Replies

If the hire were in chemistry (my field), which is closer to biology, a creationist job-seeker would worry me more; such views would be an absolute prohibition, IMO, if the hire were in biological chemistry.

I'm curious, what is it that you might happen as a result of having a creationist biologist, who has proven his knowledge and understanding of biology beyond a doubt, doing research? And don't say if they believe in evolution, they don't understand biology. I'm talking about understanding biochemistry, the various mechanisms by which organisms function and reproduce, DNA, etc.

The theory of evolution is fundamental to chemical biology. When the think in bioinformatics, in genomics, we relate gene/protein sequences to other genes in the same organism, or in related organisms. The way those relationships arose is by evolution. If someone didn't believe in evolution, then there would be no reason for them to expect, say, lemur sequences to be closer to humans than bacterial sequences.

In addition, merely mentioning 'alternatives to evolution' in a grant proposal in a biological field would be the certain kiss of death. It's like mentioning Area 51 or contrails or alien abductions. Tinfoil helmet stuff. One thing academic departments won't do these days is hire unfundable faculty. And if the candidate meantioned his creationism to a search committee, why wouldn't he be foolhardy enough to mention it to a granting agency?

Science is not subject to the first amendment. We dismiss damnfool ideas out of hand every day. Evolution, in the minds of 99+% of working biologists, occupies so central a position in biology that anything questioning its fundamental truth (as opposed to the details of its mechanism) qualifies as a damnfool idea.