Whether we call it MN or not, the issue is with invoking ad hoc miracles to explain away otherwise contradictory evidence.
It is clear that any theory of origins (from evolution to OEC to YEC) can be rendered consistent with the evidence (which was otherwise contradictory) if we allow ad hoc miracles. Freely invoking miracles renders data analysis to a farce, an obvious cargo cult version of science.
While rejecting MN, even YEC and ID scientists follow MN (defined as avoiding ad hoc miracles to explain away evidence) in their population genetics works. YECs sometimes do make appeals to ad hoc miracles, but if you look at their reasoning, they very much loathe doing so.
As you know, being an expert on the GAE and scientific publishing standards, the concept of the GAE is based almost entirely on a 2004 Nature paper. How do you think those authors were able to sneak this by the editors and reviewers at Nature?
Methodological naturalism is what separates theories of gravity from the moon being borne on angel wings. What do you propose as a scientific method, and in fact, without methodological naturalism, why should the scientific method be expected to work at all?
It’s hard for me to speak for all subjects. I would guess that it probably would not have been thought very highly of in the biology or geology department. But in the subject area I was working in, religious studies, debates over creation vs. evolution weren’t even on the radar. I don’t ever remember such a debate among students or between a teacher and student in any lecture or tutorial or seminar I ever attended. Not even in the Religion and Science course that I took, where evolution was discussed (because of the various ways in which philosophers and theologians had responded to evolutionary thought). I don’t remember anyone ridiculing or belittling creationism and I don’t remember anyone even mentioning creationism.
There certainly were creationist students on campus - one could find them in the various Christian student groups. There were debates on evolution vs. creation set up by those students. But this was all extra-curricular activity. In the courses proper, other things were discussed. I took a whole course just on Genesis, where evolution was not affirmed against creationism, because evolution simply was not discussed. Nor was creationism. The idea of “creation” was of course discussed. The Hebrew verbs pertaining to creation were of course discussed. The literary structure of the text was discussed. Historical and philological information pertinent to interpreting the text was discussed. Methodological matters were discussed. But creationism, as such, was never discussed. I don’t think any YEC student would have felt under personal religious attack in the course I took on Genesis, but he might have been puzzled by the indifference toward what he thought were burning issues.
Of course, that was then. Many years have elapsed since. The hatred of many university faculty in religion and all the arts subjects for anything resembling traditional or conservative religion is now quite palpable in some schools. So a YEC might now feel not merely ignored but attacked; but then, traditional Thomists and Calvinists and Platonists and all kinds of other conservative religious and philosophical adherents also feel attacked. It’s not as if anyone is out to get YECs specifically. It’s just that there has been a massive cultural change, and in the new dispensation old-fashioned religious belief and thought have no place in the secular university, unless they are kept strictly private and not brought into scholarly discussion. But liberal and radical religious belief and thought can be introduced freely into the classroom and the curriculum without shame or censure.
I agree. @sfmatheson, wouldn’t you say still that there is prejudice against YECs? And ID? And perhaps in some specific cases that prejudices contributed to professional consequences?
Perhaps we mean that there is prejudice against YECs/IDs, but in general we don’t have mechanisms by which to root out scientists’ personal beliefs. There are cases where professional consequences were dealt out, but usually due to clear indications of professionally questionable actions connected to those beliefs.
I do find it notable that Behe still has tenure at Leigh University. I know that the biology faculty wrote a letter disavowing his views. I’m not aware of any attempts to get him fired. Even if there were, there was no mechanism to do so.
That’s hard to parse. If you are talking about beliefs, then I have seen little evidence of prejudice. I am sure it exists, since prejudice of various kinds exists, but I know of few reports of a person being unfairly judged (in a professional context, with consequences) based on something they believe. Ditto for ID.
The problem with this whole conversation is that it is indulging a dishonest conflation of prejudice based on belief or association, which I oppose, and legitimate judgment of professional/scholarly qualifications based on commitments to debunked or nonsensical crap. A biologist who has written anti-vax propaganda is disqualified, not because of what they believe about spirits but because of what they have claimed publicly that is known to be false (and dangerous to boot). YECism is typically disqualifying for a biologist or geologist because it involves making claims known to be false, claims that are essential to the basis of the science. This is different from holding a belief that the earth is young because of some ancient writings, and hoping someday that the science will legitimize that belief. It’s still bonkers but it need not be disqualifying. I think we have already discussed all this in another thread.
I think it flirts with dishonesty to indulge claims that YEC or ID engenders “discrimination.” Let’s call the flat earthers if you need to know why this is problematic.
Yeah, and consequently the term “prejudice” seems completely wrong here. It’s more post-judice. Once you find out that someone’s views are batshit-crazy, what more do you need to know? Prejudice would be assuming that an applicant known to be a Christian is therefore also a YEC.
This study we discussed before could be relevant again. It seems that there is some prejudice in thinking that an evangelical student must be a creationist.
