Creationist accusations of bias against scientists

[micatala]

Those who follow the creationism versus evolution debate have undoubtedly seen claims on the part of those who support creationism that evolutionary biologists or those who accept evolution are biased. Various specific accusation are made:

1. Evolutionary scientists have so bought into their scientific paradigm that they cannot or will not consider evidence or arguments to the contrary.

2. Evolutionary scientists are specifically biased against religion, or at least particular religious beliefs.

3. Related to 2, it is often suggested that the main reason or motivation for the development of evolutionary theory is specifically to discredit religion or the Bible.

4. The bias is such that it consitutes religions discrimination, particularly with respect to what is taught in the public schools. This accusation is sometimes accompanied by the declaration that 'evolution is a religion.'

The general question for debate is whether there is anything to these accusations.

More specifically, we can debate the following questions independently I think.

1. Are evolutionary biologists biased against considering other paradigms or theories?

2. Are creationist teachers and others who have allegedly lost their jobs or suffered some other harm the victims of either viewpoint bias or religious discrimination?

3. Assuming there is documented bias against creationists or creationism, is this justified?

I'm adding question 3 since, even though we often think of discrimination as 'bad', we may find that the weight of the evidence actually justifies some instances of discrimination. Certainly the Bush administration has tried to make the case, for example, that discriminating with respect to young male Arabs in designing security policies and processes is justified.

The Catholic Church practices discrimination against women and gays with respect to appointing clergy. Many churches and faith-based organizations are likely to have a bias against hiring or appointing non-theists to certain positions, or even allowing them as members.

This question came up recently in the Hen's Teeth thread.

This link was offered as evidence for such bias, and I offer it here as exhibit A to get the discussion started.

[Cathar1950]

micatala I couldn't get on the site. It says it is forbidden.

[micatala]

Hmmm. It worked when I clicked on it just now. Maybe the site is biased against you for some reason. Maybe your nickname which, if I remember right, is based on some medieval group?

Try typing it in. http://www.creationists.org/bigotry.html.

[Cathar1950]

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.

Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

I didn't use my nickname. The Cathar were just heretics competing with Rome and had land the French king wanted. It is not like they are the devil or anything.

[micatala]

Try going to http://www.creationists.org/ and then link to it from there.

[Grumpy]

micatala

I explored the site you posted, I am astounded that anyone calling themselves Christian would condone a site of nothing but lies. Pure, unadultrated BS from beginning to end. If this is Christianity(I don't think so) then it has become the father of lies and deception. I would tell them so myself but they are afraid of me and blocked my E-mail!

As to whether they would be welcomed on these fori? Sure, but they need a thick skin to go with their thick heads if they try to insist that black is white and wrong is right.

Grumpy 8)

[juliod]

I'm adding question 3 since, even though we often think of discrimination as 'bad', we may find that the weight of the evidence actually justifies some instances of discrimination.

Of course, the word "discrimination" is itself value-neutral. It only implies bringing up the differences between one thing and another. We call a person with good taste "discriminating".

And so it is a misnomer to talk about racial discrimination. We mean racial bias, preference, or bigotry.

OK, that being said, it is a part of academic ethics to discriminate between true things and false things. Teachers must teach the information as known to the best of their scholarly abilities at the current time. In biology, that means teaching evolution, by itself, as the sole working theory of origins that explains the data known to date. A teacher, at any level, who fails to teach evolution, or claims that there are "problem", or makes some argument that it is "only" a theory, or otherwise casts doubt on it, is violating their professional obligations.

In academics there is sometimes a problem where one professor takes on an unsupportable position and becomes a zealous advocate of error. If this unusual position interferes with the professors teaching duties, for example, then there is no obligation to allow them to remain in place. It is perfectly acceptable for an academic to hold radical views (and in the humanities these are common) but it is required that they conform to the normal standards expected of them in their teaching duties.

In other words, a school or university has failed if it does not discriminate between a qualified instructor and one who teches nonsense.

DanZ

[McCulloch]

Of course, the word "discrimination" is itself value-neutral. It only implies bringing up the differences between one thing and another. We call a person with good taste "discriminating".

And so it is a misnomer to talk about racial discrimination. We mean racial bias, preference, or bigotry.

We all make choices therefore we all discriminate. If I am an employer, I will discriminate between the various candidates for the job. If I am a fair and legal employer, I will discriminate based on the what I can find out about the candidates' experience, training, skill and aptitude to the tasks. If I am a bigot, I will illegally discriminate based on racial or ethnic background.

So the question is about is there religious discrimination going on in the scientific arena and is that discrimination justified.

If the religion in question is dogmatically opposed to the very tennents of science, then such discrimination is justified, isn't it? You would not hire an atheist to teach in a seminary. You would not hire an old-order Amish as a high tech engineer. People who hold to anti-science religions are not qualified to be in the field of science.

[micatala]

Good points j and m.

Yes, to look at the details of some of the complaints brought up in the site I referenced, one would have to know 'the rest of the story', as Paul Harvey says.

Was teacher A dismissed because of his or her religion, or were they dismissed because their views so impacted their job performance that the employers felt they had to be let go? It is certainly easy to try and deflect the real issue by crying 'religious discrimination', and obviously this tactic could be employed both sincerely and cynically. We would need to look at the details of each case.

[juliod]

A good comparison would be to military chaplains. Each chaplain is a member of a specific religion. But when needed it is expected that thay will administrate the appropriate rites as needed by the individual soldier.

If an evangelical chaplain declared that his religion was the true one, and therefore refused to carry out jewish or islamic rites when needed he would be failing at his duties.

DanZ