I am a faculty member of a University. The reason most faculty are liberal is because the faculty that has been liberal for generations are the ones who pick new faculty. Hence it is self-perpetuating. Now when did this liberal 'take over' take place? I suggest it took place in the 1800's. Up until that point you had a good conservative voice on campus. But when Darwin came up with his explanation of origins, the pressure was on to conform to a non-created beginning to all things and a non-designed human nature. This became popular in the materialistic view of some top scientists and it became fashionable for faculty to toe the line. This resulted in people who believed in a designer being eyed with suspicion. Notice the writer's statement:
teaching creationism as the explanation of man's existence on Earth, ignoring more than a century of anthropological discoveries because they conflicted with biblical teachings
Do you see that believing in a Creator and Designer is considered STUPID by this ignoramous.
He either hasn't read Behe and other top scientists of our age who see that there is a scientific basis for hypothesizing there was a designer.
Here is a letter I wrote to Dear Abby and it could be well directed to this writer and to all faculty who think design theory is stupid:
Dear Abby,
Biomachines bubbled up from below?
Shedding scales and gills, acquiring strange skulls?
Craniums mounting backbones spinely wired?
Convoluted conscious cerebrums coincidentally conjoined?
Once upon a nothing something blew apart?
Swirling molecules of matter mindlessly amassed?
At random-assembling atoms split at the start?
Explosions are, despite the mess they make, mothers of us all?
Confused
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Thanks for your comments.
well-educated ?/yea right ..I went back t college for my Masters a few years ago ..Young punk professors wouldnt be able to graduate my old catholic high school of the 60s..Knowledge of history is nill..Geography is worse..Most I met were brainwashed socialist..Professors DO NOT live in any real world situations..Academia is a sheltered / abstract world..Morons abound ..Now the students ??/WOWOW lets not even start with the new college students I met..Most have a 6th grade reading level and ZERO background in American History and Science
Many thanks for your excellent post. I attended one of the most leftist colleges in the US back in the 70's and remember well the rigid enforcement of many forms of orthodoxy through the school, including Skinnerian behaviorism in the Psych department and Keynesian theory in Econ. This continued commitment to orthodoxy in academia is having a impact on quality, as in the case of Mary Habek, one of the best young military historians around, who was recently denied tenure by Yale.
Institutions of learning which do not permit any true competition of ideas are in very real danger of losing their reason for existence.
No, I don't see that. He states that his complaint is specifically with people who ignore/reject 140+ years of evidence just because the evidence raises questions about the interpretation of some biblical passages. And though I have no problem with anyone's belief in a creator/designer (and the author of the letter may not either), I do agree that the hardcore, "don't confuse me with the facts", young-earth creationists do tend to scare away a lot of people (like the author of this letter, apparently) who might otherwise have been willing to take a closer look at conservative ideas. But just as the way-out leftists turn off a lot of people from liberalism, there are some varieties of conservatives that can make the public wonder whether *all* conservatives might be like that.
He either hasn't read Behe and other top scientists of our age who see that there is a scientific basis for hypothesizing there was a designer.
I don't know if the author of the letter has read Behe, but *I* have, and while there may be good scientific arguments for Intelligent Design, Behe's is not among them. Nor is it accurate to describe him as a "top scientist". Behe's ID arguments are fatally flawed. Most qualified reviewers had little trouble spotting the holes in Behe's book nearly as soon as it appeared, and upon reading Behe's work I can't help but agree with them.
For a few of my own posts about the problems with Behe's work, see:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003273/posts?page=297#297http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047185/posts?page=164#164 (the portion relevant to Behe starts about halfway in)