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
|May 16, 2013||Posted by kairosfocus under Education, Creationism, Culture, Atheism, Society, academic freedom, ID Foundations, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
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.
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 as in, you Fundies and fellow travellers are dumb, ignorant, follow outdated myths and are unable to spot basic errors in reasoning:
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:
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