Yet another religious cult raided

[kandrathe]

A. If you're using Free Republic as a source, you're on shaky ground already. B. The study of evolution is so integral to biology, a merely observational effort would be far less than the job required. It was in the job requirements. Can you really say he could do a competent job producing research if he thought half the background was wrong? C. I have no idea what you're talking about with Mendel.

A. I read the article. I don't fault sources just because of where they are printed, and I try to look at all sides of the issue. Truth usually lies somewhere in between the two sides of an argument. B. This was not a study of evolution, it was a study of Tiger Fish. People's beliefs are complex, so you also are now being guilty of dismissing Abraham's qualifications in total because of one facet (not half, not 25%, one small part), one which he was never given a chance to work through with his employer. C. Mendel was a priest, a scientist, and the father of genetics.

This is not an argument, it's an assertion based on your biases. There were plenty of reasons to deny his tenure. Real reasons, that have resulted in no tenure in other cases.

You asked for examples of cases where people were discriminated upon. Now you want to dismiss them as not good examples. It is hard to know why truly why this scientist was denied tenure when 91% of his colleagues were given tenure. I'm sure the college presented there side with lots of good solid proof, but to me, it smacks of censure.

Well, you may think we're not in the Middle Ages anymore. Sometimes I wonder ...

:) We are in a different middle age.

In any case your paragraph makes no point, nor seriously challenges mine. Why would Dini be restricted from requiring scientists to know science because great scientists were (or are) priests? There's no logical connection here.

He is not querying people about their processes of scientific reasoning, he is requiring students to affirm evolution as the basis of the origin of species. When you ask a Christian, did God create you, or were you evolved from an Ape. It is a challenge of their faith and beliefs. Now, Christians might be wrong in their beliefs, but it won't stop them from all rational thought and applying the scientific method to do research. And, as evidence I submit to you the thousands of scientists in the field of biology that are also Christian, who believe in Creation. There are many people who accept a form of both as exemplified by the Paleontologist AND Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who's views were suppressed by the Catholic church until recently. To label all Christians as mentally incapable of doing research, even evolution based research is persecution.

The truth is, to make any sort of contribution to biology, geology, medicine, etc. you have to have at least a basic grounding in evolutionary theory. In addition, a Creationist mindset locks you out of doing anything useful in astronomy, physics and cosmology.

In full disclosure, my sister is a renowned molecular biologist although I would say she is more agnostic. She is married to a very famous molecular biologist. This brings me very close to the topic and the people in the field. I currently work as a consultant to colleges and universities, and my firm doesn't discriminate our clientèle based upon their religious views so I get to visit public, private, and religious colleges and universities all over the world. This brings me in close contact with many academics (mostly those who rely heavily on technology in the math and sciences). I personally know many Christians, who are also renowned biologists, some are Fulbright and Rhodes scholars, and some are on the National Academy of Sciences. They are making stellar contributions to their fields of research, and still able to maintain their Christian belief systems. Many are afraid to disclose or discuss their faith with other scientists for fear of persecution and censure. They stay in the closet. I think in general my observation is that the big brains are able to over come small mindedness. Science is a process, and a methodology, not a belief system. Some people claim evolution is a fact, mans role in global warming is fact, or even that gravity is a fact. I call that dogma, not science. These adherents to the dogma's of science risk being made a fool of themselves or at least to be found to be embarrassingly wrong at some future time. Religion is a philosophy, and a belief system which is not incompatible with the scientific method, even when applied to evolutionary biology, paleontology, cosmology, geology, etc as long as these Christians, Muslims, Jews, open their minds and use the scientific method to document their findings. Bad science starts with the desired outcome, and then tries to prove it true. Good science observes results through experimentation, and then tries to draw conclusions or hypothesis explaining how the results occurred. I've never seen a quark, quantum entanglement, or a black hole, but I am open minded enough to accept the hypothesis and evidence that they might exist. There is a difference between those who seek the truth, and those who try to fit the truth into their narrow minds.