Science in Chains

Science in Chains
By Wendy Wippel

Virginia Heffernan, columnist at the New York Times, once penned the article “why I am a creationist” in which she confessed that she “had never found a more compelling story of our origins than the ones that involve God.” The rabid, God-hating intelligentsia were at her throat immediately. Called her very nasty words. No Surprise. But she got off easy.

Jerry Bergman, an M.D. with several other graduate degrees, is a creationist who has also done some research on a non-medical topic; specifically on the degree of professional persecution that scientists who interpret the available evidence to in the favor of needing a creator might suffer.

And I must say that as a creationist scientist myself, I had no idea.

(In my defense I will say that I do live in the deep south.)

Elsewhere? It’s bad. Apparently real bad.

Bergman interviewed more than 100 actively working scientists that had worked in or openly supported the theory of intelligent design and who believed that the current dogma in evolutionary theory was flawed and needed to be better balanced with other lines of thought.

Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once.

Which didn’t really surprise Bergman. He had also interviewed college Deans and Department Heads, who unanimously told him that the career of any scientist known to believe that the evidence supported a God as the agent of creation of our universe would suffer.

In fact, these “Managers” of scientists also said that they would not hire or recommend someone they knew to be a creationist for a tenured position.

The scientists interviewed reported both these fates, and much more. According to Bergman’s report, the scientists suffered “open derision”, name-calling, and obscene notes left in mailboxes. Creationist students were refused admission to graduate programs. In some instances, degrees that they had legitimately earened were nonetheless denied them. They were denied recommendation letters. And occasionally, promised glowing ones that later proved to stress their delusional scientific thinking and thwarted any chance of being hired.

Simply on the basis of their viewpoint.

Scientists were denied promotions, even though they had met the stated requirements. They were denied tenure.

And it gets worse.

The Equal Employment Opportunity has only recently begun to address religious discrimination in the workplace, and the code that exists deals mostly with accommodating religious dress and customs. And despite growing reports of discrimination against Christians (particularly creationist scientists) in the workplace, the agency has refused to hold any public hearings on this problem.

And even worse:

Of all creation scientists whose career suffered because of their interpretation of the existing data in supporting creation, and sought justice in the courts (numbering in the thousands), not a single creation scientist has won his case.

Not one. Despite broad laws that forbid discrimination on the basis of relgion (i.e. the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Nope. The courts have refused to enforce the laws that exixt. Bigotry against the poor Christian who dares to believe the scientific account –and it is a scientific account—in the book of Genesis is A-OK with them.

One observer named ‘antievangelical bigotry’ the least understood and ‘most painful’ hate in America today, saying, ‘that there is more bigotry against evangelicals, than against any other group … . The attacks have been public, without introducing evidence, often by association.

No one comes to our defense. And its academic life or death for those who work as scientists or teachers.

In fact, a Louisiana senator observed that it appears at this point ‘Academic Freedom”—the foundation of scientific inquiry which enables scientists to pursue their own theories despite whatever current dogma exists in the field–has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires.

That same senator also observed that dismissal of creationist professors and teachers had proliferated over the last decade, with highly qualified scientists and educators being discriminated against for no other reason that they had dared to questioned theory of evolution.

And it is a theory.

The general conclusion is that public opinion has decided, and nothing will be done. Our institutions of higher learning (in my experience at the biggest single campus in the country, “higher” was more likely to be related to marijuana than to mathematics) have been reassured that there will be no consequences or recrimination for their policies, and we can expect them to continue.

‘The only conclusion that can be reached … is that the American courts are not serious about enforcing the rights of religious minorities. Although many of the better cases are likely settled out of court, nonetheless the situation is such that employers are generally aware that they can exercise even blatant religious discrimination with little or no fear or reprisal. This conclusion was supported by a recent report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.’30

All because they leave room in their search for scientific truth for a creator.

Virginia Heffernan, when she wrote that she hadn’t found an answer to our existence better than the Most Holy one, unleashed the demons of hell. The most polite response she was offered was a group a colleagues opinion that “Heffernan’s writing couldn’t be trusted because she is a creationist.” which made her “dedication to facts is somewhat in question.”

That “because of their beliefs about the origins of life, creationists cannot think rationally or logically anywhere”.

Isaac Asimov really didn’t mince words, “creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.’ And that all of their ‘points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying.”

Oh Really?

Dan Kahan, of Yale University—before Virginia had even gotten into all of her trouble, had decided to see if you could predict, from a person’s belief in evolution, his knowledge of science essay, his research had shown you can’t predict someone’s science literacy from his or her belief in evolution. That creationist scientists, and creationist laypersons, are just as smart as those who wear their Darwin Jammies to bed.

Maybe that study will encourage the Disciples of Darwin to give the Darwin doubters some credibility.

But I doubt that.

According to the word’s (arguably) most obnoxious Darwinist (Richard Dawkins), “One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all.”

Richard, I concur. And the science increasingly tells us that the religion of Darwin has no answers at all.