Almost 40 years ago, in 1984, I published an article in Contrast Magazine titled, “The New Minorities to Hate.” The article specifically was about the problems of those scholars who concluded that the scientific evidence refuted Darwinism, defined as the belief that all life had a single common ancestor. From this first life-form evolved all life-forms by mutations thereby creating genetic variety which was pruned by natural selection, i. e., ‘survival of the fittest’.
One recent study incorrectly claimed that “no researchers have attempted to experimentally document the existence of bias against Christians in science.” In fact, I have spent most of my academic career documenting this problem, but my work, although well-known among conservative Christians, intelligent design proponents, and creationist supporters, is ghettoized; thus, outside this circle, it is close to unknown. The scores of articles and several books documenting the problem that I have published include the following:
The religious contrast between scientists and the public is enormous. Specifically, only 33 percent of scientists claim that they believe in God, while, in contrast, fully 95 percent of Americans believe in God or some similar higher power. Polls of scientists reveals 41 percent of scientists are thoroughgoing atheists: they do not believe in God or any higher power. In contrast, polls of the public reveal only four percent of Americans accept the atheistic worldview. These numbers vary, depending on how the question is worded and the mood of the nation, but the contrast between scientists and the general public has held for over a century. The problem has now been documented by academics teaching at a major university, concluding that “Christians are one of the most underrepresented groups in science, and one potential explanation is that scientists have a bias against Christian students, which could discourage and actively prevent Christian students from becoming scientists.”
An objective PhD thesis on anti-creationism
Tom Kaden’s PhD thesis in sociology titled, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States: A Sociology of Conflict, was originally written in German and translated into English. It was fairly objective and revealing. For his dissertation research, Kaden had an interview with a leading American anti-creationist, Dr Eugenie Scott. In the interview transcript, she describes what introduced her to the controversy. When a student in her lab class questioned the evidence for evolution, her response was that the animals spread out on the dissecting table showed comparative anatomy, which proved evolution: “[W]hat could possibly be the explanation for all the similarity between fish and amphibia and mammals other than evolution… I was sort of surprised that anybody would reject evolution.”
Creationists use the same evidence to argue for common design: i.e., that an organ that serves a function in one animal often is used in similar ways in other animals as well. I have carefully refuted the homology argument elsewhere. Mammal legs all have a similar design for the same reason that all wheels are similar, electric motors are similar and combustion engines are similar in basic design – their form facilitates their function.
Second Step: Get the liberal clergy on your side
Soon after Eugenie Scott encountered a Darwin doubter, she was confronted with others living in her state of Kentucky who also did not accept evolution. Her reaction was “this is terrible.” A short time later she was invited by a rabbi and some Presbyterian ministers and Catholic Priests to make a presentation to the Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders (LARL) on what creation science actually was; to her, it was ignorant biblical literalism. They concluded, if “biblical literalism was taught Monday through Friday they [the clergy] had to straighten out the kids on Sunday [teach evolution as fact].”
The main source of information Scott possessed about creation was a long run of Acts and Facts published by The Institute for Creation Research (ICR). ICR was originally introduced to her by a professor while she was a graduate student. From reading the magazines, she became very concerned about creationism and concluded that these ideas were worse than zany (her word); they were openly dangerous. Her reason was that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.
Third Step: Organize
Eugenie Scott founded the organization today known as The National Center for Science Education (NCSE). The organization was first located in her basement, then, as the money poured in from others who also agreed with her that creationism was dangerous and must be stopped, it moved to a large office in Berkeley, California. Its goal was to, by any means necessary, including judicial decree (i.e., by court action), prevent the propagation of these ideas to the public—especially in government schools.
Scott also began to testify in court in support of terminating creationist teachers, or at the very least prohibiting them from critiquing evolution. She received enormous press coverage—most all of it very favorable—including supportive stories in The New York Times. This publicity brought in huge sums of money from foundations and even corporations. Her focus was to argue that creationism “was not science, and why it was very bad educationally to teach this sort of thing.”
“There’s an inconsistency in Scott’s attack. Claiming creation is “not science” is name-calling; it’s also a category error. How so? Scott would bring in professors to refute everything creationists had to say by citing scientific arguments in opposition. But if creationism is not science (as she defines it), creationism cannot be refuted by science. Only claims made based on science can be refuted by science. If it can easily be refuted by science, why is it almost impossible to set up a debate with evolutionists? The real reason most evolutionists will not debate creationists is because many Darwinists have not done well in past creation debates. Scott herself encouraged evolutionists not to debate creationists.”New Evidence for Discrimination Against Christians in Academia by Jerry Bergman, PhD
Oddly enough, I am not very worried about the ideological purity drives in secular academia.
Or the Mainstream Media, for that matter.
For one thing, there never will be a halt to them: with the poor job prospects, there must always be more tighter controls and purity tests, to enter the sacred guilds of tenure and influence.
Note the phrase “poor job prospects.”
Christians may wish to challenge the Jim Crow II regime if they have the time, energy, and commitment. Or focus on the hard sciences, where the demands of demonstrable evidence are tougher, and results — instead of belief systems — are the focus of the field.
But if you simply want a good paying job — or better, a profitable business! — to fund your family (including a stay-at-home wife) and (four or more) children, then you are better off mastering a useful trade, such as plumbing, electrician, HVAC, A/C setup and repair, or CNC programmer/operator.
The government-protected guilds – of which the university is the gatekeeper – are falling down. If you don’t need the premiere career tracks, protected for the Superclass by the 20 Ivy League universities, a cheap and fast accredited online university, with the first two years passed by CLEP exams, are good enough for the “job license” bachelor degrees in the hard sciences.
(I assume my readers are smart enough to avoid humanity degrees like the plague.)
Why struggle and beg and crawl, to join some rotting Inner Circle, the ruling guilds of an obsolete, bankrupt, and dying culture and social order?
It’s lots more fun to put some muscle, building the successor to today’s failing society!
But to build a better society, you need to master the Book: anti-intellectualism won’t cut it.
You need to know what God told you to do.
Then, you need to do it.