Criticisms vs. Attacks: Where's the line?

It was years ago and the postdoc has since left, but she said it was said in seminar and then repeated by her PI in front of the whole lab. She was known to be a Christian by people in the lab, but she was also one of the most productive post-docs. If the PI knew, he did nothing. She was not ID then but is now.

1 Like

There is a long standing controversy over what really happened, and the facts tend to point to Sternberg et al. overstating what happened. For example, he claims that they took his keys away. What really happened is that they took everyone’s keys away because they were going to an RFID key pass system. Stuff like that. I have also seen claims that Sternberg got fired from his position as editor because of the Meyer’s article he published. The truth is that he had already resigned before anyone knew the article was being published. Also, the congressional investigation was extremely political and biased.

Needless to say, we could go back and forth for a while on this one, so I will leave it there and let everyone Google for additional information. There is also a decent run down of the account here:

http://expelledexposed.com/the-truth/sternberg

Gonzalez admitted that he hadn’t received any grants at the time, so that part wasn’t really that controversial. The publications he did have during that time was from data he obtained during his post-doc work prior to taking the position at Iowa State University. He wasn’t publishing papers on any work that he had done at ISU. When he was hired at ISU people knew of his background in ID, but he had been productive up to that point so they hired him.[quote=“agauger, post:81, topic:36875”]
Lastly, I personally know of a department at the University of Washington, where senior faculty were heard to say, “If I find out anyone in my lab is a Christian, I’ll fire them.” Perhaps the UW has a special problem. I’ll let Swamidass weigh in on that if he wants. Venema’s school is religious so may not provide the best data set.
[/quote]

I don’t doubt that there are jerks and lowlifes in the scientific arena. In fact, we may have more than our fair share since science attracts people who are argumentative and confrontational. We also need to separate people saying indefensible things and people DOING indefensible things. The former is unfortunate, but the latter should never be tolerated.

2 Likes

I don’t disagree. It is an interesting thought experiment, at the same time, to swap out anti-Christian religious persecution here for threats of firing against some of the darling demographics of the current academic establishment (take your pick). I suspect retribution would be swift and well publicized, even if no one in the targeted demographic ever got fired.

[Edit: Despite the snarky tone of my “darling demographics,” I hasten to clarify that I would never be against standing up to bullying threats toward various disadvantaged groups, and furthermore I generally bristle when Christians claim they are a similarly oppressed group. It is just interesting to notice the disparities between how the public reacts to threats against different sorts of groups.]

There are many details left out of this account that are damning.

You know when I started with my original post

I’m going to have to disagree with you here, @littledoweknow. The climate has gotten so bad that I know of several examples where student or postdocs either lost their jobs or were threatened with it simply for being Christian. I would agree however, that ID is completely toxic to many academics. That may be why Christians in general can face opposition now-- a sort of backlash. But that is no reason to heap scorn on ID. The science and the arguments need to be judged fairly and dispassionately on their merits

I expected no controversy or dredging up of old controversial dirt. Why the slam?

There was no slam intended. Any time there are claims of persecution there are going to be cases where people were just overly senstive and no real persecution occurred. At the same time, there are going to be real cases of persecution that people don’t report. That’s what makes these types of discussion hard to get your hands around.

3 Likes

I think there are people who are overly sensitive, and that includes those in the “darling demographics”. When you are dealing with peoples’ impressions of what happens in a workplace they can let their own paranoia bias their perception of what is going on. Other times we ignore their real worries and real problems because we don’t want to believe that these things are going on. It goes both ways. Somewhere in the middle is the reality, but it can be hard to get to at times.

Added in edit: A decent analogy may be soccer, or football to you non-Americans. There are times where players are really fouled, and really hurt. Other times there is the slightest of nudges and the fly through air, clutch at their leg, and act like they have been shot by a sniper.

2 Likes

Yes, but my point was, if everyone in a given lab environment heard their supervisor say, “If I find out anyone in my lab is LGBTQIA+, I’ll fire them” or “If I find out anyone in my lab is a Muslim, I’ll fire them” or “If I find out anyone in my lab is transgendered, I’ll fire them” … Surely you can imagine the media frenzy that would likely ensue. It wouldn’t matter if someone was actually fired, would it?

1 Like

Bringing up Sternberg and Gonzalez was unnecessary. It seems like a slam to me.

I know Sternberg and Gonzalez personally. I know details that don’t show up on exposé websites, and that I am not free to discuss. These are cases where unless you know the facts first hand, it would be best to keep silent.

1 Like

You then proceed to list 24 quotes that you have found offensive. You could go back and edit your post to read “I’m going to share 24 things that people have said that I find offensive, but I don’t want to hear anything from your side.” It would be a better introduction.

4 Likes

I would agree that we have different societal rules for minorities compared to majorities. There is a long history of discrimination against homosexuals in Western culture, so we may be more sensitive to those issues than discrimination against the historically dominant Christian culture. From a personal and moral standpoint this does make it unfair for those in the majority because the person who is faced with discrimination is the smallest minority of all at the end of the day, just one person in a big massive society.

We also have to keep in mind that media companies are trying to sell advertisements which depends on circulation and eyeballs on their product. The more controversial a subject the more it will be pushed.

2 Likes

It seemed appropriate to cite the commonly known examples where people have claimed discrimination in a thread where that very thing is being discussed. Also, I don’t think you can fault me for not knowing facts that are being kept a secret.

1 Like

Agreed on all points. And believe me, I roll my eyes at discussions of the “war on Christmas” and all matters of that ilk, especially when our brothers and sisters overseas experience (as Chris Falter pointed out recently) true persecution. You know, the kind that makes you seek asylum in another country for fear of your life.

When it comes to American Evangelical Christians in science, I do wonder if one might speak of a “localized minority” rather than “one person in a big massive society.” But in general, this is not a battle I want to fight. I would much rather be focused on others’ suffering rather than wallowing in some sort of misguided culture-war-fueled Christian persecution complex (and my sights are not on our brothers and sisters in this conversation here but more on American Evangelical culture at large). I don’t see that as a particularly helpful (or even a particularly Christian, tbh) posture.

And now I think I’ve derailed the conversation quite enough. Thanks for the exchange, TA.

1 Like

@T_aquaticus

It seemed appropriate to cite the commonly known examples where people have claimed discrimination in a thread where that very thing is being discussed. Also, I don’t think you can fault me for not knowing facts that are being kept a secret.

1.My OP was in the context of having just disagreed with an ID advocate about EC advocates being fawned over because of their position on evolution.
2. I pointed out that instead they also face discrimination sometimes.
3. I even assigned some of the blame to the toxic environment in response to ID.
4. I closed with, “Let’s not make this a competition to see who is the most abused. Any discrimination based on a person’s scientific position or religious belief is wrong.”
5. I thought, perhaps unreasonably, that my post would meet with agreement.
6. Instead i was told of two prominent cases where ID scientists were “not” persecuted.

From my OP: The rhetoric used against ID proponents can be harsh, especially terms that imply dishonesty, deception, lack of integrity, or a desire to deceive. Those terms all imply a knowledge of motive, and an expression of ill will. I can guarantee that nothing I have ever said or done was from a desire to deceive or suppress the truth. And the same is true for all the people I know at DI. You may disagree with us, as you do, and you may say we are mistaken or poorly informed, or even ignorant, but to call us dishonest is an entirely different thing.

You imply that Gonzalez’s and Sternberg’s persecutions were fabricated or exaggerated. That’s why your post felt like a slam, intended or not. It was a direct contradiction to what I had just said. I don’t fault you for not knowing all the facts. I fault you for bringing up contentious material in an unnecessary place.

A general comment:

What is the goal here at Biologos?

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation…Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is supposed to be a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. With everybody and all points of view, or only the EC point of view? If the latter then you are an echo chamber, to repeat what has been said elsewhere.

May I suggest that not perpetuating untrue stories should be part of the mission? I recognize that you may think the stories are true, but I am right here telling you the stories are false.

@jstump

We’re happy to allow people who do not share our views to come onto the site and interact with others. We hope to understand them better. But there shouldn’t be an expectation that all views here will be found equally plausible.

Does that mean me? If so I am wasting my time.

People think your ideas are worth discussing, as evidenced by the above-average interest and actual intellectual content that your posts have generated. I don’t know what Jim was thinking, but when I think of the implausible views people post, it’s more anything by nonlin.org or Victor the “change and time are opposite worldviews” guy.

1 Like

I implied that for very good reasons, because there is evidence that persecution was exaggerated in those cases. I was adding exaggeration to the list of things that adds to the difficulties the two sides have in discussing this issue. I never said anything about you, so I don’t understand why you think you were being “slammed”. I never intended to impugn your character or insult you in anyway.

I’m going to let this one drop.