Yet another religious cult raided

[Bun-Bun]

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.

Fair enough, though the ability to evaluate sources is important.

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.

I think you underestimate the importance of evolutionary theory in this work. According to the Boston Globe, Abraham even asked to be excluded from the parts of his work involving evolution. That disqualifies him in my book.

C. Mendel was a priest, a scientist, and the father of genetics.

Yes. And? I never said religion and science were mutually exclusive.

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.:)

I asked for examples because you made a vastly incorrect statement without evidence. You're still not doing well on that. You're down to saying the evidence doesn't matter because you "just know". It's not hard to know why Gonzalez was denied tenure at all; just look at his publication record.

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.

Incorrect. He is asking for students to give a scientifically backed answer to an important question in their field. If they can give one consonant with their faith that is backed by facts, I can't see Dini would have cause to complain.

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.

Incorrect. You are assuming the all Christians are Creationists. That's patently false. There are a vast number of Christians, including many scientists, that have no difficulty accepting the fact and theory of evolution.

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.

You're going to have to substantiate that. Thousands of biologists who are literal Creationists is very hard to credit.

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.

And nobody is doing that. Please remember that Creationism is not Christianity. You're inventing an argument here.

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.

Are they literal Creationists?

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.

If facts are that slippery for you, I'm not sure how you get through the day. Actually, I don't think you're using the scientific definition of fact; you're redefining the word to support your own ends.

In any case, if a sufficiently well supported theory came along that was better than the current ones in any scientific field, even those items regarded as facts could be overturned.

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.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that scientists should not use well-supported facts and theories to do further research because there is a small chance they might be wrong?

Or maybe you're just saying that all scientists risk being found to be wrong. Well, that's a part of science. if evidence shows something is wrong, it gets changed. The nice thing about science is nothing is dogmatic. Before you claim evolutionary theory is, I'll point out that the theory behind the fact has changed significantly since Darwin's day, and is changing even now as further research explores the subject.

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.

That's all fine. No argument there. So you're good with black holes (despite that dodgy gravity dogma) and quarks, but the mountain of evidence behind evolutionary theory is somehow problematical to your faith?

OK, throughout this post you are equating Christianity and Creationism. You either didn't read my post or are trying to create a strawman. Or, possibly, you think literal Creationists are the only true Christians. Regardless, you do nothing to address my point that literal Creationism is a serious roadblock to participating in many fields of science.

Or, you could go back to the original subject and provide some evidence that there's a grand conspiracy of nasty Darwinists out there. You've not supplied any yet that stands scrutiny.