Home » academic freedom, Atheism, Creationism, Culture, Education, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues and society, Society » Video: Dr George Yancey documents progressivist anti-Christian and partisan biases in the university and even in IQ tests . . . with implications for addressing the commonly encountered “ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” smear

Video: Dr George Yancey documents progressivist anti-Christian and partisan biases in the university and even in IQ tests . . . with implications for addressing the commonly encountered “ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” smear

Yesterday, I ran across the video to be shown below and posted a comment that I think needs to be headlined and seriously pondered if we are concerned that the university functions in an objective, fair-minded, truth-seeking way:

This study (HT: WK) as presented in a short lecture by Dr George Yancey — a sociologist — on bias against Christians in the academy, among progressives (especially cultural progressives) and even in IQ tests, should give food for thought as we reflect on the above.

Video:

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

Dr Yancey’s  IQ test questions (strictly: fallacy-detection questions, evidently used by some to claim that Christians are less intelligent than secularist progressives and fellow travellers) are especially revealing of how biases are embedded in what is deemed “knowledge” and “logical-thinking ability” that is then used to assess “intelligence” . . . as in, you Fundies and fellow travellers are dumb, ignorant, follow outdated myths and are unable to spot basic errors in reasoning:

iq_bias_2

Dr Yancey’s contrast of culturally/worldview loaded “IQ” questions and biases, the second bloc being taken from a researcher who seems to have suggested inferior intelligence for Christians

biased_iq

Examples coming from the other researcher. Notice the ambiguities in the word, “prove” and related, probably inadvertent biases. (And yes, BA77, the Shroud of Turin example is problematic at another level, as there is indeed a question about that C-14 medieval date; but that is not commonly understood. Which raises a question about conventional wisdom driven by institutionally dominant views (thus also politics) vs genuine warrant. And yes, this gap between conventional views shaped by institutional dominance and genuine objective warrant is directly relevant to design theory issues.)

These findings raise significant questions, and they raise the very important issue of the gap between conventional wisdom and genuine warrant on the merits.

Worse, when an institution has dominant factions, who imagine they have cornered the market on intelligence and knowledge, and which hold power to enforce their views, that can lead to serious bias and worse. Which points back to the significance of many gaps in surveys of Christian/Secularist/ etc. participation in key institutions of influence across our civilisation.

Such also highlights the pattern of adverse perceptions among academic Departments in the US, a leading, trend-setting nation in our civilisation:

bias_band

The band of peak bias, showing a strong sense of hostility to Bible-believing Christians. In other results presented, this is shown to hold even when corrected for perceived/actual political affiliations. That is this bias is over and above the known tendency of College Faculty to be left-leaning

Yancey has shown a clear, dominant pattern, consistent with other results.

So strong is this that it raises the issue that reformation is indicated, but will obviously be stoutly resisted within existing institutions. So, alternative institutions will have to be created and/or political/court interventions made to correct ideological bias; which is going to be even more controversial.

Such in turn raises the whole agenda of the commonly seen tactic of marginalisation and denigratory, bias-driven dismissive and prejudicial stereotyping.  (“Ignorant, stupid, insane . . . or wicked.”)

In applying the issue of bias to the design controversy, and the “Design theorists are creationists in cheap tuxedos” smear, it is obvious that the smear is cleverly designed with much malice aforethought to appeal to entrenched bias, and to reinforce it. That is why it is likely to be and remain ideologically effective. Never mind, that there is good reason to see it as factually unwarranted, as the just linked highlights in a nutshell.

However, accepting such biased stereotypes and seemingly obviously true smears may come at a stiff price, intellectual integrity.

That will doubtless be hotly denied and instantly dismissed in many quarters.

Not so fast, pahdnuh.

The following list of questions on just how well warranted (or, not) the typical evolutionary materialism-driven, secularism reinforcing views just exposed are, will be indicative:

1] Your empirically grounded evidence that blind chance and mechanical necessity are plausibly adequate to form a life friendly cosmos, trigger OOL and then body plans (including our own with the crucial linguistic ability) is: ______________ ? [Cf. here on.]

2] Your empirically grounded evidence that things like FSCO/I are not empirically tested, found reliable indicators of design is: ____________ ?

3] Your adequate reason for dismissing the reality of God . . .  is: ___________ ? [Cf. here.]

4] In that context [of evident evolutionary materialism], your grounding of the credibility of the human ability to reason and know (note here onlookers) is: ______________ ?

5] In that context, your grounding of OUGHT in an IS at worldview foundation level adequate to sustain rights as more than the nihilistic, amoral “might and manipulation make ‘right’ . . . ” warned against by Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is: _______________ ? [Onlookers, cf. here, here and here for why this is absolutely important.)

6] Your best explanation for the minimal facts at the historical foundation of the Christian Faith is: _____________, and it is best warranted as ____________ ?

7] In light of the above, your best account for the system of reality we see in the world around us and in our hearts is: ______________, and it is best warranted as a worldview because ____________ ?

We need to ask and seriously probe answers to such, if we are to move to a sounder, less biased footing.

And, resistance to or evasion of such an agenda of questions, is itself a highly revealing indicator of what is going on.

We have our work cut out for us as a civilisation at risk. END

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

25 Responses to Video: Dr George Yancey documents progressivist anti-Christian and partisan biases in the university and even in IQ tests . . . with implications for addressing the commonly encountered “ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo” smear

  1. F/N: Sal C points here, which gives a picture of where this sort of bias can end up, in a de facto establishment of an ideology willing to resort to some pretty ugly tactics . . . all duly paid for at the forceful, sharp point of law, by taxpayers. KF

  2. Kairosfocus, couldn’t you make your titles shorter than the first paragraph?

  3. From the article: “Worse, when an institution has dominant factions, who imagine they have cornered the market on intelligence and knowledge, and which hold power to enforce their views, that can lead to serious bias and worse.”

    The key word in this sentence is “imagine”.

  4. KF:

    We need to ask and seriously probe answers to such, if we are to move to a sounder, less biased footing.

    And, resistance to or evasion of such an agenda of questions, is itself a highly revealing indicator of what is going on.

    We have our work cut out for us as a civilisation at risk. END

    [Fixed it, KF]

    Thou hast nailed it, my friend! The implications of the adoption of a naturalistic worldview throughout every level of our culture has enormous implications for everything from education to economics to health care to legislation and every other area of life.

    What I find so ironic is that those who claim they are taking the “high” road of logic, reason, and scientific thought are so completely blind to the simple logical fallacies in their own reasoning system. The readily apparent self-refuting nature of the premises of naturalism completely escape those who wield the naturalistic sword. (Recall Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism for example.)

    The questions I’ve been asking for well over 12 years now on various internet forums are:

    1. How do you know scientifically (and I emphasize “scientifically” here because I want to make it clear that theological, metaphysical or philosophical opinions – while important for other reasons – have no bearing on the question at hand) that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle?

    2. How do you know scientifically that Nature (or the Cosmos) is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect? (Recall Dawkins claim that a universe superintended by a Deity would look much different than ours as he says in The God Delusion several times)

    3. How do you know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that any apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? (The Blind Watchmaker and Dawkins’s claim that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance [emphasis mine] of having been designed for a purpose.”)

    4. How do you know scientifically that no supernatural being, if such actually existed, could ever take any action within nature itself that would produce observable phenomenon or effect any change in the arrangement of matter or energy anywhere in the Cosmos?

    There are other variations on these questions, but you get the idea. The point is, not 1 time has anyone ever provided a scientific answer to any of these questions. Clearly whatever is going on here, it is not about science but is about something else, as KF has so correctly pointed out. It is nothing less than a clash of worldviews.

    The only real question is which worldview ought to be the one that informs our lives and around which we construct our culture and society, its laws and policies, and which forms the basis of how we arrange our lives together?

  5. Sorry about the format in my post. I don’t know what happened there!

    [DM, your close blockquote was at the end of the whole post. KF]

  6. Barb in #2: “The key word in this sentence is “imagine”.”

    Shades of John Lennon…

  7. a few notes:

    Look Who’s Irrational Now – 2008
    Excerpt: “What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....54585.html

    The preceding study is really not all that surprising considering the fact that Atheists have literally ‘lost their minds’ in that they deny their own minds even exists! Yet if one denies he even has a mind then one denies one of the main foundational precepts which brought modern science to maturity: Namely the foundational belief that we are creatures made in the image of God who have minds that can deeply grasp and understand the manner in which God has ordered nature.:

    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video – (Notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/32145998

    Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? – referenced article
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

    Moreover, metaphysical naturalism (atheism) leads to to epistemological failure:

    Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:).
    Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states:
    “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.”
    Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
    http://blogs.christianpost.com.....ism-12421/

    Though I took issue with many things that were conceded as true in the video (the Shroud of Turin being one main one), the one thing I would like to focus on here is that the SAT scores are drastically different for Christian schools and secular schools and are not ‘equal’ as he presupposed in the video:

    The following video shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years from the top spot or near the top spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court, not by public decree, in 1963. Whereas the SAT scores for private Christian schools have consistently remained at the top, or near the top, spot in the world:

    The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930

    United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy)
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

    AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray – David Barton – graphs corrected for population growth
    http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html

  8. Moreover, as I’ve found to be a fairly consistent pattern when dealing with atheists on issues near and dear to their unredeemed hearts, the removal of prayer from school was based on a deception:

    The Fallacy Of The Doctrine Of Separation of Church and State – video
    http://www.prageruniversity.co.....State.html

    supplemental notes:

    Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany – October 2011
    Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
    http://charltonteaching.blogsp.....-wife.html

    The History of Christian Education in America
    Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all “sound knowledge and learning.” http://www.ehow.com/about_6544.....erica.html

    I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily…. All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer.
    Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time

    “God gave them to me” he (Carver) would say about his ideas, “How can I sell them to someone else?”
    George Washington Carver

  9. DM:

    The US based National Science Teachers Association, board in 2000, as I have cited:

    The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> imposes an a priori philosophy on science, naturalism] . . . .

    [[S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> loaded language: it is exceedingly difficult to draw the dividing line consistently and objectively] . . . .

    Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [--> true], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence [--> loads the matter, and in fact on many origins science issues, there is a serious question of want of adequate observational support] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism [--> this can be selective and question-beggingly one sided . . . ], peer review and replicability of work [--> a question begging circle can lead to "replicability" and mutual reinforcement of the circle, think of the cartoons of the circle that keeps on reinforcing: hey more and more of us are on this path, we must be getting somewhere . . . ] . . . .

    Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations [--> question begging definition in the teeth of evident history and phil of sci, also sacrificing the ideal and goal of science that it is truth seeking. This is not seen for what it is, as there is an unquestioned assumption that the material exhausts reality] and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases and comments in parentheses added.]

    The question-begging is patent.

    KF

    PS: Is my fix-up about right?

  10. F/N: It is very, very hard to consistently escape fallacies in serious thinking and writing. Years ago, when I studied the subject, I don’t know if it was Copi or Cohen or the like who noted that quite often the examples of fallacies were taken from the works of leading minds. So, I think the idea of using proneness to fallacies as an index of level of intelligence, as Yancey was objecting to, looks pretty wrong-headed to me. I also think we need a sound and solid education in first principles of right reason as a basis for many other things, which is a major gap in education in our day. Indeed many are taught to reject key first principles (especially the classic three: identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle) and to think the principles are in effect — in crude but roughly right terms — arbitrary rules of a game we agree to play in College. KF

  11. KF,

    You were probably aware of this incident in March:

    Boca Raton, Florida – A university in Southern Florida that came under fire this week after a student claimed that he was suspended for refusing to stomp on a piece of paper bearing the word “Jesus” has issued an apology.

    Ryan Rotela, a Mormon, told reporters that he was punished by school officials for not participating in the assignment in his intercultural communications class. The activity was part of a suggested exercise found in the instructor’s manual accompanying the classroom textbook.

    “This exercise is a bit sensitive, but really drives home the point that even though symbols are arbitrary, they take on very strong and emotional meanings,” the manual states. “Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper. Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment.”

    “After a brief period of silence, instruct them to step on the paper,”

    http://christiannews.net/2013/.....-exercise/

    The instructor involved claims to be a Christian and said he was just following the lesson plan. If so, this is consistent with the long history of Christians aiding and abbetting the enemy. Darwinism spread, not just because of scientist, but active involvement of the pro-Darwin CLERGY in Darwin’s day.

    I know one biology grad student who said her genetics Professor on the first day of class said you can’t learn genetics if you are a Christian. A physics professor of mine, Eugenia Melcharik, proudly proclaimed in my class, “There was no God after Newton”.

  12. as to the foundational belief that enabled modern science to be brought to maturity, the belief that we are creatures made in the image of God who have minds that can deeply grasp and understand the manner in which God has ordered nature,,, That foundational belief has now been validated in spades;

    In this following video, Dr. Richards and Dr. Gonzalez reveal that the universe is ‘suspiciously set up’ for scientific discovery:

    Privileged Planet – Observability/Measurability Correlation – Gonzalez and Richards – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431

    The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
    - Jay Richards

    Extreme Fine Tuning of Light, and Atmosphere, for Life and Scientific Discovery – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/7715887/

    This following video is in the same line of thought as the preceding videos:

    We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History – Hugh Ross – video
    http://vimeo.com/31940671

    Hugh Ross – The Anthropic Principle and Anthropic Inequality – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8494065

    But, as impressive, suspicious, and persuasive, as the preceding ‘hints’ are that the universe was created by the Mind of God and can be understood by the mind of man, since we are made in God’s image, the deepest correlation, of our mind to the Mind of God, finds its most concrete proof of correlation from looking at consciousness itself through the lens of quantum mechanics.

    Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

    Supplemental notes:

    “It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom – at a very deep bottom, in most instances – an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin.”
    John Archibald Wheeler

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:

    And though ‘information’ is, along with consciousness, found to be foundational to reality, man is, among all creatures, uniquely suited to understand information, thus giving another powerful proof we are ‘made in the image of God’:

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.”
    http://www.annualreviews.org/d.....208.100202

    Music and verse:

    Genesis 1:26
    Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

    You Are I Am – Mercyme
    http://myktis.com/songs/you-are-i-am/

  13. SC: I knew of the utterly revealing case, and the further cites you give are saddening. On the issue of disrespect for Deity I just saw where over in CH’s blog, some irresponsible commenters did not recognise Lese Majeste — against the Deity! — by a large riotous gang of youths in the teeth of a then just happened miracle of mercy and blessing to the nation (and that of the earlier power confrontation at Carmel . . . ) and set up to sit in judgement of God. Of course God was guilty of being a bronze age barbarian sky god before even sitting in the dock, as far as they were concerned. (I think this points to a deep and broad problem of disrespect for authority and an entrenching of rebellion as a cultural ideal that needs to be checked and balanced by a due recognition of legitimate authority. The point of balance is the true opposite to all extremes.) KF

  14. What is disheartening is that it’s not just in secular academia, it’s in academia that is supposed to be friendly to the faith. Christian academia can be very hostile to differing interpretations of the Bible.

    For example:
    Baylor (a supposedly Christian university) kicked out Bill Dembski and then persecuted Robert Marks

    Calvin College : Van Til just fumed over ID proponents and then Steve Matheson says he is committed to destroying the Discovery Institute

    Look at how a student was shamefully punished at a supposedly Adventist university:
    http://www.educatetruth.com/fe.....ie-bishop/

    While a student at La Sierra University, my academic freedom and civil rights were repeatedly violated because I exposed the truth about what was being taught in LSU classrooms. I was subjected to multiple unjust disciplinary actions for merely speaking up, stating my concerns, and defending the Adventist doctrine of Biblical Creation.

    In February of 2009, I passed out a paper at La Sierra University Church on Alumni weekend describing what was being taught in LSU’s Biology Department. This resulted in a confrontation for which I later apologized. I assumed all was well and registered for classes spring quarter without incident. However, at the beginning of the next school year in September of 2009, the Wisbey administration tried to prevent me from registering for classes by placing my student account on a “Disciplinary Hold.” I was told I would not be allowed to register for classes or attend the University because I had “passed out information” at Church without permission. On September 21, 2009, I wrote a letter to the Discipline Committee asking for the reasons why I was not allowed to attend La Sierra University to be provided to me in writing. See Exhibit 1.

    When the responsibility of my case was given to the Dean of Students, she told me that she did not know the reasons why I was being held out of school! It took several days for the Dean to provide me with a list of my alleged offenses. When I did receive a list of allegations, the list did not identify who was making these allegations. I was then told I had to write a letter apologizing for my alleged “bad behavior.”

    Although the Admissions Committee voted in my favor and removed the Disciplinary Hold on my student account, and I was allowed to register for classes, I missed more than a week of important science classes because of this unjust disciplinary action. Preventing me from registering for school under these circumstances is not supported by any of the University policies. Also, this action was taken against me despite the fact that the Church is not owned by the University and is not even located on the University campus property. In reality, the University had no jurisdiction over what I did while on Church property. I viewed this as merely an attempt to intimidate and silence me.

    And I’ve even been admonished by Christian academic leaders in some universe not to disparage Darwinism if I give a talk. At JMU the leader of intervarsity by the name of CJ said he didn’t care about the creation/evolution controversy, so I was effectively shown the door — yet somehow he feels he can persuade students Christ rose from the dead while ignoring evidence that God created life. At another school in Farmville, VA the head of Intervarsity admonished me not to disparage Darwin when sharing with students why I believe in a Creator. I felt like telling them to shove their advice up…., ahem, but that wouldn’t have been very Christian of me.

    So when I hear that ID is something being pushed by Christians, I sometimes think to myself, “I wish it were true. Guys like atheist Fred Hoyle and agnostics like Michael Denton have done more to promote ID than most prominent Christians I know.”

    So you pointed to question of Noahs flood and Jehrico and evolution. What if a Christian believes in these things and had to study at Calvin College (a Christian college) under someone like Steve Matheson. Thankfully for the pro-ID students, it appears God kicked Matheson off the faculty. :-) Maybe PZ Myers can hire him now.

  15. KF – Thanks for fixing my post. You got it right. No idea how the closed blockquote got moved! Sometimes I just hate HTML – one little missed key and gibberish!

    Now to the matter at hand. No question that Naturalism rules the Academy and even in schools where you’d think it would come under greater fire, or at least serious scrutiny. But in all cases of “ID isn’t science” or any permutation thereof, no one, and I mean NO ONE, has yet to provide the scientific principle that keeps ID off the scientific table. The closest anyone gets is the perfunctory bow to so-called “methodological naturalism” (MN). How that differs in practice from full blown philosophical naturalism (PN)escapes me. I’ve said repeatedly that MN=PN and there’s no getting around it. Results in a lab constrained by MN as to what it can legitimately call an explanation will look no different from results constrained by PN. If the explanatory truth of the matter under investigation is something neither MN or PN will allow as explanation, then any explanation offered under the constraints will, by definition, be incorrect! PN, methodological or otherwise, both blinds and restricts science. Yet, we’re told, it is ID that will be downfall of “real” science! Huh?

  16. Politically correct blinkers will block science and other endeavours from being reality-correct. Which is tantamount to the only definition of truth worth its salt. An accurate summary of reality on a matter. KF

  17. SC: No surprise. KF

  18. I seriously wonder if those materialist, putative scientists, who must understand that ‘the games up’, that, at the very least, theism is the ultimate source for all knowledge, most certainly including physics and other branches of science, are not committing the unpardonable sin, ‘because it is an eternal sin’: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

    Normally, I would have considered classical physics as too lowly a form of knowledge to quality for such damnation, but the findings of QM have increasingly entered into a marriage with theology, leaving no justification for such wilful mendacity, so seminal, as it is, in its consequences.

  19. Beware, Christians. What does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’

  20. scordova @10:

    A university in Southern Florida that came under fire this week after a student claimed that he was suspended for refusing to stomp on a piece of paper bearing the word “Jesus” has issued an apology. Ryan Rotela, a Mormon, told reporters that he was punished by school officials for not participating in the assignment in his intercultural communications class.

    Thank goodness for this young man standing up for his convictions as a Christian. Hopefully the outrageous class activity to teach ‘intercultural communications’ [?!] will be removed from the curriculum in future years.

    I wonder, though, surely he wasn’t the only Christian student in the class. Why didn’t any of the other students think to themselves “Wait a minute, this isn’t right” and demonstrate similar courage?

    Thankfully, sometimes it just takes one individual to help things change . . .

  21. ‘Who is not for me, is against me.’

    It was one thing to collude with materialists in questions of classical physics, but all together another, to align oneself with materialists against the findings of leading-edge QM, providing, as the latter does, technically incontrovertible evidence for theism, indeed, Christianity. It ought to be a matchless blessing for you. Don’t let it be a curse.

  22. OT: A researcher has just increased the sensitivity of Gravity Wave detection by one order of magnitude:

    New method proposed for detecting gravitational waves from ends of universe – May 16, 2013
    Excerpt: The approach the authors describe can exceed the sensitivity of next-generation gravitational wave observatories by up to an order of magnitude in the frequency range of 50 to 300 kilohertz.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-05-m.....verse.html

    Thus, as Dr. Hugh Ross relates in this following video at the 4:05 minute mark, we are now only 10 to the 96 orders of magnitude short of the 1 in 10^120 accuracy found for the expansion rate of the universe instead of being 10^97 orders of magnitude short for the accuracy of the expansion rate::

    Hugh Ross PhD. – Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (Expansion Of The Universe)
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/

    supplemental note:

    Design, Teleology and Omega Watches – April 2013 – video and article
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....a-watches/

  23. Saying to them, ‘Do the maths.’ Or showing them that the maths has been done, and the results are absolutely unambiguous, would be so unproductive, that one has conclude that they are strangers to the efficacy of maths-based science; to its hegemony as the ultimate tool of physics.

    In very principle, they outlaw themselves as an inbred enclave of monomaniacs, whose most foundational assumption must always be, if it is to be believed that Luwontin actually said this, that we mustn’t let God get a foot in the door. Nobel prize? One letter wrong and back to front. The Lemon Prize, it should be, if Luwontin is any guide.

    In the not distant future their standing will be negative, as proven and, indeed, determined, enemies of science.

  24. Axel: Kutless – Shut Me Out
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6flXRCLPS0

  25. 25

    There are realities to what identities know and score on the “how smart you ” tests.
    Demographics matter in results but watch them carefully.
    As a YEC I’m glad theres so much criticism of evolution.
    Yet it really is a small percentage. It picks up the South (white/Black) without conviction however.
    Who cares about tests? Thats for kids. Its an adult world. Do tests on adults pass 35!
    Remember what God, by Solomon , said about human intelligence.
    We are made in Gods image and think like him. So we are created/conceived equal as humans.
    Then Wisdom, understanding, knowledge are the species that make up what is called human intelligence.
    North Americans today are the most intelligent people in history even including the segregated identities issue.
    being a creationist means you are sharper them those who deny God as creator. perhaps even those who deny genesis as true. However ID folk here would fall in that group and so forget i said it.

Leave a Reply