A netfriend wrote:

I have read that there are Tertiary level lecturers who tell their students that if they mention Creationism they will be failed. Sorry I haven't the reference at the present time.

Chris responded:

It's false; and you will keep repeating such falsehoods if you are willing to simply repeat any old slander raised up in this area without being careful to check the facts.

Ian Plimer was mentioned in this debate some time ago, and I gave some background and details to show where Plimer is irresponsible with the facts. I frankly don't trust anything Plimer says about creationists any more; he has shown himself to be an untrustworthy source on that subject.

Same goes for [netfriend]

Both will repeat uncritically unsubstantiated rumours which appear to back up their own prejudices. Both have an insufficient care for truth; and end up as unreliable.

So what are the facts of the matter in relation to creationism and tertiary level education?

First, there are some contexts in which mention of creationism is inappropriate and a reasonable grounds for failure; what is misleading about [netfriend's] bare comment is the implication that any mention of creationism in any context is grounds for failure.

For example, it would be entirely appropriate to fail a geology exam which answered questions about geological process with answers about a global flood.

In a geology class, students are expected to learn about geology; and like it or not, Noah's flood has no part in modern geology. To pass the subject, they need to show that they understand the material taught. They are not required to "believe" it; but they need to show they have learned it.

As a help to [netfriend]; here is a better substantiated instance of explicit tertiary level discrimination against creationists; for which we can give details sufficient to evaluate the case.

Professor Michael Dini, of Texas Tech University, has a policy on letters of recommendation. Here is his own page on that policy. <http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm> He gives three criteria. (1) You need an "A" in at least one course he has taught. (2) You need to be known to Professor Dini. (3) You need to answer a question: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?"

Professor Dini goes on to explain his reasons for these criteria; with particular attention to the last one, which has been the most controversial.

This has also been the focus of a lawsuit by a creationist student. As a result of the court case Professor Dini has made a small change to his policy. The question used to be "How to you think the human species originated?". He made a small revision to put the focus of the question on knowing the scientific models; not simply what the student believed. One could quibble further over his chosen wording -- and many do. (I don't; I think Dini's position is perfectly legitimate.) In any case, with this new wording (quoted above) legal proceedings were dropped. <http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/5_12/pages/tech_evolution.html>

The point is this... if this matter of letters of recommendation went all the way to the courts; how much more would you expect to see a legal challenge to over failing someone because they happened to profess creationism?

It doesn't happen like that.

Netfriend wrote:

There are scientists with high scientific qualifications who accept the creationist position.

Chris responded:

Not particularly high; and usually fairly run of the mill as far as scientists go. Basically, simply having a PhD seems to be enough to have "high scientific qualifications" for a creationist.

If you are going to compare creationists *as scientists* with other scientists; then to speak of "high qualifications" you need something sufficient to give a scientist some real international prominence.

Netfriend wrote:

Scientific creationists are looking for the evidence in the scientific disciplines which indicate that creation did occur.

Chris responded:

.. and inventing it out of thin air and wishful thinking when they don't find any in reality.

I mean it. If you disagree, let's have an example of this purported evidence.

That is a much harder question than you realise. The vast majority of creationist writing is presented as critiques of the mainstream position. Such writings are not relevant to the question at issue here, because criticism of one position is not the same as evidence for another.

When creationists actually present a model of their own, you can further look to see if they actually give any evidence FOR their model; or merely try to explain away the evidence AGAINST it. By far the most common form of creationist model presentation is focussed on explaining away evidence against; and not presenting any evidence for the position.

And finally, in the tiny tiny number of instances when a creationist actually presents evidence FOR a positive proposal of their own; we often find the most ridiculous and trivial distortions and errors of fact.

As usual, [netfriend] gives no examples.

So again it is up to me to give the examples. We could look at the "moon dust" argument. Creationists often argue that the small amounts of dust on the moon is evidence that it has not been accumulating dust for long, and therefore is of a relatively young age. The argument is wrong.

Here is an old talkorigins page showing why it is wrong <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html>

Answers in Genesis now has their own page on this argument, also showing why it is wrong. This is a much more technical and detailed paper, and Dr Snelling is the author. (Reading this paper will show why I have said in other threads that addressing material by Dr Snelling on its own merits is not easy. Dr Snelling is a scientist, and it shows.)

<http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/moondust(v7n1)/moond ust.asp> <http://tinyurl.com/pnqz>

Perhaps there are other cases of evidence FOR a creationist model... I'm not going to list all the arguments which might be made. I think Gladys is obligated to back up her comments by citing this supposed evidence.

Netfriend:

All right! You indicate to me how you would set up an experiment to show how one living organism can change into another species.

Chris:

Allow me to quote Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis in response to this...

Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation

From "Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists" on-line at <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/459.asp>

Carl omits to mention that the real problem is poorly informed creationists who frequently bring up the old nonsense that new species don't form; and it is invariably in response to that when the anti-creationists give some of the many known examples of speciation.

It is therefore unfair of Carl to say the problem is with "poorly informed anti-creationists". Creationism is bunk; and the bunk comes in many forms. There are creationists like Gladys who are think that creationism means no new species can evolve. They get refuted. Carl's own errors are different (they are on the matter of "new information"). He gets refuted also.

For Carl to point to refutations of creationists (like Gladys) that have different beliefs to Answers in Genesis as illustrating that the critics are poorly informed is ridiculous. But I digress...

Carl goes on to say...

"Demonstrating that speciation can happen in nature, especially where it can be shown to have happened rapidly, is thus a positive for creation theorists." (Same article)

This is the director of Answers in Genesis in Australia speaking. Basically, Gladys, you are way way out of your depth. You don't know what you are talking about; you don't know the evidence we have for speciation -- which *is* observed -- and you don't even know the extent to which your own beliefs depend on speciation.

[snip rest]

Cheers -- Chris