Search This Blog

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Free exchange of ideas? Not in US colleges!!! Darwinists hide in their bunkers. Time for Christians to get in their tanks!!!

Do not be afraid of intellectual battles. Drive a tank!  Don't hide and avoid the other side, go after them!  Not because you and I are so smart but because we serve the Creator God, the Almighty!  God knows Truth.  Truth always wins out in the end.  I know God and therefore I have Truth.  This is why the other side DOES hide!

 M1 Abrams US main battle tank

So why is it that Darwinists are afraid of Christians again?   

Christians should welcome dialogue with Darwinists.   You will find that Darwinists cannot wander very far away from their talking points and completely get lost when you talk about the nuts and bolts of origins.   Know your Bible, know your science and Darwinists will fear you.   They will not hire you to teach, they will keep you from joining professional organizations and they will cast your research papers aside.  They are afraid of you!

If you are a teacher, find a Christian college or school or one of the rare secular organizations that does not discriminate against evangelicals.  If you are a scientist, there are plenty of Creationist and ID organizations that will welcome you if State U or Ivy L cast you aside.   Fight the good fight!

"Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses." 1 Timothy 6:12 ESV

Tenured bigots: most faculty members don’t like evangelicals and aren't ashamed to admit it

WORLD ^ | August 18, 2007 | Mark Bergin

Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 7:52:11 AM by rhema

David French has known for years that college campuses are bastions of anti-evangelical bias. He knew it when he served on the admissions committee at Cornell Law School and watched his colleagues ridicule evangelical applicants as "Bible thumpers" or members of the "God squad." He knew it during his tenure with an education watchdog organization that routinely challenged university speech codes bent on silencing evangelical viewpoints. He knew it when he shifted into his current role as director of the Alliance Defense Fund's Center for Academic Freedom, a position from which he's filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of victimized evangelical students.

But only now can French declare with certainty that his anecdotal observations accurately represent a widespread statistical reality. In a recently released scientific survey of 1,269 faculty members across 712 different colleges and universities, 53 percent of respondents admitted to harboring unfavorable feelings toward evangelicals.

"The results were incredibly unsurprising but at the same time vitally important," French told WORLD. "For a long time, the academic freedom movement in this country has presented the academy with story after story of outrageous abuse, and the academy has steadfastly refused to admit that the sky is blue—that it has an overwhelming ideological bias that manifests itself in concrete ways. This is another brick in the wall of proving that there's a real problem."

Unlike much of the previous foundation for that proof, this brick hails from a non-evangelical source. Gary A. Tobin, president of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, set out to gauge levels of academic anti-Semitism compared to hostility toward other religious groups. He found that only 3 percent of college faculty holds unfavorable views toward Jews. In fact, no religious group draws anywhere near the scorn of evangelicals, Mormons placing a distant second with a 33 percent unfavorable outcome.

Tobin was shocked. And his amazement only escalated upon hearing reaction to his results from the academy's top brass. Rather than deny the accuracy of Tobin's findings or question his methodology, academy leaders attempted to rationalize their bias. "The prejudice is so deep that faculty do not have any problem justifying it. They tried to dismiss it and said they had a good reason for it," Tobin told WORLD. "I don't think that if I'd uncovered bigotry or social dissonance about Latinos, women, blacks, or Jews, they would have had that same response." 

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), told The Washington Post that the poll merely reflects "a political and cultural resistance, not a form of religious bias." In other words, the college faculty members dislike evangelicals not for their faith but the practical outworking of that faith, which makes it OK.

Other prominent voices from the academy have suggested that the anti-evangelical bias does not likely translate into acts of classroom discrimination. Tobin intends to test that claim with a subsequent survey of 3,500 students in the coming academic year. "My guess: You can't have this much smoke without some fire," he said.

French can readily testify to that. Before the Alliance Defense Fund filed a federal lawsuit last year, Georgia Tech University maintained speech codes forbidding any student or campus group from making comments on homosexuality that someone might subjectively deem offensive. What's more, students serving as resident advisors were required to undergo diversity training in which moral positions against homosexual behavior were vilified and compared to justifying slavery with the Bible.

In another landmark case at Missouri State University, junior Emily Brooker objected to an assignment in which students were asked to write their state legislators and urge support for adoptions by same-sex couples. The evangelical social-work major was promptly hauled before a faculty panel and charged with maintaining an insufficient commitment to diversity. The panel grilled Brooker on her religious views without her parents present, convicted her of discrimination against gays, and informed her that to graduate she needed to lessen the gap between her own values and the values of the social-work profession.

The Alliance Defense Fund sued Missouri State on Brooker's behalf, pressuring the university into dropping the discrimination charges and paying for Brooker to attend graduate school. An independent investigation into the incident found such widespread intellectual bullying throughout the university's school of social work that investigators recommended shutting the program down and replacing the entire faculty.

Earlier this year, the Missouri House of Representatives passed the Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act, a bill now pending Senate approval that would mandate efforts from the state's public colleges to prevent "viewpoint discrimination." The AAUP has written the state Senate urging that it not pass "such dangerous and unnecessary legislation" because "there is no evidence that a widespread problem exists." 

But Robert Shibley, vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), told WORLD his organization can hardly keep up with intellectual intolerance and free-speech infringements against evangelical and conservative groups. "College campuses overall are not living up to the ideal of having a marketplace of ideas, of having true intellectual diversity to go along with racial and religious diversity," he said. "In too many cases we see groups—evangelical Christians and conservatives, primarily—face sanctions or punishments that are more severe than those of groups with other viewpoints. Or they're punished for things that other groups wouldn't be punished for at all." 

French says the continued advancement of evangelicals to high places within academia is critical to effecting change. During his stint on the Cornell Law School admissions board, the longtime lawyer and evangelical stuck up for at least one highly qualified applicant whose previous work as a part-time pastor nearly generated a rejection letter.

"I said, 'Wait a minute. My own religious background makes this poor guy look like a heathen, and I'm on this committee. I think we should give him another look,'" French recalls. "I actually had people, to their credit, come up and apologize to me afterwards for adopting an unthinking stance towards this student. Having a living, breathing, in-the-flesh Christian with ideas and thoughts and whom people could occasionally respect made a difference." 

That's multiculturalism at its best.

TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: ac; academia; adf; antichristianbigotry; christianity; christianstudents; college; demonpossessed; discrimination; diversity; education; highereducation; multiculturalism; persecution; religion


Darwinists do not like anyone who believes in God around, and for good reason.   Christians tend to be likely to believe to some extent in Creation and oh my, the Darwinists hate that!   They hate it because they really have no answers so the thing they specialize in is shun/censor/avoid.   Free exchange of ideas?  Not in the typical college campus environment! 

If you have an army, you don't need to fortify your tanks.  Tanks are already designed to be moving fortresses.   Should an army come pouring over the ridge, soldiers take refuge in bunkers or foxholes or fortified buildings.  But tanks?   Tanks come rolling out to fire upon the enemy with the soldiers running behind them!

Darwinism pretends it is a tank, a sound theory that withstands scrutiny.  But Darwinists hide behind  bunkers and dig foxholes and avoid Creation Science and Intelligent Design as if they themselves have no armor or weapons, intellectually.   It is Creation Science and ID science that operate as tanks, advancing on concepts and testing them and forming hypotheses and theories and applying them with real zeal to know truth and dispel the lies.   Me?  I drive a tank!!!!

Good enough for Marines, good enough for me! 

I will be posting fairly regularly on real science and what I present will be supported by evidence.  Are you ready for some truth? 

The last Creation Science class I presented?   We had a Darwinist attending.   He was free to ask questions and make comments and I addressed every issue he brought up.   He was not happy with some of my answers but I welcomed his questions and even changed the syllabus/class schedule to bring a certain subject into closer focus as a result of his questions.   I was not afraid of ideas and in fact I think his questions helped get the class talking and debating and getting involved.   At the end of class he told me he was not convinced but he was motivated to do more study on the subject.  Hey, that was success as far as I was concerned.  Go and research, yes, do it!

When I did a series on Creation Science for both junior and senior high school, a 7th grader presented me with his ideas on a Unified Theory of Everything.   It was quite derivative, culled from a couple of internet sources which I soon learned were not terribly logical, but I did not rain on the young man's parade.  Instead I praised him for doing research and encouraged him to keep looking and thinking and being open to learning more and more.   I told him we can always use more good scientists.   Maybe someday he will be a good one and maybe even a great one and, should he review his 7th grade paper, he'll have an embarrassed chuckle and maybe file it away under the "wrong path taken" category in his memories.   

Science is about asking questions and seeking the best answers.   Darwinism casts the best answers aside for religious reasons, which then makes one Darwinism even science at all or is it mere metaphysical meanderings masquerading as science?   I vote for the latter.   Let's not wimp out and avoid issues.  Fight the good fight!

“Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11 NIV

In the next few weeks I will be posting from several great Creation Science and ID sources, giving the reader real science with evidence included and no fairy tales.   Remember, the Bible is history.   We have far more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than we do for Homer and the vast amount of ancient Biblical texts support the veracity of the Book.   Once you see enough evidence you realize that Darwinism is just bad science, nothing more.   Smoke and mirrors and fairy tales and little more.


Jon W said...

So you think that if you impose your views on academia by force, that will somehow make the valid science? How does that make you any better than the 'Darwinists' you accuse of bigotry and prejudice?

Tanks, but no tanks.

radar said...

Actually, you are once again lost in transference. It is the Darwinists who force their ideas on academia and censor, ban and harass those with competing ideas. Darwinists use a form of academic fascism to silence the opposition and try to keep students from hearing anything but the Darwinist propaganda.

I am saying that Christians should not allow themselves to be cowed by opposition but rather respond to it with truth. This is what my kids did growing up in public schools, being unafraid to identify with Christ and expressing their own opinions in science, history, government and philosophy classes.

Every one of my kids won awards except for one who had a serious childhood birth defect that caused her much pain and travail, but she graduated. The rest graduated with honors, making NHS and getting scholarships and student of the year awards and winning all-state honors and etc. Yes, I am a proud father. But what I told my kids was to "learn the Darwinist stuff, feed it back to them but do not believe it. Point out where it is wrong, stand up for yourself and if they downgrade you for your worldview I will come see them. You see, the principal was a Christian and he would not allow teachers to penalize their students for their religious or political views. I stayed very involved with my kids and teachers had all met me and knew they would see me if my kids acted up or if the teacher acted up, either/or.

So quit hiding behind your bunkers, Darwinists, and face the evidence presented by ID and Creationists instead of hiding your eyes and closing your ears. You can only do the three monkey bit for so long...and I am going to be posting articles from a host of different great science sites that are full of evidence for creation and design. So try addressing the issues for once maybe? Without using Darwinist boilerplate that was such an epic fail with information? You guys got an F minus on that subject!

Anonymous said...

I will be posting fairly regularly on real science and what I present will be supported by evidence.

Use of the future tense here makes it seem as though you realize you haven't yet posted real science supported by evidence yet.


Anonymous said...

"Christians should welcome dialogue with Darwinists."

Indeed. So why don't you?

radar said...

Massive duh the the comments above.

First, I have been posting evidence for several years, what I am saying is that I am using a wide variety of sources to show that Creation/ID science is becoming more widespread and will soon be obvious to the world at large.

Second, I let you commenters say your piece. You rarely have much evidence and usually just take potshots but, if that is the best you can do, well, makes my evidence look that much better!

How do you explain, for instance, how Russell Humpheys could predict the magnetic fields of the planets back in 1984 before space missions had even measured them? Hmmmm?