Compliance, not Competence I
How can you properly suppress heretics without properly identifying them, after all?
“It’s not about you ability to do the job. It’s about ideological – nay, religious – purity.
The right sort of religion, of course. A strictly naturalistic religion.
Or, at least, a properly tamed and obedient religion, whose deities will do as they are told.”
From Uncommon Descent, Josh Swamidass on the need to single out and punish creationists
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Swamidass advocates that creationist courses and degrees be labeled as such on a student’s transcript. He writes in the context of discussions over whether a Christian accrediting agency that accredits creationist colleges should itself be accredited. He thinks it should be, provided that the Christian agency agrees to “principled compromise.” …
Credit from courses that include creation science should not be used toward science degrees. Nor should they be eligible for transfer to secular institutions.
He offers comfort, though: “A reasonable process would not require creationist institutions to modify their faith statements.” They can retain their beliefs, as long as those are invidiously labeled.
Swamidass is all for academic freedom, as he tells us himself: “As a matter of academic freedom, scientists should tolerate institutions that teach creation science.” But creationist thoughts, and those who think them, are indeed penalized in his system. Invidious labeling is all about reward and punishment.
The article is couched in phrases of moderation and tolerance. But there is something really sinister about seeing it in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal, which until now has been much better than other national newspapers about flagging the dangers of censorship.David Klinghoffer, “In the Name of “Academic Freedom,” a Scientist Calls for Punishing Creationists” at Evolution News and Science Today
Klinghoffer, who points out that he is not a creationist himself, is onto something. One key effect of Cancel Culture is the elimination of competition by citing grounds that are irrelevant to performance. As Klinghoffer puts it, employers “will wish to know if they are about to take aboard a creationist in a science-related field. For example, a pediatric nurse oncologist, caring for little kids with cancer, while believing that the world is under 10,000 years old.” Someone with “Correct” views on the age of Earth will be deemed more acceptable even with fewer gifts in pediatric nursing. It’s a recipe for Virtuous underperformance.
Or, the continued rise of the ignoranti:
From Uncommon Descent, Deplatforming Isaac Newton
In a long and interesting essay on upper class angst about Woke schools, Bari Weiss mentions, in passing, that Newton’s Laws are now to be called the “fundamental laws of physics” to avoid Eurocentrism. That won’t work, of course, because students would still need to learn the laws. Fully Woke teachers and students have moved well beyond such dogmatic authoritarian thinking. Just look at how the laws (1687) are phrased:
An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force acts upon it.
When a force acts on an object, it will cause the object to accelerate.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Such statements are reprehensible because they imply that the students are not capable of coming up with creative ways of understanding physics via acting out and dissing the teacher.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail offers a more conventional kick at Newton (1643-1726) who was, by all accounts, a genius but not a very nice person:
He was generous to friends and relatives, constantly handing out money, but a vicious feuder. [Biographer Patricia] Fara describes him as a ‘serial slanderer: as soon he had vanquished one opponent, he moved on to the next.’ He used to play backgammon with John Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, but they fell out over the ownership of astronomical readings that Flamsteed had made, and friendship swiftly declined to bitter enmity. If Newton didn’t like you, he didn’t just seethe impotently. He tried to destroy your life and your career. Often he managed both.Marcus Berkmann, “From gravity to depravity: Isaac Newton was a scientific genius who saved the nation’s economy – but he also ruined careers, viciously feuded with friends, and was plagued with obsessive thoughts of sinful sex” at Daily Mail
One suspects that disliking Newton wouldn’t mean embracing widespread innumeracy. But the trend to deplatforming major math and science figures will likely end no other way. Why study what one is taught to despise?
See also: In Big Tech World: The journalist as censor, hit man, and snitch Glenn Greenwald looks at a disturbing trend in media toward misrepresentation as well as censorship.
Yes, there really is a war on math in our schools. Pundits differ as to the causes but here are some facts parents should know.
One need not be a morally good man, to contribute to society.
And to have that contribution rightfully respected.
I thought we already knew about this, with the business of King David, or Augustus, or Horatio Nelson, or Steve Jobs. Morally questionable men, who still did profitable work that we benefit from today.
Christians must judge rightfully, with the whole truth. Not merely 2/3rds of it. Or just the bad bits. Or just the good bits, for that matter.
But people who have no badge of honour except Compliance, will seek to destroy successful people who refused to Comply.
Compliance, not Competence II
From BioMedCentral comes another paper to update Jim Crow, to deal with the real threat to the authority of today’s Betters.
From Uncommon Descent, Non-Darwinian biology teachers need to be targeted for “professional development”
[…quotes from the paper snipped…]
The paper is open access.
Casey Luskin responded to this paper:
[quoting from the paper] “It would seem reasonable to expect individuals who are knowledgeable about science and who have science-related professions to fully subscribe to evolutionary views (i.e., creationists simply lack the necessary knowledge). However, research shows that this is not necessarily the case. In a comparative study of life scientists in the UK and Brazil, Falcão (2008) found that Brazilian scientists believed in the supernatural more strongly than British scientists despite their common advanced scientific training. Brazilian scientists shoed [sic] to retain a firm attachment to a belief in God regardless of their university training level, e.g., scientific knowledge did not necessarily lead them to give up their belief in God.”
So what is the explanation for why scientists abandon Darwin? They don’t explicitly offer one, preferring to leave the situation in a state of the unknown, writing: “the relationship between scientific training / knowledge and religious belief is far from simple and straightforward. Being a knowledgeable and experienced member of the science profession does not necessarily guarantee one’s full embracement of evolutionary views or dismissal of creationist ones.” Perhaps there’s a simple explanation but they don’t see it due to a blind spot: scientists doubt Darwin because of the evidence.Casey Luskin, “Academic Article Correcting Misconceptions about Evolution Promotes Misconceptions about ID” at Evolution News and Science Today
Note that the authors of the paper are quite clear that they want Brazilian scientists not just to embrace Darwinism whole hog but to give up their belief in God. So much for rot about “theistic evolution.” That’s for suckers.
I agree: only the more gullible and trusting Christians would actually fall for such tripe.
But the day of the gullible and trusting, when we could simply Obey Certified Authority without a second thought, is collapsing all around us.