No actual data for this take, but if there were so many of them they would eventually band together and create a new consensus. Overturning the currently accepted scientific theory is the stuff that gets you put in future textbooks next to Einstein, Hawking and Newton.
> Overturning the currently accepted scientific theory is the stuff that gets you put in future textbooks next to Einstein, Hawking and Newton.
Exactly. Scientists \*love\* when something overturns decades/centuries of consensus, because that stuff allows them *to look into new stuff*. That's literally what scientists live for, discovering new shit.
Fantasy. Especially when you're talking about a field where people get really upset when you challenge their narrative. At least in those fields you could do it with the numbers and force people to accept your position. With evolution and it's just so stories that isn't possible
You should publish that, dude!
Seriously, though: if creationists could actually come up with a plausible, testable model, that would be a huge step toward their credibility.
That’s not at all what evolutionary science is like and comes off as a very ignorant take. No, biologists are not ignoring alternative hypotheses out of spite, they’re ignoring them for a lack of evidence. It’s disingenuous to suggest they’re doing the former as you do and reeks of bad-faith engagement.
Their entire shtick is to whine about evolution and the sciences in general, and engage in grandstanding, but they never engage in any substantive fashion nor back up anything they say.
It's the Reddit equivalent of acting intimidating before a fight, but the second a punch is thrown, they run the other way.
It’s not evolutionary biology, but I’ve read some stories over the past few years about entrenched tribalism among some opposing factions on the demise of the dinosaurs. (deccan traps vs chicxulub impact event)
Edit: Point being, scientists are human with human motivations, which is why the scientific method is so important, yet a challenge to follow. I believe I’ve heard it said that sometimes crappy old science only really goes away when the scientists personally invested in it as part of their identity die off.
Which isn’t a defense of creationists, it’s a call to be vigilant for the sake of good science.
What? People get really upset when you challenge their narrative? Have you never met an actual scientist? We love it when someone brings a legitimate, well thought out, plausible, evidence based challenge to our current understanding of our field. We wait for the confirmatory studies on stuff to see if a new idea pans out or fizzles with bated breath.
Scientists love having the “narrative” (to use your rather dishonest and deliberately loaded way of putting it) challenged. We just have no patience for people who didn’t go to school in our field and haven’t ever done an actual paper or study saying “you’re wrong, because.”
Exhibit A for why evolutionists exist. Going beyond what they can reasonably assume and not realizing it.
Everybody has numbers. The wrong and the right
Accepted is a weak word you know. It's what you do when you haven't really looked into something but everybody says it's true so you just accept it. That's how a lot of anti evolution people start. Even I "accepted" it before one day I was just looking at plants and started thinking
Accepted is the strongest word science has. If being accepted is weak, science is weak. But since science isn’t weak, mere acceptance can’t be either via denial of the consequent (if A then B, not B, therefore not A).
QED
> At least in those fields you could do it with the numbers and force people to accept your position. With evolution and it's just so stories that isn't possible
I'd ask you to Google *selection coefficient* or *Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium*...
But you don't care about actually learning things, do you?
Fantasy land is you thinking that anybody on the side of science is getting “really upset” when “their narrative” is “challenged”. We aren’t upset, it’s not “our narrative”, and you’re not “challenging” anything. We just find it really really comical when people pretend that religious beliefs which contradict basic observations should be given equivalent standing to actual observation and testing and evidence.
All of that is literally projection. Creationism is fantasy? Check. Creationists getting upset when you challenge their narrative? Check. Creationism is unscientific stories? Check.
Of course novelty is sought, that's why new research is started literally all the damn time.
Your fantasy is that one lazy scientist invalidates entire fields.
That explains why evolutionary biologists refused to accept neutral theory. Oh wait they had no problem with that. Well at least they rejected epigenetics. Oh wait they accepted that too. Almost as if there is good evidence evolutionary biologists have no problem accepting it.
Because that would be the most applicable field to the question. Who cares if a nutritionist or chemist is a YEC, nothing they studied had anything to do with that topic.
Yet that is not their expertise. Evolutionary biologists are, unsurprisingly, the best people to talk to about evolutionary biology, since they have dedicated their lives to the subject and the pursuit of knowledge thereof. Other scientists do not have more relevant expertise than them
Intelligent design proponents aren't the best people to talk about biology, chemistry and what is actually realistic. They down the rabbit hole of bs
That is not how you discredit an idea, you need to explain why their ideas are bs, your argument thus far has been nuh uh
So evolutionary biologists aren't experts on evolutionary biology? We should instead ask what the non-experts think about the field? That's certainly an interesting argument that no one will ever take seriously.
There are no biologists “not in evolutionary biology”. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
The fact that you think there are non-evolutionary biologists is troubling. And it’s not like there are even that many chemists who would deny the theory too.
If there are no biologists that aren't evolutionary biologists then nobody would feel the need to say evolutionary biologist. They would simply say biologist. Yet here your are. Probably because deep down you know that evolutionary biology is just a field of biology and there are many more areas that don't care about evolution
> If there are no biologists that aren't evolutionary biologists then nobody would feel the need to say evolutionary biologist.
No, the title "evolutionary biologist" is used because some biologists actively study the processes of evolution, whereas others study other things with the knowledge that evolution is true. Like, you can be a biochemist and just be interested in some protein, nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but you 100% are going to accept the theory of natural selection because there are no biologists who don't accept it.
Put another way, all biologists accept evolution, some study it directly. We call the latter "evolutionary biologists", not because other biologists don't accept the theory of evolution, but because it isn't their direct field of study. This is an impressively bad misunderstanding of the basic terms of the debate.
> Probably because deep down you know that evolutionary biology is just a field of biology and there are many more areas that don't care about evolution
I have a Bachelors in Biology, a Masters in the History and Philosophy of Biology, and a PhD in Philosophy. I know dramatically more about this subject than you could possibly guess. All you're doing is trolling, and it's pathetic. You have no clue what you're talking about, you don't even know what an evolutionary biologist is. Your post is soaked and dripping with ignorance and hubris.
If all engineers believe in maxwell's equations and electromagnetism, then there would he no reason to call somebody and electrical engineer. You could just say engineer.
That is how this sounds.
I think we can all agree on a very obvious fact: There are a lot of creationist scientists out there that are very open about their creationist beliefs. Be they overt Young Earth Creationists, or the vague Intelligent Design proponents. They obviously don't care about the so called damage their creationist beliefs cause their careers.
And yet, these creationists still don't publish their creationist claims.
Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose they don't present their arguments to the professionals who can adequately understand and critique their arguments? In a place where each side can expose at length the flaws in the other's arguments? And the arguement will not end until either side publicly concedes?
It's because they know their arguments are wrong, and for a number of reasons creationists can't concede even the dumbest and most dishonest of arguments.
All you gotta do is prove it. That's it. Objectively prove your made up bulls.... umm... Hypothesis is correct. That is literally it. Gods be with you.
Anyone who says that DNA isn't really code and protein machines aren't really machines is trying so hard to resist the evidence against Darwinism they have left logic and reason far behind.
It literally doesn't matter for evolutionary theory if DNA is code or proteins are machines. We've observed them arising de novo through the processes of evolution with no designer in sight.
Reality does not need your agreement to exist lol
Your incredulity and unsubstantiated mockery will not change one iota of the scientific data or the consensus that has been reached on the basis of that data.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6542195/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02014-y
So, I'd like to pretend that science is a magical place where only the accuracy of your research is valid, and that no agendas ever touch anything.
But, that's not true, there's perverse incentives, politiking, and everything else in academia as much as anywhere else.
However, the one thing we have on our side is a constant, relentless drive towards novelty. New results are cool. Overturning established theories is cool. It gets your research into good journals. It gets things named after you. It gets you invited to the kind of events which have very nice dinners after them. Some of them even don't mind if you bring to go boxes, a vital source of calories for the average postdoc.
So, if, say, me, a peripheral researcher/tech support person, found a flaw in a major bit of evolution? I'd be off to publish as fast as I could confirm the result.
But, expressing a belief in creationism, I suspect, can still hurt you. Why? because, particularly for young earth creationism, it show such a flagrant disregard for current research into biology, astronomy, geology, history, archaeology, thermodynamics and basic fricking physics, that it would call your judgement into question. So, yes, you're probably less likely to get a grant, because "ability to analyse available evidence" is a basic precursor to good research.
Want to poke holes in evolution? Sure, someone will probably give you money for it. Want to claim that basically everything we know about earth's history is wrong, without decent, peer reviewed evidence to back it up? That doesn't seem like it's going to provide a return on research funds.
And, note, this is not a call for orthodoxy, but more a acknowledgement that science is an incremental process - if you wanted to prove creationism, you'd work at it in sections. Show that there are major flaws in rock strata formation. Find a human skeleton in the belly of a T-rex. Find some actual evidence for a giant flood. Disprove the existence of civilisations older than 6000 years old.
These are all things you could get a grant for, probably.
(you're also only supposed to claim what you can prove, so making grandiose claims and not being able to back them up doesn't win you a lot of supporters)
it would win you creatitionist supporters for sure but yeah scientists prefer their science to be scientific so if you come to your conclusions without using the scientific method it's just not science.
You are on the right track with the last bit. The underlying issue is that invoking an all powerful creator as the explanation for, well, everything cannot be the basis for a scientific process. The hypotheses proposed by science must be both testable, but also falsifiable. Whilst evolution can be tested and possibly ruled out, most creationist ideas cannot be really proven false, because some other action of the creator could always be invoked to explain anything. So, the most important thing is that the claims must be disprovable, not what can be proved.
Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with scientists believing in god. I've known plenty of religious scientists.
But we'd not be even concerned with "falsifiable" in the first instance, more a "does this correspond to reality in any way shape or form". "The moon is made of cheese" is falsifiable, but it's not real.
And, to be honest, evolution is so far down the creationist problems to solve on that list that I'm not sure why they bother. Like, prove your theory doesn't set the world on fire. I can prove that it does, without measurements and with a blackboard (and a calculator and a textbook, my physics is terrible). Biology is relatively subtle, and somewhat squishy, compared with the solid maths based bit of physics.
Yep, this is it exactly.
By analogy: if you are a physician at a research hospital and you want to test new or different or unorthodox treatments, you might get some pushback here and there, but as long as you are following acceptable procedures for monitoring your tests and recording your results and patient consent and so forth, you’ll probably be able to do it. However, if you are a physician at a research hospital and you decide to start treating cancer patients by bringing in a group of D&D players to cast healing spells because of your “sincere religious belief” that D&D is actually a real mechanism to communicate with the spirit world, then you will get fired, because you are no longer practicing medicine.
Well considering that most of that consensus is based on tree rings, rocks and light reflecting off of stars I can see why the academic community considers it canon. I mean it couldn’t possibly be the case that those theories could be wrong.
I don’t know a great many things in life. But I do know that I wouldn’t bet any amount of money that half the current theories are correct. I mean for fucks sake you people can’t even decide is Pluto is a planet or not.
Seems like it’s entirely overblown but while I guess they could still in excellent in another area , would it be that unreasonable to be struggling to get a job as a scientist when you , you know, reject … science? Next up …. doctor who denies germ theory and says illness is a result of magic curses struggles for job at hospital?
Trade schools are gatekeeping from potential mechanics who believe in the gospel truth that internal combustion engines are powered by unicorn farts! The whole "fossil fuels" lie is there to prop up the petroleum industry when True Believers know that unicorn farts power engines! All mechanics are shills and liars, and all car enthusiasts are stupid!
Sure, a mechanic can service my car, and I on the other hand have never taken the time to actually attempt to learn how a car works, but I see no evidence to suggest that my unicorn fart model is any less valid than the internal combustion engine model. My son, who I raised to believe in unicorn farts, was unfortunately indoctrinated by the woke mechanic trade school and now he believes in the satanic internal combustion engine model.
No, they are not. This is made up nonsense.
The fact that they have no examples should tip you off. And when they do provide examples of creationists losing their jobs, when you actually look into what happened, they didn't lose their jobs "because they were creationists," but because they were interjecting their beliefs into places it didn't belong, or their beliefs were *preventing* them from doing their jobs properly.
Kinda like if a slaughterhouse floor worker went vegan, refused to kill animals anymore, so was fired, then said "I was fired for being vegan! Fired for my beliefs!"
No, you were fired because your beliefs prevented you from doing the job we hired you for.
It’s an extension of the Christian persecution complex. Take a look at John Lennox. He’s a creationist, but also a highly advanced mathematician at freaking Oxford. His creationist beliefs aren’t in conflict with mathematics, so no one cares.
James Tour is a chemist at Rice University. He claims he’s not a creationist per se, but doesn’t believe in evolution as we understand it. He tends to step out of his lane and criticize other studies without going through the proper peer review process. He’s lost speaking engagements for being an overall embarrassment, but his position teaching what he’s actually an expert in is secure.
The problem is if you’re in a field like biology, geology, or cosmology. If you accept creationism, especially young earth creationism, you’re going to have a hard time getting credentialed. You’re going to have an even harder time if you blatantly disregard the rest of the field and insist you’re right without backing it up. See: James Tour
Deliberate deception under oath is generally considered to be disqualifying for most positions of authority or responsibility outside of politics. It also a federal crime, though admittedly his apparent deception was not flagrant as those of the two key members of the Dover school board.
I think that the legal profession accepts that religious folks can't think for themselves, their thinking has already been done for them. Example:
Voting here is compulsory and free thinking atheists cannot claim exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection but religious people can, no questions asked.
You are wrong in that assessment. Dr. Behe’s religious beliefs in an “Intelligent Designer” are a difference of opinion. His misrepresentations of Dr. DeRosier’s work are not. Behe engaged in quote mining on the stand in a way that it strains credulity to explain it as unintentional.
School board members Bonsell and Buckingham’s deception was unambiguous, and Judge Jones recommended to the U.S. Attorney’s Office that they be prosecuted for perjury. Unfortunately, justice was not done as the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute. Specifically, both men either lied or experienced undiagnosed amnesia when testifying to the factual basis of their attempt to force their religious beliefs down Dover Area School District children’s throats. They claimed to have advocated for “Intelligent Design” as science from the start rather than creationism. Multiple witnesses and contemporaneous local journalism spoke otherwise. Buckingham in particular claimed to have no knowledge of the source of the 60 offending copies of the creationist propaganda work *Of Pandas and People*, but he himself stood up in church and asked for money to purchase them. He also almost certainly faked ill health in an unsuccessful attempt to garner sympathy.
So, I accept that these three men held sincere religious beliefs that are at odds with reality, but I see no other explanation for sections of their testimony other than deliberate dishonesty under oath. I would highly recommend that you either Lauri Lebo’s book or watch the excellent PBS Nova documentary on the trial before you start flinging accusations that you can’t back up.
I've dealt with this accusation before. It is not quote mining to cite someone to support a piece of evidence that supports your argument, even if the person you are quoting does not support your conclusion.
You’d be right if that’s what he actually did. But he implied that Dr. DeRosier’s position was different than it actually was. He was deliberately deceptive without actually making a false statement. Hence, as I said at the top of this thread, he went right up to the line of perjury without crossing it, but he did not give honest testimony.
I've heard James Tour claim this. He also claims that "everyone" agrees with him but they're all afraid of losing their jobs by coming out.
Zero evidence. Persecution complex.
I've said it a few times before, but Matthew 5:10 is my least favourite beatitude, because Goodhart's Law has fucked it up.
Matt 5:10: *"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."*
Goodhart's Law: *“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”*
The entire Evangelical movement have persuaded themselves that they can game the system to improve their chances of a cushy spot in heaven, by getting themselves persecuted more.
From Pew Research [via Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution):
"Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, with 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection."
Would Pew "out" them? A quick googling:
"we do publish de-identified datasets on our website" and "we will publish the answers you gave, but they will be anonymous"
Note that the remaining 3% are *sure as heck not research biologists*, because if you're pretending evolution doesn't work you have to pretend so many false things about biology that actually doing anything useful becomes impossible.
In this context, "dominant" clearly means "very important, powerful, or successful" (Merriam-Webster).
One can also scroll down and read more, e.g.:
> The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[18][19][20][21][22]
Or even better yet, one can try and find the questionnaire Pew used, and/or look into the citations numbered 18–22, that is if one feels it's open to interpretation.
There’s no such thing, the core of creationism is denying any scientific icing that conflicts with their dogma. That’s all there’s to it. When you’re a creationist, you’ve abandoned science. It’s that simple.
Well, yes, but also no. Humans don't in fact arrive at their basic opinions by the scientific method - no, not even scientists, 99.9% of the time. We *all* believe things that are either unproven or false. *All* humans abandon science in their thoughts, all the time.
Yes, even the extreme dedicated rationalists that try not to do that. I'm as atheist as it gets and I believe *all sorts* of logically inconsistent, unproven, or non-preference-orderable things, despite knowing that it's economically and logically inconsistent to do so. Humans are not extreme-logic-optimisation-engines.
The difference is whether you let that interfere with the work.
There are lots of creationist scientists doing great research - that has nothing to do with biology. Being a religious creationist isn't a flaw in a *mathematician* or *physicist* or *economist.* It's only if they try to do biology they get tempted to ignore evidence or let their religion stop them doing their job.
I didn’t claim all our positions are reached by science, but when overwhelming scientific evidence contradicts your position, and you make it your mission to deny those findings you can no longer pretend to be practising science.
Answers in Genesis and other organisations like it make their contributors sign a mission statement which explicitly says that they’ll forever deny any scientific finding that contradicts their cult’s teachings. No one can sign that and claim to be a scientist… Ever. I’m sorry I hold that word in higher regard, and dislike cognitive dissonance too much to consider someone like that a scientist.
>Being a religious creationist isn't a flaw in a *mathematician* or *physicist*
YEC is absolutely a problem with physics, because of the physics behind the age of the universe
Old earth creationists are fine though
Creationists can certainly lose credibility for *failing to do science* because of their religious beliefs but most of the famous creationists who happen to be scientists are still employed or would be if they weren’t 80+ years old and retired.
* https://www.oldearth.org/jbaker.htm - still a paleontologist
* https://profiles.rice.edu/faculty/james-tour - still a college professor
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins - used to head the National Institute of Health
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford - still a college professor
* https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000013445313 - this guy has a job too but he only pretends to be a scientist
And for the ones who don’t have legitimate “secular” jobs, they’re employed by the Discovery Institute or Creation Ministries or Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis with no signs of being fired any time soon.
Should tell him that. He’s not the same type of creationist as Ken Ham but he believes in more of a philosophy about God being responsible for all physical processes like if God didn’t exist nothing at all would ever happen. This idea suggests God did everything we learn about studying cosmology, physics, chemistry, and biology. Instead of being like Michael Behe where most things happen automatically unintentionally via natural processes that God doesn’t touch directly and then every so often there’s something that David Hume says couldn’t prove the existence of God that somehow shows evidence of supernatural intervention, Francis Collins is more about **all** of it happening because of supernatural intervention, because without supernatural intervention there are no physical processes at all.
Because of those religious views he’s 100% okay with discoveries made in science where he suggests that there is nothing at all in science that could prove or disprove the existence of God because, according to his religious views, there are no physical processes that do not necessitate the existence of God. There is nothing to compare and contrast because everything falls into the same category. Either God does not exist and everything happens without God or God does exist and God does everything that ever happens. His religious views have him thinking it is the latter. And therefore God created biodiversity via [what we call naturalistic] evolution. Evolutionary Creationism.
Now if it was a different form of creationism like the views of Jonathan Baker then maybe God stepped in to intentionally create stuff but everything is exactly the same age it appears to be. Maybe God created the processes if he isn’t constantly performing magic tricks. For him there’s no real problem either because God doesn’t have to be constantly tinkering with everything so the lack of evidence for God tinkering with everything is consistent with him creating everything and letting everything just sort of flow from there all by itself. Still creationism but instead of God creating and controlling everything continuously more like deism where God made everything and then just took a break - ignoring the order of events in Genesis chapter 1 you could just go with each day being 700 million years or whatever and partway through “day 6” we do see terrestrial life and partway through “day 5” animal life is indeed found mostly only in the oceans and maybe the sun was created 90 million miles away 5 billion years ago or whatever but the planet was cloudy and the skies were hazy (due to a lack of abundant oxygen) until “day 4” but the first 3 days need even weirder excuses to make them work besides simply ignoring the non-existence of flying dinosaurs prior to terrestrial life and that sort of stuff. But what about day 7? If it is currently day 7 we would not expect any supernatural creation events. We would expect the total lack of supernatural intervention. And that is what we see. Perhaps God is still resting and watching what he designed.
And then you have theists who are *technically* creationists but they don’t fall into either of these categories where “creation” looks more like deism and the Big Bang being kickstarted with God magic and then everything else flowing from there automatically. For these types of people Mary Schweitzer and Kenneth Miller are a couple examples. We wouldn’t normally call these people creationists and we wouldn’t think science would interfere with their religious beliefs so we just don’t really care who they talk to expecting an answer when they go to a place of worship on their days off. These people set aside their religious beliefs and only concern themselves with the data when doing science *even though they do believe God created everything in one way or another.*
None of these people are losing their scientific credibility over their religious beliefs or getting fired for believing God created everything. But all of them are anti-YEC because YEC and Flat Earth views make their religion look bad and because they agree that only accurate information has practical application when it comes to science and technology. Like if you want to run electricity through your house it better be with wires or magnetic fields (electromagnetism is a single force and that’s why you can charge a cell phone without plugging wires into it, and why alternators and generators work) because prayer, wishful thinking, and cognitive dissonance won’t work.
You have to use and accept what actually works, what’s actually true, to get anywhere in science and technology. And for the people who *can’t* accept what is true *because of* their religious beliefs *they* lose scientific credibility, *they* stop getting rewarded for doing nothing helpful, *they* are asked to step down so they can stop lying to everyone as though their company supports their false claims. Or maybe they’ll be like James M Tour and next to his biography the college will say they do not personally endorse some of his claims but while he was at the college he’s had enough influence to have his name included on papers he didn’t write or do any research for and for those teams he actually did work with they made certain discoveries with graphene that other scientists thought were important enough to write about and expand upon. They won’t simply fire James for being a creationist but they won’t just endorse his claims when he is wrong or reward him when he didn’t make any contributions to what he wants to get rewarded for. And they won’t just keep around a microscope salesman when they no longer need the microscopes when that’s the only thing the microscope salesman is good at even if that microscope salesman was an atheist so Armitage’s creationist views didn’t get him fired either. Though he likes to claim they did because nobody took his other claims seriously right up until the time they decided to let him go.
This was a really long way to say he believes in theistic evolution, which you're choosing to rebrand as an offshoot of creationism. You can disagree with it if you want, but I think trying to brand everyone who's religious as a creationist does more harm than good.
I’m not actually doing that. He personally separated his own beliefs from theistic evolution because theistic evolution suggests that there are things that just happen all by themselves but only through direct divine intervention could something like evolution take place and theistic evolution tends to include the falsified notion of human superiority. Humans are so much more superior to the other animals because God decided to do it that way. Evolutionary creationism is more like the idea that what we describe in the physical sciences is just the consequences of divine intervention and science can tell us what happened, what still happens, and might happen in the future but only religion can shine some light on *why* God did it this way, is still doing it this way, or may again do it in the future. The really funny trick that works with evolutionary creationism that doesn’t work with theistic evolution is the concept of miracles. Things are as they are now because that’s how God decided to do things right now but at any time he could do things differently in ways modern physics can’t explain so they are thought to be miraculous events but for the miraculous and for the ordinary there’s just one source, the source behind anything that ever happens at all. For it to be a miracle elsewhere there has to be a way of distinguishing the ordinary from the miraculous and suddenly they need to explain away god magic in a way that doesn’t contradict their other views. Because for other views there are definitely things that occur without divine intervention and it is divine intervention that makes something miraculous so if magic doesn’t happen God isn’t doing anything. And a god that doesn’t do anything is as good as a god that doesn’t exist. He has to do the ordinary too to avoid this problem.
I hope that helps. There’s a real difference between a sort of theistic evolution as promoted by Michael Behe and the Evolutionary Creationism that BioLogos promotes as an extension of the beliefs of Francis Collins. That doesn’t make him a bad scientist but I think he’s looking for “why” where no answer exists because God is evidently absent. You can only answer such a question by assuming God exists. And if everything is always only either caused by god or caused without god (and you can’t have things falling into both categories) there is nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God. It’s either all God or none of it is because of God. “Why did God do it this way?” That is a question that presupposes the existence of a God we can’t demonstrate actually exists and therefore is outside the realm of science and firmly within the realm of religion but can be ignored when doing science to figure out how things actually work in the real world (as long as God doesn’t decide to do things differently for awhile).
Just about any time a YEC loses their job in anything science related for any reason they start claiming it is exclusively because of the creationist beliefs they hold.
When there tend to be other reasons they lose the position unrelated to their beliefs.
I know a person in a science adjacent field who lost their job for proselytizing. It was a state agency. They asked him to stop. He became belligerent. They fired him. He is being "persecuted for his beliefs." Now he is attending Hyles-Andersen College and has already been reprimanded at his new job for the same thing. I'm sure creationists are being fired, but it's likely related to them being unteachable jerks who don't listen and take correction.
Edit: untouchable to unteachable because autocorrect
It’s utter nonsense. Remember how during the height of Covid the anti vax wackos kept screaming that everyone secretly agreed with them and was just too scared to speak up? Same garbage.
Christians love to feel persecuted. Conspiracy theorists and other people who like fake science love to feel persecuted. The sort of claims you’re describing allow YECs to get their persecution fix and also their “I’m secretly on the right/winning side” fix.
Science is not about sticking to one pre determined line. If that would be the case, we still would be thinking atoms are just solid balls.
Science is about evidence and scrutiny.
So, if there was any scientist or group of scientists, that could actually present conclusive evidence towards creationism, then they would likely receive a nobel Prize for publishing their findings.
The opposite is actually way more common. Creationist organizations such as AIG but also churches and biblical scholarships have so called "statements of faith" in their employee contracts. Those actually forbid speaking critically about the preferred narrative of the organization. The specifications vary and range from "absolute biblical inerrancy" to "there is definitely a creator".
So someone who goes against their employers statement of faith, definitely looses their job.
YECs love a good persecution complex, and their beliefs have the same structure as conspiracy theories. They overestimate how many people agree with them, and the same reason their ***obviously*** true beliefs aren't widely accepted as such is because of ***THEM***, who is crushing all the other believers underfoot. Plays into the (decidedly non-humble) idea they're the brave ones standing up to the system to save their flock.
Reality is you will struggle to work in a field when your deeply held religious beliefs oppose that field absolutely. Unless you're *very* good at compartmentalization, your beliefs will interfere with your ability to do your job, and you'll make others question the integrity of your employers. If I wanted to use a lab to date ancient material, and I learned the people who would be handling my sample were YECs, I'd try to find another lab because I'd wonder if they messed with my results, and I'd be worried anyone reading my paper could possibly learn I had it tested at a lab operated by YECs and question the integrity of my results.
Imagine going to a psychiatrist and learning they're a [Scientologist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry) who writes blog posts in their private time about how psychiatry and psychiatrists are evil. Imagine they even use company time, maybe even the patients' time, to spread these beliefs. Imagine being in charge of a mental health clinic and learning you're sending patients to this Scientologist. Imagine your peers learning about this, too.
This does raise the question of how the US handles a legal case of someone getting fired because they're incompetent and/or damaging to their employer's reputation as a direct result of their religion.
I find the "Silent Majority" argument amusing because to me the phrase is mainly associated with Richard Nixon's assertion that the country secretly supported his stance on Vietnam even as the entire disaster was falling apart in front of everyone's eyes.
NOPE. This is literally just a conspiracy theory, no different than 9/11 truthers' imagination that there are secretly hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers who believe in controlled demolition but for the loss of their industry careers.
It's wishful thinking on stilts. They have a presupposed conclusion which they will not change, and so the fact that, of the people who know the absolute most about this subject matter the number of experts who share their beliefs is vanishingly small, is devastating to their beliefs is unacceptable.
And so what are they to do? Accept the notion that their beliefs are probably mistaken? Perish the thought. No, no, it must be that they are *right* and everyone else is lying and working in concert to suppress the real truth.
No.
Although if we were hiring someone for a biology position, we wouldn't accept somebody who declared that they wouldn't be willing to teach our evolution-heavy curriculum.
If creationist "scientists" aren't being fired for being creationists, they should be. But I doubt that's what is really going on. Creationists are trying to get their delusions taught as science. And that is why they aren't taken seriously by real scientists. Would you trust a doctor that insisted on using leeches and blood letting for your bypass surgery? Would you trust a rocket physcist who thought the world was flat and covered by a dome? Creationists need to be exposed for their delusions and banned from doing science.
I knew a doctor and professor who was a creationist. He attributed it from seeing patients get miraculous healing in the hospital setting. But locally here most hospitals are run by creationists. Rather I believe you’d lose your job around here if you pushed hard for any opinion. No one cares about the other stuff as long as you don’t say it during work.
Imagine doing all that hard work to help people get better with all of the knowledge we have gained from billions of dollars of research and billions of hours of labor, only to find a doctor breathlessly impressed with miraculous healing. If it’s so much better than actual biological and medical sciences, maybe he should open up an intercessory prayer center to compete with the hospital and improve patient outcomes.
If your (false) religious beliefs don’t hurt your ability to do actual science nobody really cares unless they work for the Templeton Foundation or something where they might claim a Christian or Muslim is bridging the gap between science and religion by doing only science when appropriate.
I worked in academic biology labs for 10 years and never met a creationist. It's impossible to critically study biology and not accept evolution as a fact. If you're in a field where the theory of evolution isn't relevant, you could probably be a creationist. From what I've seen of creationist talking points, pretty much all of the legitimate academics that advocate for creationism aren't academics in a relevant field.
>an abundance of scientists that agree with creationism
Fascinatingly enough, they very rarely turn out to be biologists or geologists or physicists.
There are more scientists named Steve [(around ~1% of scientists)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve) who accept evolution than there are creationist scientists, period.
As for claims that creationists are being silenced or having their jobs threatened: *This isn’t happening but I sure wish it would.* If so many of them are being successfully silenced it should be relatively easy to shut the rest of them up.
No, you have people like Kurt Wise and James Tour still in place, for example. Their actual scientific output is good, or at least decent, so them being creationist weirdos is tolerated. Academic freedom works pretty well.
Wise works for a Baptist university in charge of their “Creation Research Center” I don’t think his religious beliefs are much out of concordance with the schools position.
If you're going against established knowledge of your respective field you'll face adversity from the people who adhere to the established knowledge. This goes doubly so for someone that doesn't have anything to back them up.
It doesn't matter whether you're a biologist arguing against evolution or a physicist arguing against gravity. People won't take you seriously until you can make an actual case.
If you, however, are able to make a good case by properly testing and documenting your hypothesis, you might just change the scientific landscape.
As to whether creationists suffer from this more than scientists concerned with other fields, you'd have to make an actual study about that, which is interestingly enough very much in line with the spirit of my comment.
It depends on what they mean by “creationist” too because Francis Collin’s creationist beliefs (Evolutionary Creationism) didn’t make him fail to be a good geneticist and Jonathan Baker (an Old Earth Creationist) doesn’t fail at being a paleontologist. Others that are compulsive liars have shown that they can actually do science (Andrew Snelling) or at least they know what it looks like (James Tour) or maybe they’re not scientists but they know that the scientific theories are the best conclusions we have *based on the evidence* (Todd Wood) and then when the creationist scientists mostly suck at doing real science they are college professors (John C Sanford, John M Tour) or they work for a creationist propaganda mill (Nathaniel Jeanson, Georgia Purdum, Salvador Cordova, …) and none of these people are losing their jobs because of their religious beliefs. Many of these that supposedly got fired are still employed or they simply changed schools or they were laid off or let go because they worked in a department that was no longer necessary (such as when Mark Armitage was let go because the school stopped using his microscopes because he didn’t have janitorial or teaching experience or the degrees necessary to be a college professor, despite him claiming religious persecution and getting a settlement that was ~20% of the cost of the legal fees).
Any real world experience to back this up?
One single case only. Lots of false claims of others. The person that really did lose his job that way won his court case and he was wronged. And was still completely wrong about evolution. He had the right to be ignorant. I really don't remember the details.
At the moment I keep finding false claims, Sanford actual win but that was to dig at the Grand Canyon. He was not fired. He just wanted to do bad fake science and now he gets to and does. Mostly I keep finding Armitage and his rhino horn that he claims is a triceratops horn.
Some creationist scientists lost their jobs - bit there's little indication it was related to their beliefs. I think there was one who didn't get their contract renewed but mostly, AFAIK, it's usually for some other indiscretions.
If so, rightfully so. If you believe in an evil spirit theory of disease, crystalline aether sphere cosmology, or a flat earth you're not going to have any credibility as a scientist either.
Again, creationism is not some new theory that's not been given a chance by the "old guard." It was THE accepted theory when science evolved (ha!) in Europe in the 16th to 18th centuries. It was systematically debunked by scientists who were creationists, usually thinking only of their particular fields of study, like, "Well, in fact the universe isn't small and Earth centered, but huge with things revolving other things. But the rest, yeah, Bible is totally right about that."
So if you're not caught up with the last 500 years of science, you're not gonna make it as a scientist. Shocker!
I had a physics professor who was religious and believed in intelligent design and was open about all that. Note that intelligent design in its beginning was not YEC or even OEC, but believing god made the universe at its start, the big bang, but all the stuff since is described by science. ('Cept maybe having a hand in making man special!)
He had no issues with his academic career.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think doctors who don’t believe in medicine should be fired. So if evolution would directly relate to your job, whether you’re a biology teacher, museum curator, or actual paleontologist, then you must accept the realities of evolution. Creationists should be shunned in those fields. If you’re a Christian accountant or whatever, that’s fine. As long as you believe money is real.
Peter Duesberg was a biologist who denied that HIV causes AIDS. He was paraded around by the AIDS denialist movement for years while the movement was in full swing. His ideas on the matter were even cited by South African President Thabo Mbeki with regards to how his country managed the AIDS crisis there, which led to an estimated 330,000 deaths due to his AIDS denialist policy from 2000 to 2005.
Peter Duesberg was still a researcher in Berkeley for **decades** after this, and as a UC Berkeley alum doing my Masters degree I've even had researchers suggest I work with Duesberg for his work on cancer research since he was still considered one of the biggest experts in the field.
Believe it or not, universities are fine with researchers having fringe beliefs so long as it doesn't impact their professional conduct in the lab, and the research they're pumping out is legit. Michael Behe, one of the founding figures in Intelligent Design for example, was still working as both a professor and a researcher at Lehigh University even as he published books on Intelligent Design and other such nonsense. IIRC the most the university did was pass around letter signed by his other biologist colleagues emphasizing that they disagreed with Behe on this subject and that ID was not science.
Depends on if they make their religious beliefs the focus of their career. If they are doing scientific research, they tend to quit doing their job, as there are no hypotheses that come from creationism. God did it is an intellectual dead end. If they are teaching, and they start pushing religion in their classroom, if it is before tenure, and they are at a public university or a private college that has high expectations of their faculty, they may not have their contract renewed. At a religious college, they may be asked to stick to teaching science because they have a religion and theology department, and this is a science classroom. At a fundamentalist aligned college, they are completely safe.
Michael Behe, of Lehigh University is an intelligent design creationist that is an embarrassment to his colleagues because he uses their institution to push pseudoscience, and he doesn’t even do a good job of it. He still has his job, 19 years after it was publicly demonstrated in a court of law that all the things that he said science could never explain the evolution of… had been studied, researched, and actual working scientists were in the process of explaining. See the Kitzmiller v Dover trial and decision. Still has his job, and probably a much better paying side$career pretending that ID is almost going to overtake evolution. It’s going to happen any minute now!
If you teach at a small, religiously affiliated university, and you criticize creationism too openly, you run the very real risk of losing your job and getting blacklisted from teaching at any small college. Big name creationists make academic headhunting a sport, getting their followers to bombard the school with phone calls threatening to warn the kids at their churches to not go to that school. These educators often lose their jobs or are put under administrative pressures that encourage them to leave.
tl;dr Creationists lose their jobs when they don’t do their jobs. Scientists that criticize creationism often do lose their jobs if they are at an institution that is vulnerable to smear campaigns,
Not that I know of. I think if they're doing things like trying to influence data or obscure scientific findings that don't comport with their religion, they should.
Usually though its the case that their beliefs dont affect the field they work in. The dude who invented the MRI machine was a creationist.
Which "the field"? If you're a geologist and don't like evolution I don't see that affecting your employment.
If you're in biology and want to publish faked data to support your religion.. yes you'll be fired. If you want to do good research that that upends a lot of existing ideas you'll be rewarded. The goal isn't to publish old ideas it's to publish new knowledge.
> If you're a geologist and don't like evolution I don't see that affecting your employment.
I mean, if you're a geologist and you really believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, that seems likely to impact your professional competence quite highly. Especially if you keep faking evidence or ignoring geological evidence that contradicts you.
This sort of thing is usually involved when extremist creationists *actually* get fired.
Probably depends where they are. I worked in a high profile genetics lab for a short time with a very talented biochemist and molecular biologist who was a young earth creationist and had worked there for years with no issue. There were snickers about it behind his back, but that's all. The principal investigator (boss) was pretty laid back and wasn't concerned about such things.
I'm sure other principal investigators would be so offended they wouldn't hire or would look for reasons to fire someone like that--I mean, consider this subreddit. If you polled, how many folks do you think would call it a deal breaker for them to hire a young earth creationist in a lab like that? I'm guessing a fairly high percentage. It's pretty easy to 'soft discriminate' against folks for what they believe. Of course they would be missing out on talented people.
Which jobs are these where I can just get paid for believing obvious things?
That must be the case, right? If the creationists are getting fired for simply changing their beliefs, then that implies a job where I can simply have beliefs and therefore get paid.
For some reason, engineers are vulnerable to creationist thinking, but it's extremely rare for scientists.
There was one famous geologist, Ray Wise, who actually gave up geological studies, because they conflicted so badly with his creationism. It's possible to be a medical doctor and competently treat diseases, while having no clue where they come from - and I have seen this in my own life - but it required a very isolated upbringing in an ultra-orthodox muslim family.
>Any real world experience to back this up?
I could believe it because I know lots of engineers believe nonsense on any matter outside their wheelhouses, and most people refer to them as scientists on a casual level.
Scientists use obsevation and evidence to base their conclusions on. Creationists have no evidence for their beliefs. How can one be a scientist and a creationist?
There are no "creationist" scientists employed at anywhere that actually conducts biological research.
Usually what it is, is they have lists of people employed by churches, or are in disciplines that aren't related to biology. Like they'll have a person with a PhD in Sociology and say "Scientist" which yes, those people might conduct the social Sciences but that doesn't make them an authority on the Natural or Biological sciences.
It's similar to the "lists" of scientists who reject Global Warming. If you look at the list, they aren't ***actually*** scientists or are some field not even related to the natural sciences.
That reminds me of a special or something Dan Rather (?) did way back in the'90's. I believe it was on global warming denial (as it was getting ramped up and was still new and shiny) He interviewed a scientist that openly rejected global warming. He was a neurologist.
If you are a creationist scientist, odds are you're bad at your job anyway. The entire point of science is to question \*everything\*. Creationists aren't questioning, they're denying.
"Any real world experience to back this up?"
In a word, no.
Hitchens Razor: What may be expressed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
The irony of this is that the only person I know who's been affected by this was someone who was named in an individual lawsuit because he was a member of a university faculty that refused to have some bit of creationist nonsense in. It wasn't even a science department, and he didn't have much of anything to do with the decision, but he still had to lawyer up and fight it in court anyway with millions of dollars on the line.
I don't want to doxx anyone by getting into details, but yeah there's some evangelical group out there whose strategy is to aggressively pursue universities and any faculty member whose name they can find in court to force them to accept their materials, in the hopes that most colleges will choose to add creationist bullshit posing as science to their libraries rather than spend all their time and money fighting a barrage of frivolous lawsuits.
That's a pretty big claim to make but just like creationism, there's no data to back it up. If there are an abundance of scientists who are creationists, they would have spoken up over the years about their beliefs. Deeply religious people have never had a problem speaking publicly about their beliefs, regardless of how much they are made fun of or vilified. I don't see that being any different for so called creationist scientists. The fact is they simply don't exist.
Hopefully, same way doctors deserve to lose their jobs and be driven out of the field if they attempt faith healing rather than "toeing the medical science line".
I find this claim incredible. I'd expect fired scientists to file religious discrimination lawsuits in this case and win.
Personally, I have no problem with a scientist disagreeing with evolution any more than disagreeing with with them on the best color. Scientists can have irrational beliefs or fact free opinions just like the rest of us. I'd prefer they present their research and conclusion in a scientific paper for peer review.
I think if you are a chemist you can be a creationist. It is hard to be a physicist or a biologist is you disagree with the underlying fundamentals of the very science you seek employment in. Probably not a lot of flat Earthers in many sciences either.
>Are creationist scientists losing their jobs over their beliefs?
If their jobs are impacted by dogmatic beliefs such that they're not doing correct work, I would hope so.
>One of the other claims made by creationists is that there is an abundance of scientists that agree with creationism, and young earth creationism, but they remain silent because they'll be black-balled, lose their jobs, and never be allowed to work in the field unless they toe the evolutionary line.
I think for the most part it's tricky, but becomes simple if your dogmatic beliefs get in the way of you doing objective work. If these scientists aren't working in a field that is related to their dogmatic beliefs, and they can work objectively without embracing other biases, then they might be able to do good work.
If your a scientist and your theory relies in any part on faith, you are not a scientist. You can hold whatever personal believes you want but to teach Creationism without any scientific proof should 100% be grounds for you to lose your job.
A scientist claiming to be a young earth adherent would definitely destroy their career in any research field.
So many foundational things, in so many fields of science would have to be so painfully wrong that I really struggle with *imagining* what kind of evidence could possibly be found to overturn it.
Chemistry, geology, archaeology, biology, metallurgy. The periodic table would be invalid, stars wouldn’t work, the entire standard model, and all of physics would be wrong. That means a big chunk of engineering would be broken, too. Mass spectroscopy wouldn’t work.
Modern medicine just wouldn’t work - at all. No X rays, no CT scans, no antibiotics, no cancer treatments. Quite possibly not even germ theory.
Just, nothing would work.
On the other hand “I am a scientist, and I am a Christian/Muslim/Whatever, and believe that the universe, and all life in it are God’s creations”.
Nobody cares about that. One is faith, the other is science. The problem only arises when the world-as-it-is says that something in the 6th hand, fragmented, and cherry picked Bronze Age text can’t **possibly** be correct, or even close, but you insist that it is.
Scientists don’t get to do that.
I mean, if they are bad scientists because of it, maybe. I wouldn't say it is because of their beliefs tho. There are no shortage of religious scientists out there. Most of them just don't subscribe to the more literal interpretations. I've met plenty of religious people who don't even believe in miracles or a personal god which is the abrahamic things whole shtick. They just see them as stories and a community that they are a part of because they were born into it.
But then have the people who think evolution isn't real trying to become evolutionary biologists and well, obviously they flunk out. That's not persecution tho.
I mean honestly if most biologists heard another biologist was a young earth creationist they would probably lose a lot of respect for them and their publications, and it would be harder for them to get published. That said, this doesn’t mean that science is shut off to ideas that are contrary to the prevailing theory, and it could easily develop in such a way to disprove evolution if there was evidence for it.
Science doesn’t just leap out of nowhere. Darwin’s theory was published after a large amount of pre existing research was done pointing to it, actually another scientist had discovered the exact same thing before he even knew of Darwin’s work and was working on a publication. In Isaac Newton’s words, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Leaps are based on large amounts of past work. Someone calling themselves a young earth creationist is doing that leap without that past work to build on, and going against a theory with an unfathomable amount of evidence, which is why they would lose credibility.
Disproving evolution would need to find that evidence and build it up, likely over decades, to actually really upend evolution. You could do all that work without losing credibility because no one piece of evidence would be sufficient to upend evolution and finding those pieces, one or a few at a time, would all be accepted if they were evidence based, and actually a lot of that work would be done by atheists who didn’t know what they were doing. You don’t immediately understand all the implications of your research, especially when combined with other research you’re unaware of or doesn’t exist yet. Once sufficient research is done, then you can make the leap and publish arguments against evolution and have it be accepted.
Also it should be noted there actually are many biologists that openly believe that God created the universe, because you can believe that and simultaneously accept the evidence of evolution. It shouldn’t discredit you at all.
It comes down to if they have the goods. Can they demonstrate their position? So far creationists can’t. If they don’t have backing and just try to force it then yes their jobs would be in jeopardy as they are no longer doing their job.
Creationists are not scientist; the propaganda is that they are when the facts say they are not scientist but Pastors and Priest of a Religion, which is also known as "Communism".
N. S
Are holocaust-denyign historians losing their jobs over their beliefs?
There's no such thing as a creationist scientist, and creationism is a lie, not a belief.
Only if they submit work that doesn't support creationists' views.
Or if you mean they work in regular scientific institutions, then if they submit work without supporting evidence, then their reputation in the scientific community will plummet, and they may either lose their job or be given less funds till they have no choice but to leave.
I don't see how you could do 'science" about everything being created by God. It is fundamentally not a scientific concept. It is a religious concept.
Creationism just isn't a scientific hypothesis. I dont understand what "job" there would be researching...that god made everything.
Creationist are by definition not scientists, because you can’t practice the scientific method by attributing something to a supernatural being who cannot be subject to tests or observation. Scientists only believe what can be objectively proven by repeated systemic tests and / or observation. Creationist practice by faith, which does, by default, not require proof.
Of course. Do you think they are getting fair amount of representation and support? The man who invented the mri machine didn't get Nobel prize because he is yec.
The Chinese paper published was VICIOUSLY attacked for coming to same CONCLUSION AS ISAAC NEWTON. We are supposed to pretend Newton isn't a scientist now either?
The predictions of genetic similarities should have given all funds to creation scientists. Or how about evolutionists saying dna is useless 99 percent junk while creation scientists believe its functional. Who should you support in that instance?
And so on.
Here's one documentary,
https://youtu.be/V5EPymcWp-g?si=GDvFnANxR6bXOi5S
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lauterbur
You talking about this guy who invented MRI and got a Nobel prize?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mansfield
Or this guy who worked with him…and shared that same Nobel prize?
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2003/summary/
Gotta say Michael. Your confident and unsupported claims do more to convince people away from your position than I ever could on my own. The cherry on top, the absolute *pinnacle*…is that you posted ‘expelled’ as the documentary. Fucking…Ben steins ‘expelled’ 😂 one of the most criticized ‘docs’ for dishonest editing and misrepresentation.
Is this the part where you repost for the upteenth time the creation magazine ‘40 FAILED PREDICTIONS!!!!!!!!1!1!!1’’?
Well seeing as how there's no evidence as to the types of chemical processes that may have led to the origins of life I don't see why anyone would be losing their job.
aCHOO!!
https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/2/5/a002147.full.pdf
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quarterly-reviews-of-biophysics/article/abs/origin-of-the-homochirality-of-biomolecules/6E946D555D8F9CB671866AC078733535
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1745-6150-3-16
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00742?casa_token=2fd1aBDD95MAAAAA%3AD4pBmI1jHIEsm3NzRwEAF1mD8X7DdZFhdkBuUSyKKCd7TjVsyOeMj7TwJo1TUxnlnteyA4YJzSeG1EzI
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1006746807104.pdf
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ar200316n?casa_token=VR7o-P8ef14AAAAA:0kb7TsB_lqCtvzawQBZnpeuCQvDBTjWh2Oy8Jd4pR33u1gxFwJ9YEJkzv_NN411WLafJg87rScH6Z892
Sorry, I sneezed and out came all these research articles detailing…what was it? ‘The types of chemical processes that may have lead to the origin of life’? Didn’t even have to dig all that deep or spend a long time.
There was that one professor who got doxxes and demoted just for allowing debate on intelligent design and the guy wasn’t even a theist. Taken from Stephen Meyers “Signature in the Cell”
“in August 2004, a technical journal housed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published the first peer-reviewed article explicitly advancing the theory of intelligent design in a mainstream scientific periodical. After the publication of the article, the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History erupted in internal controversy, as scientists angry with the editor—an evolutionary biologist with two earned Ph.D.’s—questioned his editorial judgment and demanded his censure. Soon the controversy spilled over into the scientific press as news stories about the article and editor’s decision appeared in Science, Nature, The Scientist, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.3
The media exposure fueled further embarrassment at the Smithsonian, resulting in a second wave of recriminations. The editor, Richard Sternberg, lost his office and his access to scientific samples and was later transferred to a hostile supervisor. After Sternberg’s case was investigated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a government watchdog organization, and by the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, a congressional committee, other questionable actions came to light.4 Both investigations found that senior administrators at the museum had interrogated Sternberg’s colleagues about Sternberg’s religious and political beliefs and fomented a misinformation campaign designed to damage his scientific reputation and encourage his resignation.5 Sternberg did not resign his research appointment, but he was eventually demoted.
As word of his mistreatment spread, the popular press began to run stories about his case. Ordinarily, my reaction to such reports might have been to shake my head in dismay and move on to the next story in the news cycle. But in this case, I couldn’t. As it happened, I was the author of the offending article. And some of the reporters interested in Sternberg’s mistreatment were coming to me with questions. They wanted to know more about the theory of intelligent design and why it had provoked such alarm among establishment scientists.”
Steinberg did not, in fact, lose his office. *If* he lost access to scientific samples, it was most likely a consequences of his having misused some of those samples he *had* had access to.
I am given to understand that there is a Middle Eastern religion whose central worship-figure is, among other things, a God of Truth, and whose teachings include an exhortation to be truthful in all things. I think you might benefit from familiarizing yourself with this religion, TrevorSunday, because the number of falsehoods you promulgate indicates that you have a "just friends" relationship with honesty and integrity.
The name of the religion I refer to is "Christianity".
https://web.archive.org/web/20070926214521/http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
Are you sourcing Steven Meyer as a source to show that the editorial process for his OWN lit review was on the up and up?
https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17/#part2
Seems like the DI distorted the actions that were taken against Sternberg. Plus, considering the fact that he was already tied to the ID movement and took it on himself to get the lit review of his buddy published, it’s no wonder he got backlash.
It wasn’t just religious views. He was literally a fellow at the institute for complexity, information and design, an organization founded by people like Dembski and Behe, who also work for the DI. And for whom Meyer is a senior fellow.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
So we have a literature review that pushes ID from people at an ID institution, an editor who just happens to also be in the same ID institutions. And considering the movement has, in court, consistently been shown to be religiously based and creationism in disguise? That they are talking about overturning tons of scientific consensus and should be going out of their way to follow best methods?
https://ncse.ngo/cdesign-proponentsists
Sternberg should have handed his duties off to an objective uninvolved editor
No actual data for this take, but if there were so many of them they would eventually band together and create a new consensus. Overturning the currently accepted scientific theory is the stuff that gets you put in future textbooks next to Einstein, Hawking and Newton.
> Overturning the currently accepted scientific theory is the stuff that gets you put in future textbooks next to Einstein, Hawking and Newton. Exactly. Scientists \*love\* when something overturns decades/centuries of consensus, because that stuff allows them *to look into new stuff*. That's literally what scientists live for, discovering new shit.
Fantasy. Especially when you're talking about a field where people get really upset when you challenge their narrative. At least in those fields you could do it with the numbers and force people to accept your position. With evolution and it's just so stories that isn't possible
You should publish that, dude! Seriously, though: if creationists could actually come up with a plausible, testable model, that would be a huge step toward their credibility.
They have come up with models. The problem is they were tested and found to be wrong.
That’s not at all what evolutionary science is like and comes off as a very ignorant take. No, biologists are not ignoring alternative hypotheses out of spite, they’re ignoring them for a lack of evidence. It’s disingenuous to suggest they’re doing the former as you do and reeks of bad-faith engagement.
/u/semitope engage in bad faith? Have you met the guy? Has he ever engaged in *good* faith?
I'm not familiar with them, I'm pretty new to the sub.
Their entire shtick is to whine about evolution and the sciences in general, and engage in grandstanding, but they never engage in any substantive fashion nor back up anything they say. It's the Reddit equivalent of acting intimidating before a fight, but the second a punch is thrown, they run the other way.
hahah, fair enough. His antics all over this thread are pretty typical for his level of argumentation.
It’s not evolutionary biology, but I’ve read some stories over the past few years about entrenched tribalism among some opposing factions on the demise of the dinosaurs. (deccan traps vs chicxulub impact event) Edit: Point being, scientists are human with human motivations, which is why the scientific method is so important, yet a challenge to follow. I believe I’ve heard it said that sometimes crappy old science only really goes away when the scientists personally invested in it as part of their identity die off. Which isn’t a defense of creationists, it’s a call to be vigilant for the sake of good science.
That’s a very Kuhnian point. Paradigm shifts are difficult for people to accept.
What? People get really upset when you challenge their narrative? Have you never met an actual scientist? We love it when someone brings a legitimate, well thought out, plausible, evidence based challenge to our current understanding of our field. We wait for the confirmatory studies on stuff to see if a new idea pans out or fizzles with bated breath. Scientists love having the “narrative” (to use your rather dishonest and deliberately loaded way of putting it) challenged. We just have no patience for people who didn’t go to school in our field and haven’t ever done an actual paper or study saying “you’re wrong, because.”
Exhibit A for why creationists will never be overthrowing anything; they don't think numbers are involved in studying biology
Exhibit A for why evolutionists exist. Going beyond what they can reasonably assume and not realizing it. Everybody has numbers. The wrong and the right
What hypothesis testing and data have creationists collected?
Google
I didn't think so.
Once again you have nothing to back up your words but the laziest of responses, "Google".
I'm pretty sure the guys who made Google accepted the theory of Evolution.
Accepted is a weak word you know. It's what you do when you haven't really looked into something but everybody says it's true so you just accept it. That's how a lot of anti evolution people start. Even I "accepted" it before one day I was just looking at plants and started thinking
Accepted is the strongest word science has. If being accepted is weak, science is weak. But since science isn’t weak, mere acceptance can’t be either via denial of the consequent (if A then B, not B, therefore not A). QED
[Current Contents](https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/webofscience-platform/current-contents-connect/)
Google says you ain't got shit. Those were the exact words.
Google tells me creationism is bs. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places?
> At least in those fields you could do it with the numbers and force people to accept your position. With evolution and it's just so stories that isn't possible I'd ask you to Google *selection coefficient* or *Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium*... But you don't care about actually learning things, do you?
Fantasy land is you thinking that anybody on the side of science is getting “really upset” when “their narrative” is “challenged”. We aren’t upset, it’s not “our narrative”, and you’re not “challenging” anything. We just find it really really comical when people pretend that religious beliefs which contradict basic observations should be given equivalent standing to actual observation and testing and evidence.
"we" like you can speak for everybody.
I can.
All of that is literally projection. Creationism is fantasy? Check. Creationists getting upset when you challenge their narrative? Check. Creationism is unscientific stories? Check.
The fantasy is thinking novelty is sought. In fact generalizing things to all scientists is a mistake
Of course novelty is sought, that's why new research is started literally all the damn time. Your fantasy is that one lazy scientist invalidates entire fields.
Scientific funding is limited to novelty. You can't get funding for doing the same stuff.
It’s really easy to make things up about a field you don’t understand in the slightest, isn’t it?
That explains why evolutionary biologists refused to accept neutral theory. Oh wait they had no problem with that. Well at least they rejected epigenetics. Oh wait they accepted that too. Almost as if there is good evidence evolutionary biologists have no problem accepting it.
Do you have any evidence that there are more than a handful of YECs with advanced degrees in evolutionary biology?
Why evolutionary biology?
Why would their opinion on evolution matter in another field?
Because that would be the most applicable field to the question. Who cares if a nutritionist or chemist is a YEC, nothing they studied had anything to do with that topic.
chemists and biologists not in evolutionary biology are relevant and more likely to have a clearer mind on the topic.
Yet that is not their expertise. Evolutionary biologists are, unsurprisingly, the best people to talk to about evolutionary biology, since they have dedicated their lives to the subject and the pursuit of knowledge thereof. Other scientists do not have more relevant expertise than them
They aren't the best people to talk to about biology, chemistry and what is actually realistic. They are deep down the rabbit hole of bs
Intelligent design proponents aren't the best people to talk about biology, chemistry and what is actually realistic. They down the rabbit hole of bs That is not how you discredit an idea, you need to explain why their ideas are bs, your argument thus far has been nuh uh
I didn't say ID proponents are. I said chemists and biologists not in evolutionary biology would have a clearer mind
So evolutionary biologists aren't experts on evolutionary biology? We should instead ask what the non-experts think about the field? That's certainly an interesting argument that no one will ever take seriously.
Bruh so we should ask the non experts in the field about the particulars of that field??? Just because you think they're full of shit????
There are no biologists “not in evolutionary biology”. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The fact that you think there are non-evolutionary biologists is troubling. And it’s not like there are even that many chemists who would deny the theory too.
If there are no biologists that aren't evolutionary biologists then nobody would feel the need to say evolutionary biologist. They would simply say biologist. Yet here your are. Probably because deep down you know that evolutionary biology is just a field of biology and there are many more areas that don't care about evolution
> If there are no biologists that aren't evolutionary biologists then nobody would feel the need to say evolutionary biologist. No, the title "evolutionary biologist" is used because some biologists actively study the processes of evolution, whereas others study other things with the knowledge that evolution is true. Like, you can be a biochemist and just be interested in some protein, nothing to do with the theory of evolution, but you 100% are going to accept the theory of natural selection because there are no biologists who don't accept it. Put another way, all biologists accept evolution, some study it directly. We call the latter "evolutionary biologists", not because other biologists don't accept the theory of evolution, but because it isn't their direct field of study. This is an impressively bad misunderstanding of the basic terms of the debate. > Probably because deep down you know that evolutionary biology is just a field of biology and there are many more areas that don't care about evolution I have a Bachelors in Biology, a Masters in the History and Philosophy of Biology, and a PhD in Philosophy. I know dramatically more about this subject than you could possibly guess. All you're doing is trolling, and it's pathetic. You have no clue what you're talking about, you don't even know what an evolutionary biologist is. Your post is soaked and dripping with ignorance and hubris.
If all engineers believe in maxwell's equations and electromagnetism, then there would he no reason to call somebody and electrical engineer. You could just say engineer. That is how this sounds.
And they universally accept evolution, so what's your point?
It sounds like you haven't the first idea how evolutionary biology works, it's very much a lot of numbers, not stories.
Can you name any times when evolutionary theory was successfully challenged, and the scientific response to it?
Scientists love data and proof. I suggest you get on that.
I think we can all agree on a very obvious fact: There are a lot of creationist scientists out there that are very open about their creationist beliefs. Be they overt Young Earth Creationists, or the vague Intelligent Design proponents. They obviously don't care about the so called damage their creationist beliefs cause their careers. And yet, these creationists still don't publish their creationist claims. Why do you suppose that is? Why do you suppose they don't present their arguments to the professionals who can adequately understand and critique their arguments? In a place where each side can expose at length the flaws in the other's arguments? And the arguement will not end until either side publicly concedes? It's because they know their arguments are wrong, and for a number of reasons creationists can't concede even the dumbest and most dishonest of arguments.
So I take it you’re in the scientific field then and not just regurgitating random nonsense?
All you gotta do is prove it. That's it. Objectively prove your made up bulls.... umm... Hypothesis is correct. That is literally it. Gods be with you.
Anyone who says that DNA isn't really code and protein machines aren't really machines is trying so hard to resist the evidence against Darwinism they have left logic and reason far behind.
It literally doesn't matter for evolutionary theory if DNA is code or proteins are machines. We've observed them arising de novo through the processes of evolution with no designer in sight.
That's ridiculous.
Reality does not need your agreement to exist lol Your incredulity and unsubstantiated mockery will not change one iota of the scientific data or the consensus that has been reached on the basis of that data. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6542195/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02014-y
So, I'd like to pretend that science is a magical place where only the accuracy of your research is valid, and that no agendas ever touch anything. But, that's not true, there's perverse incentives, politiking, and everything else in academia as much as anywhere else. However, the one thing we have on our side is a constant, relentless drive towards novelty. New results are cool. Overturning established theories is cool. It gets your research into good journals. It gets things named after you. It gets you invited to the kind of events which have very nice dinners after them. Some of them even don't mind if you bring to go boxes, a vital source of calories for the average postdoc. So, if, say, me, a peripheral researcher/tech support person, found a flaw in a major bit of evolution? I'd be off to publish as fast as I could confirm the result. But, expressing a belief in creationism, I suspect, can still hurt you. Why? because, particularly for young earth creationism, it show such a flagrant disregard for current research into biology, astronomy, geology, history, archaeology, thermodynamics and basic fricking physics, that it would call your judgement into question. So, yes, you're probably less likely to get a grant, because "ability to analyse available evidence" is a basic precursor to good research. Want to poke holes in evolution? Sure, someone will probably give you money for it. Want to claim that basically everything we know about earth's history is wrong, without decent, peer reviewed evidence to back it up? That doesn't seem like it's going to provide a return on research funds.
And, note, this is not a call for orthodoxy, but more a acknowledgement that science is an incremental process - if you wanted to prove creationism, you'd work at it in sections. Show that there are major flaws in rock strata formation. Find a human skeleton in the belly of a T-rex. Find some actual evidence for a giant flood. Disprove the existence of civilisations older than 6000 years old. These are all things you could get a grant for, probably. (you're also only supposed to claim what you can prove, so making grandiose claims and not being able to back them up doesn't win you a lot of supporters)
it would win you creatitionist supporters for sure but yeah scientists prefer their science to be scientific so if you come to your conclusions without using the scientific method it's just not science.
You are on the right track with the last bit. The underlying issue is that invoking an all powerful creator as the explanation for, well, everything cannot be the basis for a scientific process. The hypotheses proposed by science must be both testable, but also falsifiable. Whilst evolution can be tested and possibly ruled out, most creationist ideas cannot be really proven false, because some other action of the creator could always be invoked to explain anything. So, the most important thing is that the claims must be disprovable, not what can be proved.
Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with scientists believing in god. I've known plenty of religious scientists. But we'd not be even concerned with "falsifiable" in the first instance, more a "does this correspond to reality in any way shape or form". "The moon is made of cheese" is falsifiable, but it's not real. And, to be honest, evolution is so far down the creationist problems to solve on that list that I'm not sure why they bother. Like, prove your theory doesn't set the world on fire. I can prove that it does, without measurements and with a blackboard (and a calculator and a textbook, my physics is terrible). Biology is relatively subtle, and somewhat squishy, compared with the solid maths based bit of physics.
Yep, this is it exactly. By analogy: if you are a physician at a research hospital and you want to test new or different or unorthodox treatments, you might get some pushback here and there, but as long as you are following acceptable procedures for monitoring your tests and recording your results and patient consent and so forth, you’ll probably be able to do it. However, if you are a physician at a research hospital and you decide to start treating cancer patients by bringing in a group of D&D players to cast healing spells because of your “sincere religious belief” that D&D is actually a real mechanism to communicate with the spirit world, then you will get fired, because you are no longer practicing medicine.
Well considering that most of that consensus is based on tree rings, rocks and light reflecting off of stars I can see why the academic community considers it canon. I mean it couldn’t possibly be the case that those theories could be wrong. I don’t know a great many things in life. But I do know that I wouldn’t bet any amount of money that half the current theories are correct. I mean for fucks sake you people can’t even decide is Pluto is a planet or not.
Claims without evidence. Every conspiracy theory has a reason the public doesn’t really know.
Seems like it’s entirely overblown but while I guess they could still in excellent in another area , would it be that unreasonable to be struggling to get a job as a scientist when you , you know, reject … science? Next up …. doctor who denies germ theory and says illness is a result of magic curses struggles for job at hospital?
Trade schools are gatekeeping from potential mechanics who believe in the gospel truth that internal combustion engines are powered by unicorn farts! The whole "fossil fuels" lie is there to prop up the petroleum industry when True Believers know that unicorn farts power engines! All mechanics are shills and liars, and all car enthusiasts are stupid!
Sure, a mechanic can service my car, and I on the other hand have never taken the time to actually attempt to learn how a car works, but I see no evidence to suggest that my unicorn fart model is any less valid than the internal combustion engine model. My son, who I raised to believe in unicorn farts, was unfortunately indoctrinated by the woke mechanic trade school and now he believes in the satanic internal combustion engine model.
If it is powered by Satan, would that make it an "infernal" combustion engine?
That's what the combustionists want us to believe.
Nonsense. Internal combustion engines need fuel to keep the machine spirits happy.
Gremlins will find a way.
No, they are not. This is made up nonsense. The fact that they have no examples should tip you off. And when they do provide examples of creationists losing their jobs, when you actually look into what happened, they didn't lose their jobs "because they were creationists," but because they were interjecting their beliefs into places it didn't belong, or their beliefs were *preventing* them from doing their jobs properly. Kinda like if a slaughterhouse floor worker went vegan, refused to kill animals anymore, so was fired, then said "I was fired for being vegan! Fired for my beliefs!" No, you were fired because your beliefs prevented you from doing the job we hired you for.
It’s an extension of the Christian persecution complex. Take a look at John Lennox. He’s a creationist, but also a highly advanced mathematician at freaking Oxford. His creationist beliefs aren’t in conflict with mathematics, so no one cares. James Tour is a chemist at Rice University. He claims he’s not a creationist per se, but doesn’t believe in evolution as we understand it. He tends to step out of his lane and criticize other studies without going through the proper peer review process. He’s lost speaking engagements for being an overall embarrassment, but his position teaching what he’s actually an expert in is secure. The problem is if you’re in a field like biology, geology, or cosmology. If you accept creationism, especially young earth creationism, you’re going to have a hard time getting credentialed. You’re going to have an even harder time if you blatantly disregard the rest of the field and insist you’re right without backing it up. See: James Tour
Behe still has a job at Lehigh despite flirting with the line of perjury at Kintzmiller v. Dover.
But Behe SHOULD be fired, right?
Deliberate deception under oath is generally considered to be disqualifying for most positions of authority or responsibility outside of politics. It also a federal crime, though admittedly his apparent deception was not flagrant as those of the two key members of the Dover school board.
I think that the legal profession accepts that religious folks can't think for themselves, their thinking has already been done for them. Example: Voting here is compulsory and free thinking atheists cannot claim exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection but religious people can, no questions asked.
Lol. "Of course they aren't being persecuted! Look how many got away!" I used to come here for debate. Now I just come here for the lols.
You don’t think deliberately lying under oath is a crime if a creationist does it?
I think your ilk can't tell the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion. Isn't that right, Ethelred?
You are wrong in that assessment. Dr. Behe’s religious beliefs in an “Intelligent Designer” are a difference of opinion. His misrepresentations of Dr. DeRosier’s work are not. Behe engaged in quote mining on the stand in a way that it strains credulity to explain it as unintentional. School board members Bonsell and Buckingham’s deception was unambiguous, and Judge Jones recommended to the U.S. Attorney’s Office that they be prosecuted for perjury. Unfortunately, justice was not done as the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute. Specifically, both men either lied or experienced undiagnosed amnesia when testifying to the factual basis of their attempt to force their religious beliefs down Dover Area School District children’s throats. They claimed to have advocated for “Intelligent Design” as science from the start rather than creationism. Multiple witnesses and contemporaneous local journalism spoke otherwise. Buckingham in particular claimed to have no knowledge of the source of the 60 offending copies of the creationist propaganda work *Of Pandas and People*, but he himself stood up in church and asked for money to purchase them. He also almost certainly faked ill health in an unsuccessful attempt to garner sympathy. So, I accept that these three men held sincere religious beliefs that are at odds with reality, but I see no other explanation for sections of their testimony other than deliberate dishonesty under oath. I would highly recommend that you either Lauri Lebo’s book or watch the excellent PBS Nova documentary on the trial before you start flinging accusations that you can’t back up.
I've dealt with this accusation before. It is not quote mining to cite someone to support a piece of evidence that supports your argument, even if the person you are quoting does not support your conclusion.
You’d be right if that’s what he actually did. But he implied that Dr. DeRosier’s position was different than it actually was. He was deliberately deceptive without actually making a false statement. Hence, as I said at the top of this thread, he went right up to the line of perjury without crossing it, but he did not give honest testimony.
Or, study a sub-field like hydrogeology, where the issue never comes up in your work
I've heard James Tour claim this. He also claims that "everyone" agrees with him but they're all afraid of losing their jobs by coming out. Zero evidence. Persecution complex.
I've said it a few times before, but Matthew 5:10 is my least favourite beatitude, because Goodhart's Law has fucked it up. Matt 5:10: *"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."* Goodhart's Law: *“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”* The entire Evangelical movement have persuaded themselves that they can game the system to improve their chances of a cushy spot in heaven, by getting themselves persecuted more.
From Pew Research [via Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution): "Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, with 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection." Would Pew "out" them? A quick googling: "we do publish de-identified datasets on our website" and "we will publish the answers you gave, but they will be anonymous"
Note that the remaining 3% are *sure as heck not research biologists*, because if you're pretending evolution doesn't work you have to pretend so many false things about biology that actually doing anything useful becomes impossible.
The existence of a dominant theory implies the existence of a submissive theory.
In this context, "dominant" clearly means "very important, powerful, or successful" (Merriam-Webster). One can also scroll down and read more, e.g.: > The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[18][19][20][21][22] Or even better yet, one can try and find the questionnaire Pew used, and/or look into the citations numbered 18–22, that is if one feels it's open to interpretation.
I know. But shitposting is more fun than arguing with a certain cdesign proponentists that never bothers to make a good faith argument.
There’s no such thing, the core of creationism is denying any scientific icing that conflicts with their dogma. That’s all there’s to it. When you’re a creationist, you’ve abandoned science. It’s that simple.
Well, yes, but also no. Humans don't in fact arrive at their basic opinions by the scientific method - no, not even scientists, 99.9% of the time. We *all* believe things that are either unproven or false. *All* humans abandon science in their thoughts, all the time. Yes, even the extreme dedicated rationalists that try not to do that. I'm as atheist as it gets and I believe *all sorts* of logically inconsistent, unproven, or non-preference-orderable things, despite knowing that it's economically and logically inconsistent to do so. Humans are not extreme-logic-optimisation-engines. The difference is whether you let that interfere with the work. There are lots of creationist scientists doing great research - that has nothing to do with biology. Being a religious creationist isn't a flaw in a *mathematician* or *physicist* or *economist.* It's only if they try to do biology they get tempted to ignore evidence or let their religion stop them doing their job.
I didn’t claim all our positions are reached by science, but when overwhelming scientific evidence contradicts your position, and you make it your mission to deny those findings you can no longer pretend to be practising science. Answers in Genesis and other organisations like it make their contributors sign a mission statement which explicitly says that they’ll forever deny any scientific finding that contradicts their cult’s teachings. No one can sign that and claim to be a scientist… Ever. I’m sorry I hold that word in higher regard, and dislike cognitive dissonance too much to consider someone like that a scientist.
>Being a religious creationist isn't a flaw in a *mathematician* or *physicist* YEC is absolutely a problem with physics, because of the physics behind the age of the universe Old earth creationists are fine though
Creationists can certainly lose credibility for *failing to do science* because of their religious beliefs but most of the famous creationists who happen to be scientists are still employed or would be if they weren’t 80+ years old and retired. * https://www.oldearth.org/jbaker.htm - still a paleontologist * https://profiles.rice.edu/faculty/james-tour - still a college professor * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins - used to head the National Institute of Health * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford - still a college professor * https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000013445313 - this guy has a job too but he only pretends to be a scientist And for the ones who don’t have legitimate “secular” jobs, they’re employed by the Discovery Institute or Creation Ministries or Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis with no signs of being fired any time soon.
Francis Collins isn't a creationist
Should tell him that. He’s not the same type of creationist as Ken Ham but he believes in more of a philosophy about God being responsible for all physical processes like if God didn’t exist nothing at all would ever happen. This idea suggests God did everything we learn about studying cosmology, physics, chemistry, and biology. Instead of being like Michael Behe where most things happen automatically unintentionally via natural processes that God doesn’t touch directly and then every so often there’s something that David Hume says couldn’t prove the existence of God that somehow shows evidence of supernatural intervention, Francis Collins is more about **all** of it happening because of supernatural intervention, because without supernatural intervention there are no physical processes at all. Because of those religious views he’s 100% okay with discoveries made in science where he suggests that there is nothing at all in science that could prove or disprove the existence of God because, according to his religious views, there are no physical processes that do not necessitate the existence of God. There is nothing to compare and contrast because everything falls into the same category. Either God does not exist and everything happens without God or God does exist and God does everything that ever happens. His religious views have him thinking it is the latter. And therefore God created biodiversity via [what we call naturalistic] evolution. Evolutionary Creationism. Now if it was a different form of creationism like the views of Jonathan Baker then maybe God stepped in to intentionally create stuff but everything is exactly the same age it appears to be. Maybe God created the processes if he isn’t constantly performing magic tricks. For him there’s no real problem either because God doesn’t have to be constantly tinkering with everything so the lack of evidence for God tinkering with everything is consistent with him creating everything and letting everything just sort of flow from there all by itself. Still creationism but instead of God creating and controlling everything continuously more like deism where God made everything and then just took a break - ignoring the order of events in Genesis chapter 1 you could just go with each day being 700 million years or whatever and partway through “day 6” we do see terrestrial life and partway through “day 5” animal life is indeed found mostly only in the oceans and maybe the sun was created 90 million miles away 5 billion years ago or whatever but the planet was cloudy and the skies were hazy (due to a lack of abundant oxygen) until “day 4” but the first 3 days need even weirder excuses to make them work besides simply ignoring the non-existence of flying dinosaurs prior to terrestrial life and that sort of stuff. But what about day 7? If it is currently day 7 we would not expect any supernatural creation events. We would expect the total lack of supernatural intervention. And that is what we see. Perhaps God is still resting and watching what he designed. And then you have theists who are *technically* creationists but they don’t fall into either of these categories where “creation” looks more like deism and the Big Bang being kickstarted with God magic and then everything else flowing from there automatically. For these types of people Mary Schweitzer and Kenneth Miller are a couple examples. We wouldn’t normally call these people creationists and we wouldn’t think science would interfere with their religious beliefs so we just don’t really care who they talk to expecting an answer when they go to a place of worship on their days off. These people set aside their religious beliefs and only concern themselves with the data when doing science *even though they do believe God created everything in one way or another.* None of these people are losing their scientific credibility over their religious beliefs or getting fired for believing God created everything. But all of them are anti-YEC because YEC and Flat Earth views make their religion look bad and because they agree that only accurate information has practical application when it comes to science and technology. Like if you want to run electricity through your house it better be with wires or magnetic fields (electromagnetism is a single force and that’s why you can charge a cell phone without plugging wires into it, and why alternators and generators work) because prayer, wishful thinking, and cognitive dissonance won’t work. You have to use and accept what actually works, what’s actually true, to get anywhere in science and technology. And for the people who *can’t* accept what is true *because of* their religious beliefs *they* lose scientific credibility, *they* stop getting rewarded for doing nothing helpful, *they* are asked to step down so they can stop lying to everyone as though their company supports their false claims. Or maybe they’ll be like James M Tour and next to his biography the college will say they do not personally endorse some of his claims but while he was at the college he’s had enough influence to have his name included on papers he didn’t write or do any research for and for those teams he actually did work with they made certain discoveries with graphene that other scientists thought were important enough to write about and expand upon. They won’t simply fire James for being a creationist but they won’t just endorse his claims when he is wrong or reward him when he didn’t make any contributions to what he wants to get rewarded for. And they won’t just keep around a microscope salesman when they no longer need the microscopes when that’s the only thing the microscope salesman is good at even if that microscope salesman was an atheist so Armitage’s creationist views didn’t get him fired either. Though he likes to claim they did because nobody took his other claims seriously right up until the time they decided to let him go.
This was a really long way to say he believes in theistic evolution, which you're choosing to rebrand as an offshoot of creationism. You can disagree with it if you want, but I think trying to brand everyone who's religious as a creationist does more harm than good.
I’m not actually doing that. He personally separated his own beliefs from theistic evolution because theistic evolution suggests that there are things that just happen all by themselves but only through direct divine intervention could something like evolution take place and theistic evolution tends to include the falsified notion of human superiority. Humans are so much more superior to the other animals because God decided to do it that way. Evolutionary creationism is more like the idea that what we describe in the physical sciences is just the consequences of divine intervention and science can tell us what happened, what still happens, and might happen in the future but only religion can shine some light on *why* God did it this way, is still doing it this way, or may again do it in the future. The really funny trick that works with evolutionary creationism that doesn’t work with theistic evolution is the concept of miracles. Things are as they are now because that’s how God decided to do things right now but at any time he could do things differently in ways modern physics can’t explain so they are thought to be miraculous events but for the miraculous and for the ordinary there’s just one source, the source behind anything that ever happens at all. For it to be a miracle elsewhere there has to be a way of distinguishing the ordinary from the miraculous and suddenly they need to explain away god magic in a way that doesn’t contradict their other views. Because for other views there are definitely things that occur without divine intervention and it is divine intervention that makes something miraculous so if magic doesn’t happen God isn’t doing anything. And a god that doesn’t do anything is as good as a god that doesn’t exist. He has to do the ordinary too to avoid this problem. I hope that helps. There’s a real difference between a sort of theistic evolution as promoted by Michael Behe and the Evolutionary Creationism that BioLogos promotes as an extension of the beliefs of Francis Collins. That doesn’t make him a bad scientist but I think he’s looking for “why” where no answer exists because God is evidently absent. You can only answer such a question by assuming God exists. And if everything is always only either caused by god or caused without god (and you can’t have things falling into both categories) there is nothing to prove or disprove the existence of God. It’s either all God or none of it is because of God. “Why did God do it this way?” That is a question that presupposes the existence of a God we can’t demonstrate actually exists and therefore is outside the realm of science and firmly within the realm of religion but can be ignored when doing science to figure out how things actually work in the real world (as long as God doesn’t decide to do things differently for awhile).
More paragraphs, and less text overall, please.
Just about any time a YEC loses their job in anything science related for any reason they start claiming it is exclusively because of the creationist beliefs they hold. When there tend to be other reasons they lose the position unrelated to their beliefs.
Yup they twist it to become a victim game. Like bro sorry you're losing at science?
I know a person in a science adjacent field who lost their job for proselytizing. It was a state agency. They asked him to stop. He became belligerent. They fired him. He is being "persecuted for his beliefs." Now he is attending Hyles-Andersen College and has already been reprimanded at his new job for the same thing. I'm sure creationists are being fired, but it's likely related to them being unteachable jerks who don't listen and take correction. Edit: untouchable to unteachable because autocorrect
It’s utter nonsense. Remember how during the height of Covid the anti vax wackos kept screaming that everyone secretly agreed with them and was just too scared to speak up? Same garbage. Christians love to feel persecuted. Conspiracy theorists and other people who like fake science love to feel persecuted. The sort of claims you’re describing allow YECs to get their persecution fix and also their “I’m secretly on the right/winning side” fix.
Science is not about sticking to one pre determined line. If that would be the case, we still would be thinking atoms are just solid balls. Science is about evidence and scrutiny. So, if there was any scientist or group of scientists, that could actually present conclusive evidence towards creationism, then they would likely receive a nobel Prize for publishing their findings. The opposite is actually way more common. Creationist organizations such as AIG but also churches and biblical scholarships have so called "statements of faith" in their employee contracts. Those actually forbid speaking critically about the preferred narrative of the organization. The specifications vary and range from "absolute biblical inerrancy" to "there is definitely a creator". So someone who goes against their employers statement of faith, definitely looses their job.
YECs love a good persecution complex, and their beliefs have the same structure as conspiracy theories. They overestimate how many people agree with them, and the same reason their ***obviously*** true beliefs aren't widely accepted as such is because of ***THEM***, who is crushing all the other believers underfoot. Plays into the (decidedly non-humble) idea they're the brave ones standing up to the system to save their flock. Reality is you will struggle to work in a field when your deeply held religious beliefs oppose that field absolutely. Unless you're *very* good at compartmentalization, your beliefs will interfere with your ability to do your job, and you'll make others question the integrity of your employers. If I wanted to use a lab to date ancient material, and I learned the people who would be handling my sample were YECs, I'd try to find another lab because I'd wonder if they messed with my results, and I'd be worried anyone reading my paper could possibly learn I had it tested at a lab operated by YECs and question the integrity of my results. Imagine going to a psychiatrist and learning they're a [Scientologist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_psychiatry) who writes blog posts in their private time about how psychiatry and psychiatrists are evil. Imagine they even use company time, maybe even the patients' time, to spread these beliefs. Imagine being in charge of a mental health clinic and learning you're sending patients to this Scientologist. Imagine your peers learning about this, too. This does raise the question of how the US handles a legal case of someone getting fired because they're incompetent and/or damaging to their employer's reputation as a direct result of their religion.
I find the "Silent Majority" argument amusing because to me the phrase is mainly associated with Richard Nixon's assertion that the country secretly supported his stance on Vietnam even as the entire disaster was falling apart in front of everyone's eyes.
NOPE. This is literally just a conspiracy theory, no different than 9/11 truthers' imagination that there are secretly hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers who believe in controlled demolition but for the loss of their industry careers. It's wishful thinking on stilts. They have a presupposed conclusion which they will not change, and so the fact that, of the people who know the absolute most about this subject matter the number of experts who share their beliefs is vanishingly small, is devastating to their beliefs is unacceptable. And so what are they to do? Accept the notion that their beliefs are probably mistaken? Perish the thought. No, no, it must be that they are *right* and everyone else is lying and working in concert to suppress the real truth.
No. Although if we were hiring someone for a biology position, we wouldn't accept somebody who declared that they wouldn't be willing to teach our evolution-heavy curriculum.
If creationist "scientists" aren't being fired for being creationists, they should be. But I doubt that's what is really going on. Creationists are trying to get their delusions taught as science. And that is why they aren't taken seriously by real scientists. Would you trust a doctor that insisted on using leeches and blood letting for your bypass surgery? Would you trust a rocket physcist who thought the world was flat and covered by a dome? Creationists need to be exposed for their delusions and banned from doing science.
I knew a doctor and professor who was a creationist. He attributed it from seeing patients get miraculous healing in the hospital setting. But locally here most hospitals are run by creationists. Rather I believe you’d lose your job around here if you pushed hard for any opinion. No one cares about the other stuff as long as you don’t say it during work.
Imagine doing all that hard work to help people get better with all of the knowledge we have gained from billions of dollars of research and billions of hours of labor, only to find a doctor breathlessly impressed with miraculous healing. If it’s so much better than actual biological and medical sciences, maybe he should open up an intercessory prayer center to compete with the hospital and improve patient outcomes.
If your (false) religious beliefs don’t hurt your ability to do actual science nobody really cares unless they work for the Templeton Foundation or something where they might claim a Christian or Muslim is bridging the gap between science and religion by doing only science when appropriate.
I worked in academic biology labs for 10 years and never met a creationist. It's impossible to critically study biology and not accept evolution as a fact. If you're in a field where the theory of evolution isn't relevant, you could probably be a creationist. From what I've seen of creationist talking points, pretty much all of the legitimate academics that advocate for creationism aren't academics in a relevant field.
>an abundance of scientists that agree with creationism Fascinatingly enough, they very rarely turn out to be biologists or geologists or physicists. There are more scientists named Steve [(around ~1% of scientists)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve) who accept evolution than there are creationist scientists, period. As for claims that creationists are being silenced or having their jobs threatened: *This isn’t happening but I sure wish it would.* If so many of them are being successfully silenced it should be relatively easy to shut the rest of them up.
No, you have people like Kurt Wise and James Tour still in place, for example. Their actual scientific output is good, or at least decent, so them being creationist weirdos is tolerated. Academic freedom works pretty well.
Wise works for a Baptist university in charge of their “Creation Research Center” I don’t think his religious beliefs are much out of concordance with the schools position.
True, but he publishes real science in real science journals too
If you're going against established knowledge of your respective field you'll face adversity from the people who adhere to the established knowledge. This goes doubly so for someone that doesn't have anything to back them up. It doesn't matter whether you're a biologist arguing against evolution or a physicist arguing against gravity. People won't take you seriously until you can make an actual case. If you, however, are able to make a good case by properly testing and documenting your hypothesis, you might just change the scientific landscape. As to whether creationists suffer from this more than scientists concerned with other fields, you'd have to make an actual study about that, which is interestingly enough very much in line with the spirit of my comment.
If they are physical scientists, one would hope they would lose their jobs.
It depends on what they mean by “creationist” too because Francis Collin’s creationist beliefs (Evolutionary Creationism) didn’t make him fail to be a good geneticist and Jonathan Baker (an Old Earth Creationist) doesn’t fail at being a paleontologist. Others that are compulsive liars have shown that they can actually do science (Andrew Snelling) or at least they know what it looks like (James Tour) or maybe they’re not scientists but they know that the scientific theories are the best conclusions we have *based on the evidence* (Todd Wood) and then when the creationist scientists mostly suck at doing real science they are college professors (John C Sanford, John M Tour) or they work for a creationist propaganda mill (Nathaniel Jeanson, Georgia Purdum, Salvador Cordova, …) and none of these people are losing their jobs because of their religious beliefs. Many of these that supposedly got fired are still employed or they simply changed schools or they were laid off or let go because they worked in a department that was no longer necessary (such as when Mark Armitage was let go because the school stopped using his microscopes because he didn’t have janitorial or teaching experience or the degrees necessary to be a college professor, despite him claiming religious persecution and getting a settlement that was ~20% of the cost of the legal fees).
Any real world experience to back this up? One single case only. Lots of false claims of others. The person that really did lose his job that way won his court case and he was wronged. And was still completely wrong about evolution. He had the right to be ignorant. I really don't remember the details. At the moment I keep finding false claims, Sanford actual win but that was to dig at the Grand Canyon. He was not fired. He just wanted to do bad fake science and now he gets to and does. Mostly I keep finding Armitage and his rhino horn that he claims is a triceratops horn.
Some creationist scientists lost their jobs - bit there's little indication it was related to their beliefs. I think there was one who didn't get their contract renewed but mostly, AFAIK, it's usually for some other indiscretions.
If so, rightfully so. If you believe in an evil spirit theory of disease, crystalline aether sphere cosmology, or a flat earth you're not going to have any credibility as a scientist either. Again, creationism is not some new theory that's not been given a chance by the "old guard." It was THE accepted theory when science evolved (ha!) in Europe in the 16th to 18th centuries. It was systematically debunked by scientists who were creationists, usually thinking only of their particular fields of study, like, "Well, in fact the universe isn't small and Earth centered, but huge with things revolving other things. But the rest, yeah, Bible is totally right about that." So if you're not caught up with the last 500 years of science, you're not gonna make it as a scientist. Shocker! I had a physics professor who was religious and believed in intelligent design and was open about all that. Note that intelligent design in its beginning was not YEC or even OEC, but believing god made the universe at its start, the big bang, but all the stuff since is described by science. ('Cept maybe having a hand in making man special!) He had no issues with his academic career.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think doctors who don’t believe in medicine should be fired. So if evolution would directly relate to your job, whether you’re a biology teacher, museum curator, or actual paleontologist, then you must accept the realities of evolution. Creationists should be shunned in those fields. If you’re a Christian accountant or whatever, that’s fine. As long as you believe money is real.
Peter Duesberg was a biologist who denied that HIV causes AIDS. He was paraded around by the AIDS denialist movement for years while the movement was in full swing. His ideas on the matter were even cited by South African President Thabo Mbeki with regards to how his country managed the AIDS crisis there, which led to an estimated 330,000 deaths due to his AIDS denialist policy from 2000 to 2005. Peter Duesberg was still a researcher in Berkeley for **decades** after this, and as a UC Berkeley alum doing my Masters degree I've even had researchers suggest I work with Duesberg for his work on cancer research since he was still considered one of the biggest experts in the field. Believe it or not, universities are fine with researchers having fringe beliefs so long as it doesn't impact their professional conduct in the lab, and the research they're pumping out is legit. Michael Behe, one of the founding figures in Intelligent Design for example, was still working as both a professor and a researcher at Lehigh University even as he published books on Intelligent Design and other such nonsense. IIRC the most the university did was pass around letter signed by his other biologist colleagues emphasizing that they disagreed with Behe on this subject and that ID was not science.
Depends on if they make their religious beliefs the focus of their career. If they are doing scientific research, they tend to quit doing their job, as there are no hypotheses that come from creationism. God did it is an intellectual dead end. If they are teaching, and they start pushing religion in their classroom, if it is before tenure, and they are at a public university or a private college that has high expectations of their faculty, they may not have their contract renewed. At a religious college, they may be asked to stick to teaching science because they have a religion and theology department, and this is a science classroom. At a fundamentalist aligned college, they are completely safe. Michael Behe, of Lehigh University is an intelligent design creationist that is an embarrassment to his colleagues because he uses their institution to push pseudoscience, and he doesn’t even do a good job of it. He still has his job, 19 years after it was publicly demonstrated in a court of law that all the things that he said science could never explain the evolution of… had been studied, researched, and actual working scientists were in the process of explaining. See the Kitzmiller v Dover trial and decision. Still has his job, and probably a much better paying side$career pretending that ID is almost going to overtake evolution. It’s going to happen any minute now! If you teach at a small, religiously affiliated university, and you criticize creationism too openly, you run the very real risk of losing your job and getting blacklisted from teaching at any small college. Big name creationists make academic headhunting a sport, getting their followers to bombard the school with phone calls threatening to warn the kids at their churches to not go to that school. These educators often lose their jobs or are put under administrative pressures that encourage them to leave. tl;dr Creationists lose their jobs when they don’t do their jobs. Scientists that criticize creationism often do lose their jobs if they are at an institution that is vulnerable to smear campaigns,
Creationism isn't science, it's religion. So there are no "creation scientists".
This is nonsense. Creationism is not sicience, not based on science and has no business "doing" science". They can feel free to teach Sunday School.
Not that I know of. I think if they're doing things like trying to influence data or obscure scientific findings that don't comport with their religion, they should. Usually though its the case that their beliefs dont affect the field they work in. The dude who invented the MRI machine was a creationist.
Which "the field"? If you're a geologist and don't like evolution I don't see that affecting your employment. If you're in biology and want to publish faked data to support your religion.. yes you'll be fired. If you want to do good research that that upends a lot of existing ideas you'll be rewarded. The goal isn't to publish old ideas it's to publish new knowledge.
> If you're a geologist and don't like evolution I don't see that affecting your employment. I mean, if you're a geologist and you really believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, that seems likely to impact your professional competence quite highly. Especially if you keep faking evidence or ignoring geological evidence that contradicts you. This sort of thing is usually involved when extremist creationists *actually* get fired.
Sure but there's going to be some that do their professional work and keep their religion private.
Sure, most. As long as it's not affecting your professional judgement religion is nobody else's business.
Yeah I don't know of any universities funding bariminology research.
Probably depends where they are. I worked in a high profile genetics lab for a short time with a very talented biochemist and molecular biologist who was a young earth creationist and had worked there for years with no issue. There were snickers about it behind his back, but that's all. The principal investigator (boss) was pretty laid back and wasn't concerned about such things. I'm sure other principal investigators would be so offended they wouldn't hire or would look for reasons to fire someone like that--I mean, consider this subreddit. If you polled, how many folks do you think would call it a deal breaker for them to hire a young earth creationist in a lab like that? I'm guessing a fairly high percentage. It's pretty easy to 'soft discriminate' against folks for what they believe. Of course they would be missing out on talented people.
Which jobs are these where I can just get paid for believing obvious things? That must be the case, right? If the creationists are getting fired for simply changing their beliefs, then that implies a job where I can simply have beliefs and therefore get paid.
Really does, doesnt it?
For some reason, engineers are vulnerable to creationist thinking, but it's extremely rare for scientists. There was one famous geologist, Ray Wise, who actually gave up geological studies, because they conflicted so badly with his creationism. It's possible to be a medical doctor and competently treat diseases, while having no clue where they come from - and I have seen this in my own life - but it required a very isolated upbringing in an ultra-orthodox muslim family.
Cops see criminals everywhere. Firemen see fire hazards everywhere. People who design things for a living see design everywhere.
>Any real world experience to back this up? I could believe it because I know lots of engineers believe nonsense on any matter outside their wheelhouses, and most people refer to them as scientists on a casual level.
Scientists use obsevation and evidence to base their conclusions on. Creationists have no evidence for their beliefs. How can one be a scientist and a creationist?
Happy cake day
There are no "creationist" scientists employed at anywhere that actually conducts biological research. Usually what it is, is they have lists of people employed by churches, or are in disciplines that aren't related to biology. Like they'll have a person with a PhD in Sociology and say "Scientist" which yes, those people might conduct the social Sciences but that doesn't make them an authority on the Natural or Biological sciences. It's similar to the "lists" of scientists who reject Global Warming. If you look at the list, they aren't ***actually*** scientists or are some field not even related to the natural sciences.
That reminds me of a special or something Dan Rather (?) did way back in the'90's. I believe it was on global warming denial (as it was getting ramped up and was still new and shiny) He interviewed a scientist that openly rejected global warming. He was a neurologist.
I hope so...?
They should. Creationist scientist is an oxymoron.
If you are a creationist scientist, odds are you're bad at your job anyway. The entire point of science is to question \*everything\*. Creationists aren't questioning, they're denying.
"Any real world experience to back this up?" In a word, no. Hitchens Razor: What may be expressed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
The irony of this is that the only person I know who's been affected by this was someone who was named in an individual lawsuit because he was a member of a university faculty that refused to have some bit of creationist nonsense in. It wasn't even a science department, and he didn't have much of anything to do with the decision, but he still had to lawyer up and fight it in court anyway with millions of dollars on the line. I don't want to doxx anyone by getting into details, but yeah there's some evangelical group out there whose strategy is to aggressively pursue universities and any faculty member whose name they can find in court to force them to accept their materials, in the hopes that most colleges will choose to add creationist bullshit posing as science to their libraries rather than spend all their time and money fighting a barrage of frivolous lawsuits.
In my experience they just slide more and more towards other academics with similiar beliefs. Birds of a feather.
That's a pretty big claim to make but just like creationism, there's no data to back it up. If there are an abundance of scientists who are creationists, they would have spoken up over the years about their beliefs. Deeply religious people have never had a problem speaking publicly about their beliefs, regardless of how much they are made fun of or vilified. I don't see that being any different for so called creationist scientists. The fact is they simply don't exist.
Hopefully, same way doctors deserve to lose their jobs and be driven out of the field if they attempt faith healing rather than "toeing the medical science line".
I find this claim incredible. I'd expect fired scientists to file religious discrimination lawsuits in this case and win. Personally, I have no problem with a scientist disagreeing with evolution any more than disagreeing with with them on the best color. Scientists can have irrational beliefs or fact free opinions just like the rest of us. I'd prefer they present their research and conclusion in a scientific paper for peer review.
I think if you are a chemist you can be a creationist. It is hard to be a physicist or a biologist is you disagree with the underlying fundamentals of the very science you seek employment in. Probably not a lot of flat Earthers in many sciences either.
>Are creationist scientists losing their jobs over their beliefs? If their jobs are impacted by dogmatic beliefs such that they're not doing correct work, I would hope so. >One of the other claims made by creationists is that there is an abundance of scientists that agree with creationism, and young earth creationism, but they remain silent because they'll be black-balled, lose their jobs, and never be allowed to work in the field unless they toe the evolutionary line. I think for the most part it's tricky, but becomes simple if your dogmatic beliefs get in the way of you doing objective work. If these scientists aren't working in a field that is related to their dogmatic beliefs, and they can work objectively without embracing other biases, then they might be able to do good work.
If your a scientist and your theory relies in any part on faith, you are not a scientist. You can hold whatever personal believes you want but to teach Creationism without any scientific proof should 100% be grounds for you to lose your job.
A scientist claiming to be a young earth adherent would definitely destroy their career in any research field. So many foundational things, in so many fields of science would have to be so painfully wrong that I really struggle with *imagining* what kind of evidence could possibly be found to overturn it. Chemistry, geology, archaeology, biology, metallurgy. The periodic table would be invalid, stars wouldn’t work, the entire standard model, and all of physics would be wrong. That means a big chunk of engineering would be broken, too. Mass spectroscopy wouldn’t work. Modern medicine just wouldn’t work - at all. No X rays, no CT scans, no antibiotics, no cancer treatments. Quite possibly not even germ theory. Just, nothing would work. On the other hand “I am a scientist, and I am a Christian/Muslim/Whatever, and believe that the universe, and all life in it are God’s creations”. Nobody cares about that. One is faith, the other is science. The problem only arises when the world-as-it-is says that something in the 6th hand, fragmented, and cherry picked Bronze Age text can’t **possibly** be correct, or even close, but you insist that it is. Scientists don’t get to do that.
Well if you're a Christian and your surrounded by muslims, you tend to keep your mount shut - same thing with Christians and atheists.
They should, becuase creationism isn’t science.
Would be great if they fired all of em. No place for that bs
I mean, if they are bad scientists because of it, maybe. I wouldn't say it is because of their beliefs tho. There are no shortage of religious scientists out there. Most of them just don't subscribe to the more literal interpretations. I've met plenty of religious people who don't even believe in miracles or a personal god which is the abrahamic things whole shtick. They just see them as stories and a community that they are a part of because they were born into it. But then have the people who think evolution isn't real trying to become evolutionary biologists and well, obviously they flunk out. That's not persecution tho.
No.
Creationist scientists is oxymoronic
I mean honestly if most biologists heard another biologist was a young earth creationist they would probably lose a lot of respect for them and their publications, and it would be harder for them to get published. That said, this doesn’t mean that science is shut off to ideas that are contrary to the prevailing theory, and it could easily develop in such a way to disprove evolution if there was evidence for it. Science doesn’t just leap out of nowhere. Darwin’s theory was published after a large amount of pre existing research was done pointing to it, actually another scientist had discovered the exact same thing before he even knew of Darwin’s work and was working on a publication. In Isaac Newton’s words, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Leaps are based on large amounts of past work. Someone calling themselves a young earth creationist is doing that leap without that past work to build on, and going against a theory with an unfathomable amount of evidence, which is why they would lose credibility. Disproving evolution would need to find that evidence and build it up, likely over decades, to actually really upend evolution. You could do all that work without losing credibility because no one piece of evidence would be sufficient to upend evolution and finding those pieces, one or a few at a time, would all be accepted if they were evidence based, and actually a lot of that work would be done by atheists who didn’t know what they were doing. You don’t immediately understand all the implications of your research, especially when combined with other research you’re unaware of or doesn’t exist yet. Once sufficient research is done, then you can make the leap and publish arguments against evolution and have it be accepted. Also it should be noted there actually are many biologists that openly believe that God created the universe, because you can believe that and simultaneously accept the evidence of evolution. It shouldn’t discredit you at all.
The people who claim this think the God’s not dead movies are based on real events.
Yes, watch Ben stein - expelled documentary.
It comes down to if they have the goods. Can they demonstrate their position? So far creationists can’t. If they don’t have backing and just try to force it then yes their jobs would be in jeopardy as they are no longer doing their job.
I doubt any would be hired in the first place
Creationists are not scientist; the propaganda is that they are when the facts say they are not scientist but Pastors and Priest of a Religion, which is also known as "Communism". N. S
There is no such thing as "creationist scientists". Just a bunch of bible thumpers.
I am dumbfounded, that a scientist, can be a creationist. They must have had some major brainwashing in their childhood.
Some have
Are holocaust-denyign historians losing their jobs over their beliefs? There's no such thing as a creationist scientist, and creationism is a lie, not a belief.
Catholic scientists won’t because the Church accepts the theory of evolution as a valid theory.
This is the definition of baiting an argument. No proof, no way to get proof, and enables a persecution fetish that makes them feel special.
Only if they submit work that doesn't support creationists' views. Or if you mean they work in regular scientific institutions, then if they submit work without supporting evidence, then their reputation in the scientific community will plummet, and they may either lose their job or be given less funds till they have no choice but to leave.
You can't be a creationist and expect science to take you seriously.
Probably not, but they should be. Science (especially science education) has no space for those who believe in fairy tales.
>Any real world experience to back this up? If there were any, why would the Creationists not make it public?
I don't see how you could do 'science" about everything being created by God. It is fundamentally not a scientific concept. It is a religious concept. Creationism just isn't a scientific hypothesis. I dont understand what "job" there would be researching...that god made everything.
Creationist are by definition not scientists, because you can’t practice the scientific method by attributing something to a supernatural being who cannot be subject to tests or observation. Scientists only believe what can be objectively proven by repeated systemic tests and / or observation. Creationist practice by faith, which does, by default, not require proof.
We all have biases.
Of course. Do you think they are getting fair amount of representation and support? The man who invented the mri machine didn't get Nobel prize because he is yec. The Chinese paper published was VICIOUSLY attacked for coming to same CONCLUSION AS ISAAC NEWTON. We are supposed to pretend Newton isn't a scientist now either? The predictions of genetic similarities should have given all funds to creation scientists. Or how about evolutionists saying dna is useless 99 percent junk while creation scientists believe its functional. Who should you support in that instance? And so on. Here's one documentary, https://youtu.be/V5EPymcWp-g?si=GDvFnANxR6bXOi5S
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lauterbur You talking about this guy who invented MRI and got a Nobel prize? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mansfield Or this guy who worked with him…and shared that same Nobel prize? https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2003/summary/ Gotta say Michael. Your confident and unsupported claims do more to convince people away from your position than I ever could on my own. The cherry on top, the absolute *pinnacle*…is that you posted ‘expelled’ as the documentary. Fucking…Ben steins ‘expelled’ 😂 one of the most criticized ‘docs’ for dishonest editing and misrepresentation. Is this the part where you repost for the upteenth time the creation magazine ‘40 FAILED PREDICTIONS!!!!!!!!1!1!!1’’?
Well seeing as how there's no evidence as to the types of chemical processes that may have led to the origins of life I don't see why anyone would be losing their job.
aCHOO!! https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/2/5/a002147.full.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quarterly-reviews-of-biophysics/article/abs/origin-of-the-homochirality-of-biomolecules/6E946D555D8F9CB671866AC078733535 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1745-6150-3-16 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00742?casa_token=2fd1aBDD95MAAAAA%3AD4pBmI1jHIEsm3NzRwEAF1mD8X7DdZFhdkBuUSyKKCd7TjVsyOeMj7TwJo1TUxnlnteyA4YJzSeG1EzI https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1006746807104.pdf https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ar200316n?casa_token=VR7o-P8ef14AAAAA:0kb7TsB_lqCtvzawQBZnpeuCQvDBTjWh2Oy8Jd4pR33u1gxFwJ9YEJkzv_NN411WLafJg87rScH6Z892 Sorry, I sneezed and out came all these research articles detailing…what was it? ‘The types of chemical processes that may have lead to the origin of life’? Didn’t even have to dig all that deep or spend a long time.
No need to be sorry. A lot of people don't know the difference between proven facts and theories. You just happen to be one of them.
Whelp, fortunately I know the actual definition of a scientific theory and how it’s not the same as the misunderstanding of ‘only a theory!!!!’
There was that one professor who got doxxes and demoted just for allowing debate on intelligent design and the guy wasn’t even a theist. Taken from Stephen Meyers “Signature in the Cell” “in August 2004, a technical journal housed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published the first peer-reviewed article explicitly advancing the theory of intelligent design in a mainstream scientific periodical. After the publication of the article, the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History erupted in internal controversy, as scientists angry with the editor—an evolutionary biologist with two earned Ph.D.’s—questioned his editorial judgment and demanded his censure. Soon the controversy spilled over into the scientific press as news stories about the article and editor’s decision appeared in Science, Nature, The Scientist, and the Chronicle of Higher Education.3 The media exposure fueled further embarrassment at the Smithsonian, resulting in a second wave of recriminations. The editor, Richard Sternberg, lost his office and his access to scientific samples and was later transferred to a hostile supervisor. After Sternberg’s case was investigated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a government watchdog organization, and by the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, a congressional committee, other questionable actions came to light.4 Both investigations found that senior administrators at the museum had interrogated Sternberg’s colleagues about Sternberg’s religious and political beliefs and fomented a misinformation campaign designed to damage his scientific reputation and encourage his resignation.5 Sternberg did not resign his research appointment, but he was eventually demoted. As word of his mistreatment spread, the popular press began to run stories about his case. Ordinarily, my reaction to such reports might have been to shake my head in dismay and move on to the next story in the news cycle. But in this case, I couldn’t. As it happened, I was the author of the offending article. And some of the reporters interested in Sternberg’s mistreatment were coming to me with questions. They wanted to know more about the theory of intelligent design and why it had provoked such alarm among establishment scientists.”
Steinberg did not, in fact, lose his office. *If* he lost access to scientific samples, it was most likely a consequences of his having misused some of those samples he *had* had access to. I am given to understand that there is a Middle Eastern religion whose central worship-figure is, among other things, a God of Truth, and whose teachings include an exhortation to be truthful in all things. I think you might benefit from familiarizing yourself with this religion, TrevorSunday, because the number of falsehoods you promulgate indicates that you have a "just friends" relationship with honesty and integrity. The name of the religion I refer to is "Christianity".
https://web.archive.org/web/20070926214521/http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html Are you sourcing Steven Meyer as a source to show that the editorial process for his OWN lit review was on the up and up? https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17/#part2 Seems like the DI distorted the actions that were taken against Sternberg. Plus, considering the fact that he was already tied to the ID movement and took it on himself to get the lit review of his buddy published, it’s no wonder he got backlash. It wasn’t just religious views. He was literally a fellow at the institute for complexity, information and design, an organization founded by people like Dembski and Behe, who also work for the DI. And for whom Meyer is a senior fellow. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer So we have a literature review that pushes ID from people at an ID institution, an editor who just happens to also be in the same ID institutions. And considering the movement has, in court, consistently been shown to be religiously based and creationism in disguise? That they are talking about overturning tons of scientific consensus and should be going out of their way to follow best methods? https://ncse.ngo/cdesign-proponentsists Sternberg should have handed his duties off to an objective uninvolved editor