% that accept evolution per state

[bhsmte]

but this is possibly due to fears of losing ones Job, or demoted/ refused to advance:

As evidence of this claim I give two quotes:

Behe and geisler readily admit that one reason why the "more education...(the) less likely you are to reject" darwinism is

Michael Behe in the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.”-Harvard Political Review- 5/12/02

also: geisler admits this too:

“by admitting God, Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”- above quote from: I don't have faith enough to be an athiest, book by geisler and turek

Lame, real lame.

We aren't just talking about high end PHD scientists here, even people who graduate from college and are not in science agree with the TOE at a higher rate and also believe in Gods at a lower rate.

I have worked in the medical field for over 20 years and deal with physicians and other highly educated people. Not once, has there ever been any discussion about whether a God exists or not and certainly no pressure for a person to declare one way or the other. Furthermore, when these polls are taken, they are anonymous, which craters your whole conspiracy theory you created out of desperation.

 

[USincognito]

so are you saying that steve and stephanie are the same person?

So's Law - Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

Not following you here.

Straw men aren't known for walking around much.

When has diminutive, meant "the exact same word"? Usually they are different words yes?

Please point to where I said that. After that you can show me that you understand the difference between feminization (what Stephanie is) and diminution (what Stephanie is not) and then we can continue the discussion.

 

[USincognito]

you will have to try again, I think I won this one. And it looks like just in time, (as you have run out of ammo).

laugh harder - YouTube

I've wasted too much of my time on people like you. Off to the ignore list.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

but this is possibly due to fears of losing ones Job, or demoted/ refused to advance:

As evidence of this claim I give two quotes:

Behe and geisler readily admit that one reason why the "more education...(the) less likely you are to reject" darwinism is

Michael Behe in the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.”-Harvard Political Review- 5/12/02

also: geisler admits this too:

“by admitting God, Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”- above quote from: I don't have faith enough to be an athiest, book by geisler and turek

Let's consider the flip side. There are many Christian colleges in the United States, funded and run by fundamentalists. Many of them have science teachers in them. Wouldn't it be true that science teachers in those colleges run the risk of losing their jobs if they choose to support evolution? How many teachers in such colleges have chosen to go ahead and support evolution and run that risk? Does anybody know of any?

 

[createdtoworship]

Let's consider the flip side. There are many Christian colleges in the United States, funded and run by fundamentalists. Many of them have science teachers in them. Wouldn't it be true that science teachers in those colleges run the risk of losing their jobs if they choose to support evolution? How many teachers in such colleges have chosen to go ahead and support evolution and run that risk? Does anybody know of any?

mute point, because the majority of federal and state grant money comes from uniformitarian thought. God doesn't pay the bills" they will say.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

mute point, because the majority of federal and state grant money comes from uniformitarian thought. God doesn't pay the bills" they will say.

It is not a moot point when we are considering whether or not evolution is true and we are looking at the reasons why people support or oppose evolution.

If people in fundamentalist colleges decide to support evolution at the risk of their personal jobs, isn't that evidence they are doing so out of personal conviction that evolution is true? Isn't that just as powerful an argument for evolution as asserting people in secular colleges are only supporting evolution because they want to keep their jobs? An assertion without much evidence, but we see people making it right here in this thread.

Check this out:

Professors and students at Bryan College protest changes to statement of faith @insidehighered

 

[ViaCrucis]

mute point

Moot. Not mute.

Sorry, just one of my eye twitch triggers.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JGG]

mute point, because the majority of federal and state grant money comes from uniformitarian thought. God doesn't pay the bills" they will say.

Moot point. It's a moot point.

 

[createdtoworship]

Moot point. It's a moot point.

thanks for the spelling correction, but do you have anything more to add to the conversation?

thank you for the comment

 

[createdtoworship]

Moot. Not mute.

Sorry, just one of my eye twitch triggers.

-CryptoLutheran

again thanks for the spelling correction, I surely hope however that you have something more important to add to the conversation.

thanks for the post.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is not a moot point when we are considering whether or not evolution is true and we are looking at the reasons why people support or oppose evolution.

If people in fundamentalist colleges decide to support evolution at the risk of their personal jobs, isn't that evidence they are doing so out of personal conviction that evolution is true? Isn't that just as powerful an argument for evolution as asserting people in secular colleges are only supporting evolution because they want to keep their jobs? An assertion without much evidence, but we see people making it right here in this thread.

Check this out:

Professors and students at Bryan College protest changes to statement of faith @insidehighered

the doctrine of original sin is at stake when one refused to take adam and eve literally. Salvation becomes at this point convoluted. So thank you for the link, I think however it supports my position rather than yours. your link stated this: ""In my opinion, schools like Bryan should lose their accreditation. There should be no government approval of any sort for an institution that forces people to affirm that the earth is 10,000 years old, when we know it is 4.5 billion. " But If anything the school is following what they believed, In my example- As in federal grant money, they too follow what they believe. And proceed as it is mentioned in the article, to discriminate, etc those people of faith or other doubters IDers.

secondly, you are not addressing the issue at hand. My premise is that federal grant money is focused on uniformitarian thought, now if you will please address a rebuttal to this, we can then proceed to the next point.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

the doctrine of original sin is at stake when one refused to take adam and eve literally. Salvation becomes at this point convoluted. So thank you for the link, I think however it supports my position rather than yours. your link stated this: ""In my opinion, schools like Bryan should lose their accreditation. There should be no government approval of any sort for an institution that forces people to affirm that the earth is 10,000 years old, when we know it is 4.5 billion. " But If anything the school is following what they believed, In my example- As in federal grant money, they too follow what they believe. And proceed as it is mentioned in the article, to discriminate, etc those people of faith or other doubters IDers.

secondly, you are not addressing the issue at hand. My premise is that federal grant money is focused on uniformitarian thought, now if you will please address a rebuttal to this, we can then proceed to the next point.

I am merely pointing out there is another arena in which uniformitarian thought is supported and financed and independent thinking is penalized and that arena is Christian Colleges that deny evolution. If you merely deplore "uniformitarian" thought, you should consider deploring Christian colleges that require their professors to agree to not support evolution and actually fire those who do.

Instead, I predict you will support the "right" of colleges to "support" their particular beliefs against evolution, regardless of the conclusions of those in their science departments, oddly enough those most qualified in the staff to judge the evidence for evolution.

Now scientists will tend to support evolution as a group, but its not the uniformity of the scientists that is driving them to do this, it is the uniformity of the actual evidence in favor of evolution that is driving them to do this.

I think it is quite plainly the case that those professors who turn from their fundamentalist roots and decide to support evolution are doing so precisely because their conscience leads them to do this, based on their loyalty to truth.

If your doctrines cannot survive exposure to the truth, such as the fact of evolution, consider what that implies about your doctrines.

Many of us consider Adam and Eve to be actually the first of our species to have genuine eternal souls. This idea certainly preserves the doctrine of original sin. Many of us consider it better to preserve essential doctrines in ways that are compatible with reality instead of requiring people to forsake the knowledge God has allowed us to gain in these last days, in accordance with the prophecy given to Daniel.

 

[JGG]

thanks for the spelling correction, but do you have anything more to add to the conversation?

Not really. It's really not much of a conversation, is it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

those who are employed in the field of empirical sciences (at the phd level)

Pretty much by consensus.
So imagine the potential pool of all "real scientists", subtract 0.5% (mostly for margin error) and that would then be the number of "real scientists" who have no problems with modern biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but this is possibly due to fears of losing ones Job, or demoted/ refused to advance:

As evidence of this claim I give two quotes:

Behe and geisler readily admit that one reason why the "more education...(the) less likely you are to reject" darwinism is

Michael Behe in the Harvard Political Review, “There’s good reason to be afraid. Even if you’re not fired from your job, you will easily be passed over for promotions. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory not to make their views known.”-Harvard Political Review- 5/12/02

also: geisler admits this too:

“by admitting God, Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”- above quote from: I don't have faith enough to be an athiest, book by geisler and turek

The ridiculous thing about this argument is that it can also be used by a flat-earth geologist, a "stork theory" embryologist, a "faith healing" surgeon or a "gravity pixies" physicist.

If as a scientist you are going to ignore the science and advance religious ideas instead, you're gonna be fired or ignored.

And rightfully so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

it has been overturned, multiple times ad-naseum. But this is not the point, the point is that evolutionistic enterprise is very politically motivated. And frankly people are being bullied and intimidated by peer review societies to come up with uniformitarian works. Grant monies, you name it all are based on said naturalistic views.

Haaaa.... and out comes the conspiracy nonsense.

I have a short list of famous scientists who were shunned from peer review boards because of their nonconformity views. They did later get nobel prizes, but not after losing face with their jobs, their peers and others.

If you say stupid things as a professional concerning your field, you're gonna be spit out of that field. That's just how it goes.

If I as a software egineer start to spew the equivalent of such nonsense, I'll be out of a job rather fast as well....

Why would you keep paying someone who clearly isn't capable of doing his job like he should be?

 

[createdtoworship]

Not really. It's really not much of a conversation, is it?

lol

 

[createdtoworship]

I am merely pointing out there is another arena in which uniformitarian thought is supported and financed and independent thinking is penalized and that arena is Christian Colleges that deny evolution. If you merely deplore "uniformitarian" thought, you should consider deploring Christian colleges that require their professors to agree to not support evolution and actually fire those who do.

Instead, I predict you will support the "right" of colleges to "support" their particular beliefs against evolution, regardless of the conclusions of those in their science departments, oddly enough those most qualified in the staff to judge the evidence for evolution.

Now scientists will tend to support evolution as a group, but its not the uniformity of the scientists that is driving them to do this, it is the uniformity of the actual evidence in favor of evolution that is driving them to do this.

I think it is quite plainly the case that those professors who turn from their fundamentalist roots and decide to support evolution are doing so precisely because their conscience leads them to do this, based on their loyalty to truth.

If your doctrines cannot survive exposure to the truth, such as the fact of evolution, consider what that implies about your doctrines.

Many of us consider Adam and Eve to be actually the first of our species to have genuine eternal souls. This idea certainly preserves the doctrine of original sin. Many of us consider it better to preserve essential doctrines in ways that are compatible with reality instead of requiring people to forsake the knowledge God has allowed us to gain in these last days, in accordance with the prophecy given to Daniel.

anyway the proof is in the pudding, do you have legitimate examples of christians firing evolutionists? It usually the other way around. Those who are in their system, firing those who are out on a limb scientifically speaking. Which is my case and point. My example is near universal while yours, merely nonexistent. here is the list:

"Rosalyn Yalow, Günter Blobel, Mitchell J. Feigenbaum, Theodore Maiman, . John Bardeen, and Tuzo Wilsona" all were rejected from peer review boards for their submittals which later became famous in the field or received nobel prizes. All of this because of the unconformity of their scope.

"Stephen W. Hawking is the world’s most famous physicist. According to his first wife Jane, when Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.7 I have heard from colleagues who must remain nameless that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what I personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called “unitarity” would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected. (The word on the street is that the initial referee was the Institute for Advanced Study physicist Freeman Dyson.)"

above from:

Frank J. Tipler- Chapter 7 of Uncommon Dissent. Ch7= REFEREED JOURNALS -DO THEY INSURE QUALITY OR ENFORCE ORTHODOXY?
From Book : UNCOMMON DISSENT Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing Edited by William A. Dembski, 2004

“1999 Nature magazine published a letter from Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, who said, “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”22- Scott Todd, letter to the editor, Nature 401/6752 (September 30, 1999): 423.”- Norman Geisler in His book Creation and the courts.

let me repost this tidbit from my original post for clarity:

“Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration. How so? Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution. Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special. Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialist colleagues. So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”

evolution is where the grant monies lie. There is risk in any new venture in science, nonconformity is simply not profitable (most of the time).

 

[mzungu]

Just be grateful that Michael hasn't shown up with his "Electric Universe"!

 

[Split Rock]

it has been overturned, multiple times ad-naseum.

What been overturned "multiple times as-naseum?" The theory of evolution? I must have missed the memo on that. I sure haven't seen that here in this forum.

But this is not the point, the point is that evolutionistic enterprise is very politically motivated.

By what? What "enterprise?" Its a scientific theory, not a cabal.

And frankly people are being bullied and intimidated by peer review societies to come up with uniformitarian works. Grant monies, you name it all are based on said naturalistic views.

The only bullying going on is by ID proponents who want special treatment. When they don't get special treatment they cry "persecution." Where is the testable I.D. hypothesis? Where are the experiments designed to test the predictions of I.D.? Where are they? They don't exist. I.D. proponents have done nothing but publish in the public sphere and try to politic to get public support, when they should be trying to convince their scientific colleagues with real research. Darwin didn't get special treatment, and neither should Behe.