More Recent Comments

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Get a Job: Dallas, Texas (USA)

The Chair of my department1 asked me to post this job advertisement in case any biochemists might be interested. It's a challenging position in Dallas, Texas. You'll have plenty of opportunity to investigate some of the weirdest subjects in all of biology. All you really need is an inquisitive mind—with a few minor restrictions [Wanted: Young Creation Scientists].
ICR, together with the rest of the creation science movement, has made great strides in the last 40 years. In many areas, the superiority of the creation worldview has been clearly demonstrated. Even now, ICR is making exciting discoveries in the fields of biology and geology, and we have started new research initiatives in the field of astronomy. However, there is much work that still needs to be done, and this work is hindered by a lack of trained scientists.

Therefore, we appeal to any Bible-believing young person with an interest in science—have you considered cultivating that science interest for the glory of God?

Many young people choose careers for all the wrong reasons (e.g., maybe a college major is “easy” or they can earn a lot of money). Yet some choices in this area can have negative consequences later in life.What good is it to earn a large salary if your job is unfulfilling? Is it worth it to major in an easy field if you ultimately get a job that you dislike? Little wonder that so many adults are eager to retire from the workforce—they hate their jobs!

How much better to choose a career path that will bring ultimate fulfillment, a decision inspired by a God-given desire to work in a field that will bring glory to the Creator. Young Christian, if God has given you a desire to serve Him in a particular area, then consider His promptings. Maybe He is leading you to serve Him in the field of science. It may involve short-term sacrifice, but God’s best often requires hard work.

If you have an interest in science, then pursue it. An aptitude and a genuine love for science is a rare gift—maybe you can be the one to make a startling discovery or a life-changing advancement in the field. Maybe history will be different because of you. Perhaps you can be the one to finally break the evolutionary monopoly on our institutions of higher learning.

Of course, not everyone has an interest in science. God has given us all different gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-7) and called us to different areas of service. But Christian young people might consider the challenge to seek God’s wisdom about their future, to consider His direction when they are making their career choices.

For those who do have an interest in science, we wish to offer a few words of advice. Work hard to get the best possible grades and push yourself to truly understand the material. When choosing a school, choose one with a rigorous academic program and a research program that truly interests you. Although you should not be dishonest about what you believe, it’s probably prudent to not draw attention to your creationist beliefs while you are a student, particularly if you are in a field that directly touches upon the origins controversy (such as paleontology, biology, or geology).

Given the increasing anti-Christian sentiment in society and the academic persecution in the secular universities, there may very well come a day when it will no longer be possible for a Bible-believing Christian to get an advanced degree in the natural sciences. Academically gifted young Christians should therefore “redeem the time” (Ephesians 5:16) before that door of opportunity closes.
They don't say how many letters of reference they need. They also don't mention salary. Something in the range of $100,000 - $120,000 would be typical for real scientists at a good school in Texas. ICR probably has to pay more in order to get the very best candidates.

Start-up funds are negotiable but you should probably ask for one million dollars to set up a decent lab. That's about the minimum you're going to need since your chances of getting NIH or NSF funding are pretty slim.

1. He has a great sense of humor. I'm not sure if he wants to be identified by name on this blog but you can find him on our website under Justin Nodwell, Chair.


  1. Intriguing! But first a few questions.

    Does the department have a time machine (to observe the moment of Creation) or will I have to build my own?

    If I take the position will I automatically be Saved upon my death, or do I still need to live a Christian life?

  2. Sounds like a great job. No having to mess with ... well ... whatever it is that biochemists mess with. Just sit in a comfy chair and read one book and you have fulfilled your duty to True Science[TM].

  3. It's not even clear that this is an actual job advertisement, it seems more of a general exhortation to young fundies to infiltrate science in a sort of IDiot fifth column endeavour.

  4. I was surprised to discover that it wasn't a parody.

    1. Unfortunately, I don't fit the qualifications. "Therefore, we appeal to any Bible-believing young person...". I'm not a young person. There may be other problems as well.

  5. What difference is there between this job, if this is actually a real job offer in research, and some other job at Harvard to research the origins of life? Can anybody logically explain to me why one differs so much from the other? I don't see much of a difference even if the Harvard job only includes researching spontaneous, self-assembly of a nucleotide. Am I wrong?

    1. For one thing, they begin with a blatant lie:

      In many areas, the superiority of the creation worldview has been clearly demonstrated. Even now, ICR is making exciting discoveries in the fields of biology and geology, and we have started new research initiatives in the field of astronomy.

      If your prospective employers lie to you in the very first paragraph of the "job offer", why bother reading on?

    2. I agree. Most of so-called creationist churches deceive people. Big time.

    3. Piotr,

      Your employer tells you to build the most amazing building ever. However, there is a slight discrepancy. You have to build the building first before the fundaments are laid down. I'm sure you would accept an offer like that, wouldn't you?

    4. It didn't take very long to establish your troll credentials, did it ?

    5. What about you? What credentials do you have?

    6. I'm the seventh son of a seventh son, born under a caul, and I've got second sight.

      My luck's all right but I can see bad luck hovering over you like a cypress over a grave.

      (with apologies to Robert A. Heinlein)

    7. I forgot. Some people like Steve can't handle the truth. Well, They don't want to pretty much....

    8. Your employer tells you to build the most amazing building ever. However, there is a slight discrepancy. You have to build the building first before the fundaments are laid down. I'm sure you would accept an offer like that, wouldn't you?

      Yeah, sure, scientists can't be trusted to build anything of value without a proper foundation, so they should stop doing whatever they are doing now and wait till the superior geniuses from the ICR lay the groundwork for them (Matthew 7: 24-27). Apage, troll.

    9. Let me get this straight. The foundation is spooks and magic, and the building is natural laws derived by applying logic to experimental results.

      I'd sue the architect.

    10. RE: "You have to build the building first before the fundaments are laid down.

      If I understand the statement (about 50% chance)*, then yes, that is mostly the way scientific discovery works. For example, first atoms were discovered, and then that they contain protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then that protons and neutrons consist of more elementary particles, et cetera. In other words, the analogy you are using (assuming it relates to the scientific process) is a very inappropriate one.

      * I am assuming the statement refers to evolution vs. abiogenesis.

  6. Even now, ICR is making exciting discoveries in the fields of biology and geology, and we have started new research initiatives in the field of astronomy. However, there is much work that still needs to be done, and this work is hindered by a lack of trained scientists.

    And then there's the tremendous challenge of finding evidence for something that is no more than a myth.

    But if you'd like to do the equivalent of trying to track down Santa Claus, you'll love this job.

    Glen Davidson

  7. By the way, have you noticed that "dressed in white coat and looking at a Petri dish" is what means "scientist" to a creationist? Only this time she's posed in front of nothing, while Ann Gauger was posed in front of a stock photo of a really old lab. And I know I always make sure to wear my safety goggles when looking at petri dishes. Never know when a colony may jump out and attack your eyes.

    1. And I thought she was checking the results of a home pregnancy test.

      Given that the demographic they are trying to attract most likely suffered through abstinence only sex education.

    2. At Ken Ham's Creation Museum, David Menton gives PowerPoint presentations for the sheep while wearing a white lab coat.

      Because you can never know when your PowerPoint presentation might explode and spray you with nitric acid.

    3. When kids play make-believe, it's cute. When adults do it, it's pathetic.

  8. I'm qualified. Here is my first research paper:

    "God did it".

    How did I do?

    1. No Bible quotes? No hating on atheists?

      NO HITLER!?


  9. Whats the joke here?
    This is a excellent suggestion for kids in thinking about their future. Its to prompt Christian kids into thinking about subjects in science.
    Its not a actual position being offered!
    Its like there is a opposition here to kids getting into these careers because they are creationists.
    This is why a accusation of a climate/culture of aggressive resistance to our side is made.
    Most of science came from the very bible believing Protestant peoples since the reformation.
    Bring our crowd in with more and more people would likely bring the same revolutions in advancement in science.
    its now just not seen as interesting or prestiges .Narrow demographics are seen today as the ones interested and so its a poor crop of improvement relative to what it should be with all the money thrown its way.
    The more the merrier.

    1. Most of science came from the very bible believing Protestant peoples since the reformation.

      Gee, you mean like Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Murray GellMann, Harold Varmus, Max Born, Albert Michelson, Eugene Wigner, Hans Bethe, Wolfgang Pauli, etc.? Nary a Protestant of any sort in that bunch.

    2. Now now SLC, none of those are "great" scientists. Great scientists are Protestant by definition.

    3. The protestant nations/peoples did create most of the science advancement since the reformation. Roman catholic nations.people also did but relative to numbers they did very little. A clear result . In modern times the rest of the world is now contributing but only after introduction from the western world. Otherwise they would still be in the dark ages.
      The ones listed were of the protestant peoples/nations largely. Being Jewish etc is irrelevant.
      Race/ethnicity is not relevant. These people are also entirely the product of their protestant nations. Its not about being Protestant but about the civilization built by a protestant civilization.
      It wouldn't make any difference if they were Native american indians. They in reality are just more protestants. Its by societies and not biology.
      Native American Indians or Jews etc etc don't have any achievement in science as identies. only as particular human beings living in the nation.
      In fact I would say its the minority Puritan/Evangelical Protestants who actually raised the moral and intellectual standard in the protestant nations/peoples and so the modern world.
      We are all just growing up in our Evangelical Protestant ancestors world.
      Therefore science is far more the achievement of bible believing protestant Puritans then any other peoples on earth.
      Science is just a reflection on the rise in intelligence since the reformation.
      Bring in more of my crowd and generally more people and there will be a more accurate rise in science progress relative to modern population figures and wealth thorwn at science.
      Interference is what stops mankind moving forward.

  10. Many young people choose careers for all the wrong reasons (e.g., maybe a college major is “easy” or they can earn a lot of money)

    The wrong reasons?

  11. Re Byers

    Booby is seriously misinformed. In the 18th Century, most of the scientific and mathematical exploration occurred in France, a heavily Roman Catholic country, although many of the leading savants were agnostics (e.g. Laplace who had no need of the god hypothesis to explain the anomalous motions of the planets in the Solar System). Nary a Protestant amongst them). As a matter of fact, the founder of the Reformation, Martin Luther, was a serious opponent of scientific exploration.

    I would point out that Wolfgang Pauli was an Austrian, a heavily Roman Catholic country. Eugene Wigner was a Hungarian, another heavily Roman Catholic country. Einstein and Born were Germans; Germany then, as now, had a large Roman Catholic minority population which had great influence on German culture, particularly in places like Bavaria. In addition, most of the Protestants in Germany were not evangelicals as the Lutheran Church there, as in the USA, was a liberal mainline church.

    Further, the notion that England was an evangelical Protestant country is ludicrous. The Church of England was, and is, like its counterpart the Episcopal church in the USA also a liberal mainline church.

    1. I would say England was influenced by the Puritan people, in the south and east(including London) despite being a minority. This is the difference. Just as in america iwas the Puritan north that prevailed over the Anglican South. america was a controlled experiment.

      Your highlighting a few people. the Catholic countries only much later started to rise up. Hardly sooner then Japan. it was very clear in germany of the difference between the prtestant side and the Catholic one. In fact the concept of the Protestant work Ethic was developed by a German protestant upon obsetvation of this difference. Germany, despite great population, lagged behind Puritan protestant Britishers. (English and Scots).

      the 1700's was dominated by the rise of gReat bRitain. Not France. This is easily measured.
      Just score the discoveries and inventions. by the way FRance was originally, in the north , quite protestant. It never kept pace with great britain of later with Germany or Holland etc

      Some of the people you mention are Jewish and would insist their contributions are not from the same identity as catholic Europe. not true but they would see themselves as a segregated different team.

      Anyways I'm not denying anyone anything but only insisting their is clear winners and losers. A score of the teams. It was the protestant reformation that raised the intelligence of the common people and so led to a prevailing over the others for the first centuries. only later as it became general did Catholic Europe and the rest start contributing worthy of mention.
      its not about being protestant but only that backward peasants first were brought up by the protestant motivation.
      I do believe the true faith, evangelical/puritan, raised the British world to number one.
      Faith and motivation.
      So bible believing Christians influence on science is not only the origin of the scientific progress but is always a positive influence.

  12. Sorry booby, the majority of scientists and mathematicians in the 18th and early 19th century were French.

    Off the top of my head, the following come to mind.

    Laplace, Lagrange, Cuvier, Cauchy, Lavoisier, Lamarck, Legendre, Buffon

    1. More power to the French but I'm sure your wrong.
      Google a list of inventions, discoveries including non "scientific' things. in all things dealing with higher thinking and its a very English and scottish universe.
      In fact i only recognize the of the fRench and several about biology and discredited today.
      I don't see math as the same thing anyways with higher accomplishment in natural sciences.
      in fact its not just the english but the scottish enlightenment, as they call it, that surely dominated those times.
      In fact it was a very protestant civilization when it came to intellectual progress.
      Anyways I'll wiki about the French again to see how they placed.

    2. French

      Well, there were quite a few pretty innovative Germans as well: Gauss, Euler, Wöhler, etc. (not to mention whole bunches of Italians, Swedes, Russians, etc.)

    3. Re Byers

      Sorry booby, Laplace and Lagrange made important contributions to physics and astronomy; Lavoisier was a chemist. Cuvier Buffon, and Lamarck were hardly discredited; they are considered the most important biologists of the 18th century. The fact that Lamarck was wrong about the mechanism of evolution is no shame. As Enrico Fermi once said, a scientist who has never been wrong is a scientist who hasn't contributed much to the advancement of knowledge. Every great scientist has been wrong on occasion. Newton was wrong about chemical processes being able to turn lead into gold, and that a purely particulate theory of light could explain diffraction and interference. Darwin was wrong about inheritance being an analog process. Einstein was wrong about the existence of black holes. Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, the three most important scientists who ever lived, at least in the Common Era, were right far more often then they were wrong.

      And I would point out that none of them was a believing Christian at the time of their contributions to science. Newton was an Arian, Darwin was an agnostic, Einstein was probably best described as a Deistic Jew.

      Re Gasiorowski

      Agreed but there were a number of Frenchmen who I probably didn't mention as this was off the top of my head. As I said, the majority in the 18th and early 19th century were French, which is not to overlook the contributions of the English, Scottish, Italians, Russians, etc.


    4. @Byers
      Google a list of inventions, discoveries including non "scientific' things. in all things dealing with higher thinking and its a very English and scottish universe.
      It is quite unlikely Google results will not be language biased. Also, accounts of the history of science written in any language tend to give more emphasis to the discoveries by speakers of that language.

      In the 18th and 19th century the continent far outstripped Britain in science. Only after the foundation of the ‘red brick universities’ did England somewhat catch up – universities that were founded due to the chasm that was felt in science education. The language of science was French to start with, German for some 100 years, and English only as a consequence of the US supremacy due to WWII.

      Perhaps Byers might realize that science started out as a Greek enterprise.

    5. I have asked Byers this question many times, and he won't answer:

      Why is it, Byers, that science labs in America are full of Confucians and Hindus and atheists? Yes, there are some Christians but conservative fundamentalists are seriously underrepresented.

      Perhaps 37% of Americans think the human race was created by God as recently few thousand years ago, but in most labs, the guy who believe that washes the glassware. Creationists make up maybe 0.1% or less of scientists, and are vastly outnumbered by Confucians and Hindus of foreign origin, and domestic atheists. Why is that?

    6. Really? Things must have changed since 1993 in US?

    7. Re Michael Ku

      Only 8% of the membership of the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious science organization in the US believe in a personal god.

    8. Nothing much has changed since 1993 except a slight uptick in the percentage of atheists in the general population. A fair percentage of scientists are religious, though that percentage is much smaller among eminent scientists. And it's also much smaller among evolutionary biologists. However, religion and creationism are not synonymous, nor is theistic evolution and creationism. In other words, none of the numbers in the last three posts are contradictory.

    9. Perhaps Byers might realize that science started out as a Greek enterprise.

      But the ancient Greeks, like the Jews, were "Puritan/Evangelical Protestant Britishers [TM]" in disguise.

    10. John Harshman says,

      "that percentage is much smaller among eminent scientists."

      Could the professors of natural and social science of the most elite universities in US be considered "eminent scientists"?

    11. Some of them could, though "social science" is making the category a bit broad. Election to the National Academy of Sciences is a better gauge. Why do you ask?

    12. I fund this on wiki:

      "A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York on 1,646 natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities found that, in terms of belief in God or a higher power, more than 60% expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and more than 30% expressed belief. More specifically, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answered "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out." [100] In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed in a higher power that was not God.[101] Ecklund stated that scientists were often able to consider themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god.[102] Ecklund and Scheitle concluded, from their study, that the individuals from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately had self-selected into scientific professions and that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable since the study did not strongly support the idea that scientists had dropped religious identities due to their scientific training.[103] Instead, factors such as upbringing, age, and family size were significant influences on religious identification since those who had religious upbringing were more likely to be religious and those who had a non-religious upbringing were more likely to not be religious.[100][103] The authors also found little difference in religiosity between social and natural scientists.[104]
      Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, noted in a study that doctors tend to be science-minded religious people. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." and "90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." He reasoned, "The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions."[105]
      Another study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were "much less religious than the general public," with 51% believing in some form of deity or higher power. Specifically, 33% of those polled believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."[106] 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.[98]
      Physicians in the United States, by contrast, are much more religious than scientists, with 76% stating a belief in God.[105]
      Religious beliefs of US professors were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1400 professors. They found that in the social sciences: 23.4% did not believe in God, 16% did not know if God existed, 42.5% believed God existed, and 16% believed in a higher power. Out of the natural sciences: 19.5% did not believe in God, 32.9% did not know if God existed, 43.9% believed God existed, and 3.7% believed in a higher power. [107]
      In terms of perceptions, most social and natural scientists from 21 American elite universities did not perceive conflict between science and religion, while 36.6% did. However, in the study, scientists who had experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive conflict.[108]"

      How likely would people be elected to National Academy of Sciences if they express a belief in God or disbelief in evolution?

    13. How likely would people be elected to National Academy of Sciences if they express a belief in God or disbelief in evolution?

      One can only speculate. My speculation is that beliefe in god is irrelevant, but disbelief in evolution would be likely to disqualify you, as would belief in a flat earth or phlogiston.

      That study, by the way, has been challenged in many quarters, specifically that many of the conclusions are unsupported by the data and that religiosity is systematicallly overestimated. Here's a link.

    14. Thanks for the link.

    15. I googled it and found out that only about a third of the participants of the survey chose the option "I do not believe in God" to describe their beliefs. How much off were the claims? By 90%?

    16. I wonder if Antony Flew would be elected to the National Academy of Sciences after his conversion to Christianity?

    17. How much off were the claims? By 90%?

      Not nearly so much. But read the articles cited in that link.

      I wonder if Antony Flew would be elected to the National Academy of Sciences after his conversion to Christianity?

      I'm pretty sure you have to be a scientist to be a member. You also have to be a U.S. citizen. Flew is neither. And who says Flew converted to Christianity?

    18. Flew is not a scientist and not a Christian.

    19. What made Flew such a popular atheist then?
      What is the definition of a Christian?

    20. Anthony Flew is DEAD, he's not American, he was never a scientist, and he's not a Christian, but apart from those FOUR FUCKING INSURMOUNTABLE OBSTACLES your scenario of him being elected to the US National Academy of Sciences as a Christian is like TOTALLY plausible, man.

      Flew was not a "popular atheist." I never even heard of him until after he started calling himself a deist.

      Jesus Tapdancing Christ you people are desperate for prestige! Do you Christians really need prestige and accolades that badly that you're going to dig up a dead British deist philosopher and baptize him and cram his ass into the American NAS?

  13. Therefore, we appeal to any Bible-believing young person with an interest in science—have you considered cultivating that science interest for the glory of God?

    Truly a cruel god to trick young people into the onerous profession of experimental science just to figure out how he designed things to be. Whatever happened to good old fashioned revelation?

  14. slchonda9 and Peter.
    Your just wrong about facts.
    Pound for pound and top of the list for the 18th and 19th centuries British (English and Scottish etc) folks lead far ahead of the rest in all things intellectual. No insust to Germans, Dutch, fRench or anyone but read your lists. They are not biased. Thats just agreeing with the lists. its not just a few names. Its a whole society and culture. British peoples led in all areas regardless of numbers of population in all things that mattered.
    Its a reflection on the higher intelligence of the Protestant nations etc and especially the most protestant . That being the most divided by protestant sects. Thats Britain.
    Anything cool in what is called science was first done or done best by British folks back in those days.
    The rest were behind to one degree or another.
    Its not a few hundred people but a whole movement of the population and then the tip of the iceberg.
    its reflection on motivation spawned by the protestant reformation and the rest just were influenced by this and without this would of stayed in the dark ages.
    YOU don't see the British people as number one!!! Why are you speaking English and not French ??
    tHis is why evolutionism sticks around. People see things that are not actually true.

    1. How interesting that you are using English (of sorts) to tout the very antithesis of science. If you could have it your way, we would be back to the dark ages, I'm afraid.

    2. Perhaps Byers should first learn English: learning English might enable him to learn to think ...

    3. It's true that science flourished in those nations that were the first to abandon oppressive religions—first Roman Catholicism, then Fundamental Protestantism (i.e. Puritan).

    4. Science flourished in Europe independent of religion - as long as the state was not oppressive and the country rich. Wealth seems a better predictor of scientific achievement than religion.

      Science did well in Italy in the 16-17th centuries, and in France in the 17-18th century. Remember Galileo, Torricelli, Galvani, later Volta. Steno: a Dane converted to Roman Catholicism, is an important figure in early geology: he worked in Italy. French scientists were mentioned above. France in the 18th century was the leading nation in Europe: in science too.

    5. Once again booby provides a word salad with no facts. Booby, I named names of French scientists and mathematicians of the 18th and early 19th centuries. You have not provided a single name of an English or Scottish scientist of that era. I assume there were some.

      The fact is that any Englishman or Scotsman of the 18 and early 19th century who wanted to be aware of the advances in science had to be fluent in written French. For instance, Darwin was quite proficient in French and had no difficulty in reading treatises authored by Lamarck.

    6. Until pretty recently, every physicist or chemist (not to mention philosophers, linguists, and other branches of the academia) had to be proficient in German to communicate with the international scientific community, and the top-ranking scientific journals (Annalen der Physik, Angewandte Chemie) published mostly in German. French was replaced by English as the working language of diplomacy, international institutiona, and the prerequisite language of artists and writers almost within loiving memory.

    7. Re Gasiorowski

      German science became dominant at the end of the 19th century and for the first 32 years of the 20th century. This ended in 1933 when Frankenberger took over as chancellor of Germany and had all the Jewish scientists fired. These folks made up a large fraction of German scientists, including some of the top ones (Einstein, Born, Pauli, Meitner, Frisch, Bethe, etc.). The influence of Germany also led to the Jewish Hungarian scientists Teller, Wigner, and Szilard also leaving Hungary). Many of these folks ended up in the United States, which eventually led to the American dominance of science in the latter half of the 20th century.

    8. Its been informative about what people think about achievement and its origins in mankind.
      I'm sure its been discussed by many people over the centuries.
      The folks here however got it upside down.

      The origin of scientific accomplishment is a reflection on the intelligence of peoples.
      Its not wealth. Thats just another reflection on the intelligence of the people.
      I see real results that are measurable and results are clear.
      I believe most historic thinkers on these things would conclude generally like me.
      It was the Protestant reformation , including the true faith, that raised the intelligence, relative to the rest, of good percentages of the common people.
      Instantly the protestant places did a sharp upward turn in smarts and results and DEFINE most accomplishments in all things positive related to the intellect. That includes business and better farms.
      Likewise the most protestant became top dog.
      That is the English and Scottish peoples in Great britain or in their colonies.
      It was the puritan minority that raised the smarts of the South and East English and South Scots and the Northern states of America. Canada being a descendent of these northern Puritans immigration after the war.

      It is identity that is important to intelligence right down to family and friends.
      Later under this influence did the rest of europe and the Southern States rise in intelligence. Including immigrants demending on how fast they assimulated into us.

      Its not about lists of inventors and science advencers.
      Yet this list, which are everywhere on the internet, will indicate not just a first in the stats but a dominance of "British" folks in all accomplishments due to intelligence.
      No comparison at all and this in the 18th and 19th centuries. even the 17th one can detect the rise.
      This is a Englishman's world .
      Actually its a Evangelical/Puritan English and Scottish world!!
      Thats the equation of the creation of the modern world.
      God's people being blessed a wee bit more and being more motivated to live better and everyone else being educated up and to their credit joining in the accomplishments.

      The Germans were a little slower and the French a lot slower. Yet they did well also.

      The big conclusion is that making a culture of acceptance and inclusion for Christian kids in subjects touching on science would bring bigger rewards for our nations.
      Our own people and not foreigners.
      We can do better but interest and acceptance must be gained.
      I wish well for other nations but I think our head start should mean a great lead.
      Its not as far ahead as it should be.
      These creationists groups can introduce kids to science who otherwise would yawn.
      Science is not as prestiges in North America especially for the ambitious.
      In third world countries the ambitious must go into science as they have no other options to rise up because their economies are backward.
      All upperclass people in the third world want to be doctors because they can't be businessman or do other interesting things.
      Even then they strive to come to the western world if they can.

      Interesting thread here and I'm surprised a wee bit at how people see the world.

    9. @Byers
      I'm surprised a wee bit at how people see the world

      Reality might be a wee bit of a surprise to Byers.

    10. And Booby continues to produce word salads long on assertions and short on evidence. I named a number of French scientists and mathematicians of the 17th and early 18th century; Booby has yet to name a single English or Scottish scientist/mathematician of the same era.

  15. Diogenes
    I don't like being called out and I always answer questions. not a fact about what you said.
    I don't score labs but its not about Hindus or confucians. Its not about religion but identity.
    Its Asians and indians foreign immigrants etc.
    if they were not here and out of proportion by any score then Americas of many christian faiths would be more represented.
    America decides who gets into the country and gets these jobs.
    Indeed why is the orient so desperate to get in america? because its the best nation as a reflection on her people and , I say, their historic very Protestant/puritan intellectual and moral heritage.
    I'm sure foreigners are not needed but prevail or plain given what actually should go to the native people in right percentages. Thats another issue.

    Genesis creationists hold their own relative to the identities at present in these areas.
    by the way in toronto I know Indian and Asian evangelical christians who had scientific high jobs.

    Your really trying to say that Christians or, even americans, are failing to intellectually prevail or compete with immigrants or immigrant cultures.
    Its the other way around.
    They failed to make successful nations and so these hugh populations send their people to get the best jobs in America especially ones where one just needs to memorize things in ones late teens and early twenties. Not really a intellectual accomplishment but just inheriting a job .
    How do we do a scientific test?
    Lets put our people on a island and their peoples on islands and give a hundred years and compare results!!
    WE did do that and we won!!! Obviously.
    Our win is due to , being of the true faith, and motivation from the protestant surge in bringing up common people relative to a old backward Catholic civilization.
    Everyone else just caught our wave.

    You don't do a accurate analysis on the very points your making.
    You can't beat results. They speak loudly.
    Christianity is the origin of the rise of the modern world and bringing in more Evangelical Christians would raise the standards of scientific discovery.
    Don't interfere one way or another. Science belongs to the people in their nation and in their hands will be better then in elites hands.
    AIG and ICR are doing their part to interest kids in things that have been looked down upon as uninteresting.
    The more the merrier.

    1. One thing Byers might do is check the Nobel-Laureates-per-million people list on Wikipedia.

      Christianity is the origin of the rise of the modern world
      Does Byers know the difference between cause and correlation?

    2. Robert Byers says,

      Indeed why is the orient so desperate to get in america? because its the best nation as a reflection on her people and , I say, their historic very Protestant/puritan intellectual and moral heritage.

      Check out "List of counties by net immigration rate" on Wikipedia. The United States is 16th on the list. Which one of the top 15 is "best nation as a reflection of her people"? Which ones are Protestant/Puritan? Would that be Spain, or maybe Italy? How about Australia or Canada?

    3. Checked it out and no surprise.
      These are tiny places needing workers. Indeed wealthy places but small populations.
      Also offering small wages.
      In reference to high jobs and salaries and in great great numbers its surely America and western countries that the third world peoples are desperate to come into if they have high education or desires for high education and to get the better jobs etc.
      A poster was saying why foreign Indians and Asians are getting the Lab jobs and not Christians or Americans generally.
      I was explaining its a issue of identity and not religion.
      Christians being underrepresented is not from being Christian but a reflection of identities of North America etc being underrepresented.
      I don't know the scores of these obscure things and am accepting the data thrown at me.
      I find it hard to believe North Americans don't want these jobs or don't get educated for these jobs.
      A nations prestiges or good jobs belong to her people and foreigners skould only get what can't be filled by ones own crowd.
      However north america has such great professions that the ambitious indeed might find Labs etc uninteresting or important these days.
      I don't know.

    4. I don't like being called out and I always answer questions. not a fact about what you said.

      Au contraire Booby, you never answer questions with a response based on evidence. On several occasions, I have called upon you to provide the names of some of those English and Scottish scientists of the 18th and early 19th century that you claim dominated scientific thinking in that era. Thus far, what we get from you a a big zero.