<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that you are talking about garden variety social conservatives with your comments. I know dozens of socially conservative students who went through biology without any gripes.</p>
<p>I actually don’t see any basis for your claims. Before I go further:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Citation%20needed”>b</a>**</p>
<p>Citation: [Evolution</a>, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends](<a href=“Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends”>Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends)</p>
<p>With 40-46% of the people polled choosing the answer that excludes evolution, it is clear that opposition to evolution is a very mainstream point of view among the general public, not a fringe view. However, it is a fringe view among academics, as biology departments at what are usually considered conservative schools like Baylor and BYU accept evolution as an integral part of the subject (but Liberty does not).</p>
<p>I agree that it is not compatible for some social conservatives. I want to make sure that we are arguing the same issue. I don’t think that being social conservative implies close-mindedness to learning.</p>
<p>
I just love the conceit!</p>
<p>According to this NYTimes story, physicians & natural scientists outside of academia tend towards the conservative. I think these 2 groups are hardly lacking in IQ
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal-2.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal-2.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is liberal smugness. There is quite a bit of that in higher education. I would classify myself as a moderate Republican. I am slightly socially conservative in my values, however I am not religious.</p>
<p>For one thing, many liberals would find working alongside a conservative Christian “bothersome.” Don’t deny I’m wrong on this. It’s wrong to say “group A is more tolerant than group B,” it makes more sense to say “group A is tolerant of things group B doesn’t like, and group B is tolerant of things group A doesn’t like.”</p>
<p>Examples of things that liberals may be uncomfortable studying:</p>
<p>1) any aspect of history that doesn’t fit the left-wing narrative, such as the more thorough history of slavery (and who really stopped it), or the real history of the people who populated North America before Europeans came, the rampant and deliberate racism of labor unions and the involvement of unions, socialists, and communists in getting Apartheid started. It wasn’t until after the fall of the Soviet Union and revealed archives made it impossible to deny communist atrocities that many leftist academicians were willing to concede they were wrong about the USSR.
2) studies that reveal politically incorrect truths are often attacked and buried <em>by academics</em>, such as the Duke study on graduation rates and choice of major by race.</p>
<p>Read Higher Superstitions (written by two leftist professors) about their problems with leftist humanities professors attacks on science.</p>
<p>Another important note: what we’re talking about are the trends of today, not how things have always been. As recently as the 80s, there was FAR more political diversity in universities than there is now. Go look at the statistics, they are pretty interesting. Also, until about the 80s or 70s or so, it was “conservatives” who had the highest opinion of science versus “liberals.” The modern notion that conservatives are anti-science and liberals are pro-science is a pretty new one. There is some pretty interesting history here.</p>