in the song service.

And the first song?

Spoiler: First Song

O How I Love Jesus

 

[Psudopod]

"The thousands of creationists with tenure in science departments usually achieve it by one of two ways. One survey found that the most common method is to stay in the closet—not openly identify oneself as a creationist (43 percent); and the second method (38 percent) is to become a creationist after achieving tenure.42 This study did not locate a single out-of-the-closet conservative creationist awarded tenure in any state university in the last ten years, and very few before. These results take on more meaning in view of the fact that two decades ago tenure was usually automatic." Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview

But is this because they were creationists, or they because they weren't doing science? How do they know they will lose their jobs if they simply admit to being creationist? How many creationists have been actually been fired because they professed a belief in special creation, rather say, failing to publish work, or teaching false things to students?

No, it's even worse than that. This is about being DENIED before they even get a degree just because they ADMITTED they believe in creation. It's like' because you are a creationist you don't even GET ON the bus.

Imagine how horrible it is for a little boy who all his life wanted to be a scientist and then grows up and AFTER he PAYS FOR his education and works very hard to get the grades to have his hopes DASHED and find out they have denied the degree because he happens to believe in God. Can you spell DISCRIMINATION???!!!

All I can say is that discrimination has been fought and won many times before so don't expect this to go on forever. It's not going to continue without a fight.

If I thought this was happening, I would agree that this is wrong. But I have yet to see any evidence of this. I have yet to see any evidence of students being denied degrees because they are creationist, rather than because they failed their exams. I've certainly never seen anyone denied a degree because they believed in God. I graduated with lots of Christians when I got my degree.