Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing theism?

[Twilight Hue]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

Typically people like that, if evolution was a detriment to one's religion, would likely leave their chosen profession on their own and go on to invent their own form of "science" and sell lots of books and go on talking tours with lines of merchandising.

 

[dianaiad]

What makes you think that one cannot be both a theist and accept the fact that life is the product of evolution?

Your OP appears to be a bit of a strawman.

At the very least a false dichotomy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

*Raises eyebrows*

Errr...no.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

am actually pandering to the stereotypical 'intellectual' atheist who assume that theist, deist, and agnostic are all ignorant overtly emotional people who are reduced as irrational fairy tale believers..and that they are intellectuals because they proudly identify as atheist while being fallible due to totally ruling out the possibility of deistic or theistic God or creator. There are many scientist who objectively adhere to evolution while being deist, theist or agnostic

Methodological naturalism.

 

[Deeje]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

There are many in the science community who have learned to shut up about their personal beliefs. They are paid to teach and support evolution with no choice for any other option. If its your bread and butter....who is going to make waves?

For those who do stand up, the character assassination that takes place virtually guarantees that they will have trouble getting a job anywhere. People have lost their jobs, but their employers have made certain that they find grounds where no litigation can take place. You really think the big boys of the scientific world have scruples?

 

[Spirosmav]

There are many in the science community who have learned to shut up about their personal beliefs. They are paid to teach and support evolution with no choice for any other option. If its your bread and butter....who is going to make waves?

For those who do stand up, the character assassination that takes place virtually guarantees that they will have trouble getting a job anywhere. People have lost their jobs, but their employers have made certain that they find grounds where no litigation can take place. You really think the big boys of the scientific world have scruples?

I may be too emotional for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in a creator.

 

[Looncall]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

Scientists can have crackpot hobbies, just like anyone else.

 

[blü 2]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

They should be fired if they're not doing their job, or if they're disrupting the workplace, or if they're acting against the legitimate interests of their employer.

Same as anyone else.

 

[Deeje]

I may be too emotional for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in a creator.

Emotions can be wonderful friends but terrible enemies. They can jump on you without warning and completely knock you over.

 

[Spirosmav]

Scientists can have crackpot hobbies, just like anyone else.

What i am about to say has nothing to with creation or evolution

If people are willing to scientifically consider the simulation hypothesis, than the universe and our complex species may be more than just being in the perfect zone that was just right for life.

I wrote this on purpose I am not a scientist or intellectual

 

[SomeRandom]

I may be too emotional for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in a creator.

What? That's called being a human. People have their own beliefs. But scientists (and most normal laymen for that matter) have this ability, it's called rational thought. In science this allows them to objectively analyse data, for the rest of us, it allows us to behave like professionals at our job, regardless of our own individual opinions of the company we may happen to work for, just as an example. People can compartmentalize quite easily. Nothing to do with intelligence or being emotional.

I wrote this on purpose I am not a scientist or intellectual

That much is clear.


(Oh, I'm just kidding. But you made that one way too easy.)

 

[tayla]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

Of course not. Anyway, it shouldn't matter what they believe as long as they believe in science within the scope of the work they are doing.

 

[Father Heathen]

There are many in the science community who have learned to shut up about their personal beliefs. They are paid to teach and support evolution with no choice for any other option. If its your bread and butter....who is going to make waves?

For those who do stand up, the character assassination that takes place virtually guarantees that they will have trouble getting a job anywhere. People have lost their jobs, but their employers have made certain that they find grounds where no litigation can take place. You really think the big boys of the scientific world have scruples?

As others have clearly pointed out. Belief in god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. Also, accepting literal interpretations of creation myths isn't a prerequisite for belief in god, either.
All that aside, of course a scientist is going to look bad when they reject science. What do you expect? Would you trust a dentist with rotting teeth?

 

[oldbadger]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

No....
And........... by and by...... which scientists?

 

[Jumi]

They tend to affirm Life interconnected as true. The conflicts come in context to that not is that.

I'm not sure what you mean by this and I've never heard theist scientist describe life as being interconnected, so you have to open up that expression.

Darwin experienced observation of categories not being literally object/void /object separated. He then created an astrology like projection onto that. But life interconnected was stated 700 years earlier in religious writings of st francis. So Darwin's theory about that is really what is argued most often. In christianity its articulated "family of god" but in an intellectualism community like religion that generally is only human and more specifically at times just their congregational view as opposed to another view.

Your perception and your perspective I assume.

 

[Altfish]

Belief in God and accepting the truth of evolution are totally compatible.

Exactly The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury believe in evolution.

 

[Deeje]

As others have clearly pointed out. Belief in god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I'm afraid they are to us. I don't believe that God started life and then stood back to watch creatures create themselves. There is purpose in their construction that is complex. It is written in the genetic code and executed perfectly to replicate a living thing with all its parts in the right place. When a mutation occurs, it is almost always detrimental to the organism.

When we speak of mutations, we normally imagine something like these....

Not exactly what you want to pass on to offspring, is it? How many beneficial mutations for humans can you come up with? How life altering are they?

Also, accepting literal interpretations of creation myths isn't a prerequisite for belief in god, either.

It is to us...others can believe whatever they wish. I am not in agreement with them. I see no reason to doubt Genesis as a literal account......though we might interpret it differently to YEC's.

All that aside, of course a scientist is going to look bad when they reject science.

But what if they are not rejecting science at all.....what if they are rejecting science's interpretation of their evidence? If it has nothing to substantiate it, it is only an unprovable assumption.....one that is sold to the unwary as truth. In that case it is merely teaching the party line because you have no choice. You would be a hypocrite to teach something you didn't believe in.

What do you expect? Would you trust a dentist with rotting teeth?

No more than I would trust a skinny cook.

 

[Vee]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

How exactly does someone objectively adhere to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism? Can you explain that better please?

 

[Jumi]

I'm afraid they are to us. I don't believe that God started life and then stood back to watch creatures create themselves. There is purpose in their construction that is complex. It is written in the genetic code and executed perfectly to replicate a living thing with all its parts in the right place. When a mutation occurs, it is almost always detrimental to the organism.

When it's not, it can be a gamechanger, something that when passed on gives an advantage.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing in theism or deism?

Evolution is not antithetical to theism or deism, and vice versa.