‘We Will Not Tolerate Your Religion!’ School Fires Scientist for Questioning Evolution

‘We Will Not Tolerate Your Religion!’ School Fires Scientist for Questioning Evolution.


20 thoughts on “‘We Will Not Tolerate Your Religion!’ School Fires Scientist for Questioning Evolution

  1. This observation is not new:“It has become apparent that ‘diversity’ and ‘intellectual curiosity,’ so often touted as hallmarks of a university education, do not apply to those with a religious point of view.” It became painfully obvious when the term “skeptic” became a pejorative descriptor in respect of climate alarmism, though it is a hallmark of the whole gamut of politically correct tyranny. I have just started David Stove’s “Darwinian Fairy Tales” which delights in pointing up the illogical inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, elements that are protected largely because the theory is assumed to knock God off his empyraean throne, even though that’s the last thing Darwin intended.


    • Ah. Like I said, I’ve only read a tiny bit, so perhaps not enough for an informed judgment. I do like his stuff on Karl Popper.

      Unlike his father, R.J. Stove is a Christian, interestingly.

      • I don’t think D. Stove calls himself an atheist. I don’t think any genuinely intelligent person would presume that God does not exist. On the other hand, I think it’s vanity to expect him to care about the lives of individuals.

  2. It would be vanity if we invented the idea. But if God chooses to take an interest in His creation, and reveals Himself to us, us recognizing that needn’t be vanity on our part. And that is what those of us who are Christian believe.

    I can well understand, though, why non-believers would beg to differ. 🙂

    • I’m not all that sure Christ claimed to be God, or just tried to offer a paradigm of a good life, an exemplar to which we could all aspire, where equanimity would be the ultimate reward.

      • That is a common enough view among non-believers, I get that.

        We Christians, of course, beg to differ; according to Scripture, Christ did claim to be the Son of God, and equated Himself with His Father.

        For us, Christ’s being a moral teacher and example is far less important than the fact that He bore our sins, in our place, and put us right with God by his sacrifice and resurrection. After all, there have been many moral teachers, and there seems to me to be little reason to give any one of them any more heed than any other, if just going by their teachings and the examples of their lives.

        But One who actually sacrifices to accomplish a definite, and very worthwhile end, the salvation of souls, is one with a compelling reason for people to follow Him.

        That’s why I’m a Christian, and not a Buddhist, Confucianist, or follower of any other philosophy.

        Further, if one trusts the account of Scripture to be truthful in recording what Christ said, then I’m not so sure I’d want to follow a moral teacher who claimed to be divine; that would make him either a liar – if he knew he was spreading falsehood – or a lunatic – if he really did believe he was God, but wasn’t.

        The alternative is that He was telling the Truth – which makes all the difference.

      • That’s how you verify texts, to an extent, by comparing them with others, like Tacitus and Josephus, or Egyptian archaeological evidence of the Hyksos or Hebrews. But all you can do is reduce uncertainty.

        As for Jesus being crucified, he wasn’t the only one. He had an ambiguous message and looked likely to stir up the Zealots. For the Romans, the best way to keep the peace was to crucify him, and probably ignominiously between two thieves.

        Don’t forget that there are discrepancies, mainly by omission, between the scriptures. But I think one can still be a Christian and believe in God without believing that Christ is God. And of course, Christianity is a lot less fanciful than the other major religions, including Islam, whose Koran was mostly lifted from the Old Testament, except for the hundreds of commands to slay infidels.

      • Indeed, Christ certainly wasn’t the only individual crucified; that was the preferred Roman method of execution. In fact, from Scripture, two thieves were crucified alongside Him…

        I don’t view the apparent discrepancies as real, so much as apparent. Of course, being committed to orthodoxy, I would say that. 🙂

        I view them as no more significant, though, than slight differences in five different newspaper’s coverage of the same event, which may have five slightly varying accounts, all agreed in the main points. Likewise, the Gospels, and the rest of Scriptures, IMO.

        One can certainly consider oneself a Christian without believing Christ is God, but one can also consider oneself an apricot or an aardvark, if one wants to. 😉 The thing is, while in a free society certainly one is free to hold such convictions (and long may such freedoms last), orthodox Christians of all three major traditions will no more consider such an individual to be a Christian any more than they will consider a Mormon, who also would view himself as a Christian, as one. I’m not sure I can comprehend how one can do so, if one views the texts of the religion as compromised and unreliable – how can you be sure Christ said the things you think he did say, yet not the things you think he didn’t say, and how would you know – , nor why anyone would wish to do so. But that’s your prerogative, and I won’t bother arguing with you about your beliefs, beyond these comments. 🙂 As a Calvinist, I don’t bother trying to win anyone exclusively through argumentation, knowing the pointlessness of such an endeavour. I accept you see things differently; I hope in time you may reconsider, but that is up to you.

        Islam borrowed heavily indeed from the OT, but twisted things – transported the setting to Arabia; made the covenant line go through Ishmael, and more; and they also borrowed from the Nestorian, heretical version of Christianity, as well as combining with elements of pre-Islamic pagan Arabian religion; their name for their god, Allah, is taken directly from that of a pagan deity, which they chose to elevate, while eliminating the rest… They misunderstand the Trinity, thinking it to be God the Father, Mary, and Christ…

        Islam was invented by Mohammed, the world’s greatest con artist…

      • I agree. 🙂

        Liked your first link; I appreciate your fair-mindedness towards people of orthodox faith like myself. 🙂 I trust I wasn’t offensive in my jesting in my last comment; like I did say, I certainly accept that you believe what you believe, and self-define as a Christian. I obviously disagree, in that I prefer to keep the definitions of terms rather tight, rather than expanding them, esp. in matters religious, to accommodate POV I consider less than orthodox. I would characterize you, hopefully reasonably fairly, as a ‘cultural Christian’, or as Strakon labels himself, an ‘ethnic Christian‘, a sort of tribal-loyalty-to-the-heritage-of-one’s-ancestors perspective; I see you think well of us, not ill, as I do, you, likewise. 🙂 We are of the west, not strangers. Cheers! 🙂

        I shall read your essay on Islam shortly; I am looking forward to it. I’m delighted to see you’re a blogger too, with more blogs than me, even; naturally, I shall be taking a peek at them. 🙂

      • Fear not. Strictly, and correctly, a Christian must believe in the Resurrection. I was a devout Catholic for some time.

      • Yes, I’ve been Australian ever since my birth at a very early age. I prefer that flag to a maple leaf.

      • Ah.

        BTW, I didn’t realize you were Australian; I thought you were American.

        I’m Canadian, as my gravatar does show (though not everyone realize’s that’s Canada’s old, unofficial flag, compressed).

      • I prefer it, too; it’s not like it doesn’t contain maple leaves, in fact it has three of them… We should never have changed our flag to try to placate Quebecois separatists; goodness knows it hasn’t worked…

      • I hope our flag doesn’t end up with emus and kangaroos on it, or the garish but simplistic aboriginal flag. You can’t placate noisy separatists and others who have an imaginary high ground that exists only in their own delusions. Unfortunately their insanity is contagious. Let’s hope the majority of Scots have the sense to stay British, the option being to become a satellite of the EU and to be flooded with hordes of costly immigrants who’ll turn Culloden and Glencoe into happy memories.

      • Ugh, yes; I hope Australia does not become a republic, and I hope Scotland remains part of the U.K. In both cases, they’d be idiots to change.

  3. What I wonder, though, if one doesn’t view Scripture as the Word of God, is, why bother to believe any of it to be truthful, and how would one tell which parts are true, and which ones are inventions?

    It is true there were independent historians who vouched for the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth who influenced many, upset the rulers, and who was executed for his troubles; the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish historian Josephus, have testified to that effect.

    But only Scripture has a comprehensive account of what He said and did.

    So we believers trust it, having faith in its truthfulness, and the reliability of its human authors in bringing the accounts to us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s