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.

[micatala]

So far, no one willing to go to bat for the idea that the theory of evolution is propped up by the bias of the evolutionary scientists.

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.

A good point. I have heard objections from evangelicals that they are not allowed to offer 'legitimate prayers' because in some cases they are asked not to pray 'in the name of Jesus.' In their view, they are being prevented from practicing their faith. They typically do not see the problem with praying in the name of Jesus, versus a more generice designation (e.g. God).

[Jose]

So far, no one willing to go to bat for the idea that the theory of evolution is propped up by the bias of the evolutionary scientists.

Apparently not. Interesting. I note that the "bigotry" site (forbidden if you leave in the period at the end of the link, but accessible if you delete it)...gives lots of traditional examples of bigotry and bias. In the time-honored tradition, they don't go into specifics. A biology teacher should be considered an unlikely candidate for "Master Teacher" if he starts explaining the "flaws" in evolution using the examples that are typically kicked around on the web. They're lousy science, misrepresentations or misinterpretations, and generally silly. And Gentry, of course, was looking at the results of radon breakdown in the vicinity of uranium deposits, not polonium haloes. I would think Oak Ridge would have a hard time justifying a renewed contract.

So it appears that the claim of bias, or anti-creationist conspiracy, is not supported by the data. The specific details of each example must be evaluated. It turns out not to be "bias" against the religion, but "bias" in terms of wanting qualified personnel for the job. I would expect the same treatment if I took a job as an evangelical preacher, and started spouting off about why we can't take the bible literally, and how it proves evolution is true. Wrong guy for the job.

[rigadoon]

I note that the "bigotry" site (forbidden if you leave in the period at the end of the link, but accessible if you delete it)...gives lots of traditional examples of bigotry and bias. In the time-honored tradition, they don't go into specifics. ...

I think most creationist scientists know what they're up against and don't bother complaining much. Years ago I met a university professor who was being careful not to state his creationist views in public -- until he achieved tenure.

The Forrest Mims - Scientific American episode is probably the most public case of discrimination. For documentation see http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or131/mimsrpt3.htm

[Jose]

The Forrest Mims - Scientific American episode is probably the most public case of discrimination.

It probably is. It's not clear that it is possible to find an unbiased account of what really happened, which is what I'd want before drawing any conclusions. I wouldn't trust "either side" to report the unfiltered data without a bit of spin on it. My sense of the affair, at this point, is that it may, indeed, have been inappropriate action on the part of Scientific American. Who cares if a scientist has creationist views, if he or she sticks to science? But then, we don't know all the details.

The other cases of which I am aware are more of the "presenting creationist views as science" type of incident. This is fine if it's clear that you are expressing your opinion. It is not fine if you are supposed to be teaching science. It is made worse, actually, if you actually believe that what you are doing is presenting the truth, and correcting faults of society and of the educational system. Why worse? Because it indicates that you are teaching your students not to follow scientific reasoning, but call it science anyway.

Of course, this illustrates that the fundamental question is the topic of a different thread--whether YECism is science.

I would hope we would agree that teaching non-science as if it were science is inappropriate in science classes. We don't want our kids taught that they really can change lead into gold if they try hard enough, or that the best way to cure cancer is by using a Scientology e-meter with a vial of dried liver on top of it, or that water remembers the essence of material that was once in it but has since been removed. Sure, let teachers believe these things on their own, but require that they carry out their job requirements when on the job: teach real science. I would hope that for these sorts of examples, we would agree on the principle.

Would it be "anti-alchemy bias" to fire a science teacher who teaches that alchemy is true, and traditional chemistry is not?

[harvey1]

I think most creationist scientists know what they're up against and don't bother complaining much. Years ago I met a university professor who was being careful not to state his creationist views in public -- until he achieved tenure. The Forrest Mims - Scientific American episode is probably the most public case of discrimination. For documentation see http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or131/mimsrpt3.htm

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would you hire someone who didn't believe in modern science to write science articles to the public? It is akin to the Cardinals electing a Pope who is an atheist.

Religious job discrimination is when your job assignment is not relevant to your religion. In this case, it is relevant because if an evolutionary breakthrough happens (e.g., yesterday's news of a transitional fossil between fish and amphibians) that almost deserves an article, the writer cannot write a scientific view on that subject. They would be unable to perform their job which is reason not to hire.

[rigadoon]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would you hire someone who didn't believe in modern science to write science articles to the public? It is akin to the Cardinals electing a Pope who is an atheist.

Religious job discrimination is when your job assignment is not relevant to your religion. In this case, it is relevant because if an evolutionary breakthrough happens (e.g., yesterday's news of a transitional fossil between fish and amphibians) that almost deserves an article, the writer cannot write a scientific view on that subject. They would be unable to perform their job which is reason not to hire.

So a scientist must believe certain propositions in order to be hired? Only true scientific believers are real scientists? Or something like that?

[harvey1]

So a scientist must believe certain propositions in order to be hired? Only true scientific believers are real scientists? Or something like that?

As long as an employer can be assured that their beliefs will not interfere with their ability to do their job and are not seen as some kind of high risk liability to the institution, I think there should be no discrimination with respect to what someone believes. However, if there exists a reasonable potential and apparent motive for that potential employee to use the status of their employer in a way that would embarrass the employer or lower the employer's status in its field of operation, no employer in the world would hire that potential employee because of the risk in so doing.

Perhaps the best approach would be to require a legal agreement in some instances. However, if an applicant acknowledges a view which is totally contrary to what the institution stands for (e.g., the pursuit of scientific truth), then I don't think the institution would be wrong in not hiring them.

[rigadoon]

As long as an employer can be assured that their beliefs will not interfere with their ability to do their job and are not seen as some kind of high risk liability to the institution, I think there should be no discrimination with respect to what someone believes. However, if there exists a reasonable potential and apparent motive for that potential employee to use the status of their employer in a way that would embarrass the employer or lower the employer's status in its field of operation, no employer in the world would hire that potential employee because of the risk in so doing.

Perhaps the best approach would be to require a legal agreement in some instances. However, if an applicant acknowledges a view which is totally contrary to what the institution stands for (e.g., the pursuit of scientific truth), then I don't think the institution would be wrong in not hiring them.

There's certainly no evidence that Forrest Mims is not interested in the pursuit of truth.

I found some interesting quotes concerning this issue.

The Christian University: Eleven Theses

Discrimination is necessary in hiring and promotion--not necessarily discrimination on the basis of religious belief but discrimination on the basis of belief in the great good of being a Christian university. The university is better served by an agnostic who wants the university to be Christian than by a devout believer who does not.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9 ... uhaus.html

And this article from which I take an excerpt.

Suppression of Dissent in Science

Discrimination against people on the basis of sex, ethnicity, or some other such criterion can be considered suppression of a category of people. Alternatively, suppression of dissent can be considered discrimination on the basis of belief. Either way, there is a distinct difference: one discriminates on the basis of who people are, the other on the basis of what they say or do. Of course, in many practical situations these ascribed and achieved characteristics are closely interlinked.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppres ... issent.htm

[harvey1]

There's certainly no evidence that Forrest Mims is not interested in the pursuit of truth.

Notice, though, I said "scientific truth" which means that I'm referring to the "truth" that science produces about the world.

[micatala]

I think most creationist scientists know what they're up against and don't bother complaining much. Years ago I met a university professor who was being careful not to state his creationist views in public -- until he achieved tenure.

The Forrest Mims - Scientific American episode is probably the most public case of discrimination. For documentation see http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or131/mimsrpt3.htm

I did find the Mims article interesting. As Jose said, it would be good to get an objective version of the facts, if possible.

The article you quoted included the following.

Early in the broadcast, co-host Cal Thomas asked Eugenie Scott: "Dr. Scott in San Francisco, let me jump in here and ask you a question. There are an awful lot of Americans, not only religious Americans, who believe that you evolutionists are trying to censor and silence people who don't agree with you. Isn't the essence of scientific inquiry free and open access and debate?"

Eugenie Scott replied, "It is indeed, but I think what we have to look at is what are we--what are giving--what are we calling equally valid ideas? We're not dealing with political speech, we're not dealing with opinions on art. We're dealing with what science is..."

In essence, Dr. Scott seemed to be saying that freedom of conscience doesn't extend to science, because science deals in matters of truth--as opposed to .matters of opinion. Such a viewpoint indicates a grave misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the meaning of freedom of conscience.

This last paragraph seems to me to display its own bias and profound misunderstanding or mischaracterization of science.

Dr. Scott is saying that not all opinions on scientific matters are equally valid. This seems to me to be a well-founded statement. Scientific statements or 'opinions' if you will need to be supported by evidence. This underlies Dr. Scott's statement.

For the author to twist this and say that Dr. Scott is somehow 'denying freedom of conscience' seems to me ridiculous.

To accuse evolutionary biologists of censorship because they won't give the same credence to ideas that are not supported with the weight of evidence, or have already been shown to be so inconsistent with the weight of evidence, that any reasonable person with an understanding of the evidence would say are false, is ridiculous.

I also note that Thomas was 'loading the question' by using the term 'evolutionists' which to me is a word that many who deny evolution use to try and imply evolution is another religious or philosophical 'ism' like atheism or humanism.