I bet YEC wasn’t tolerated.
I’m sure it was ignored. Most YECs (and you might be an exception) are not tolerant of other views. Do you think they should become more tolerant?
What I think is that one should not say “every view is tolerated” when it clearly isn’t. That’s all.
I think the large difference is that YEC institutions do make use of belief statements, which makes their intolerance far more invasive. What we’ve seen on this thread is prejudice against YECs, but science lacks beliefs statements by which to enforce these prejudices.
We recently had a long discussion of well known YECs who were “tolerated” even in biology departments. It is an outright falsehood to claim that YEC isn’t tolerated.
No it doesn’t. You just hide them.
Accepting reality and letting the data drive the conclusion doesn’t require a belief statement. Only YEC groups which claim their beliefs override empirically observed reality need such things.
Please show me a belief statement in science that scientists are required to sign as a condition of employment. Do you really believe that these exist somewhere and are just hidden? Why was I never asked to sign one?
It’s called methodological naturalism. Your waffling on that subject is proof enough that it exists. Have you tried publishing anything in a scientific journal relevant to GAE? I would love to see you try.
Show us where anyone in science ever had to sign a statement requiring a belief in methodological naturalism.
There is prejudice against YECs, but that isn’t the same as a belief statement. The GAE did pass peer review in an interdisciplinary journal, satisfying 3 scientist reviewers. It isn’t in scope for any purely scientific journal that I know of.
MN does exist in science, but it isn’t a belief statement. And it doesn’t work the way you think.
You linked to your book website. Where’s the published paper?
Same as it’s always been:
That is not a scientific journal.
It is an interdisciplinary journal run by academics that affirm methodological naturalism.
YECs often confuse methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, or perhaps they don’t think there is a difference.
Here is a brief excerpt from a larger essay. I think it’s relevant.
Do you publish your actual research there Josh? I don’t think so.
Once again, try doing what I suggested and then get back to me about the tolerance and openness of the current scientific establishment.
Don’t patronize me. I used the term knowing exactly what it meant. Your accusation is insulting.
Sean Carroll has spoken openly about what he sees as shortcomings about intrinsic MN. Even Jerry Coyne has said he is open to a type of provisional MN. They are still tolerated just fine.
MN is by definition provisional.