The Impact of Academia on Itself

I have taken the time to read both Lyle’s and Bottom Line’s blogs on Academia. Let me first say that Bottom Line does play into Lyle’s notion that Conservatives dislike academia. By making claims of the failures of academia as proof and the assumption that academics must be engaged in the free market in order to be qualified. This steals from academia our need for it to be driven by testing its own theories via discussion and philosophical ideals. Much of the free market has little time for untested theories or philosophy. Academia should be an open forum where all theories are discussed and the free market reacts to that discussion.

However, the failure of academia and Lyle’s attempt to defend it lie deeper than the superficial approach of Bottom’s. The reason that academia has lost its prominence is because much of it has grasped a couple false premises in order to move an agenda.

1) Academia has taken on a decidedly secular/progressive approach to thought, whether that is the correct approach is irrelevant. What is relevant is that unlike during the Renaissance, academia is making the claim that a secular/progressive approach is non-biased. In Lyle’s blog he goes to great lengths attempting to point out that religious beliefs curbed the advancement of science. Hence the removal of religion has also removed bias. That is both false and destructive to the open dialogue of academia. History has shown that there was much societal advancement during the middle ages; ranging from mathematics, to natural sciences and even civil governance and philosophy. Much of that was achieved because of religion and these advancements spurred the Renaissance. That proof exists in the vast number of Renaissance scientists that believed in a God or a Designer.

The result has been an attack on non-progressive thought and the attempt to prevent any dialogue surrounding it. This is most evident in the 2 areas: 1) Man made climate change is not a settled science. There are vast numbers of scientists that reject the notion that man has had a measurable impact on the direction of climate. Yet, as Lyle has done in his blog, the discussion has been shut down. Not because a definitive answer has been reached; rather, because he assumes the secular/progressive thought is unbiased. As a result its assumptions must be without reproach. 2) A belief in God/Designer automatically calls all ones work into question. Bill Nye in his Debate with Ken Ham repeatedly reached out to the audience begging them to create laws restricting the presence of religion in science because it halted the advancement of science. As Lyle did, he needed to turn the clock back five or six hundred years to attempt to provide proof. He also relied on the assumption that not believing in a deity automatically granted himself an unbiased approach to science.

2) Questioning secular/progressive thought is to deny absolute truth. Lyle has always presented a view of Conservatives as knuckle dragging Bible thumps. We are unable to reconcile the any science with the words in tour Book and therefore deny large swaths of science in order to hold on to a children’s story. When in truth, most Christian conservatives accept most of what science says and embraces its theories as complimentary to the Bible. Lyle wishes to take the few instances of disagreement and extrapolate that out to a complete denial. By demonizing the whole of Christianity he can present the secular/progressive view as morally superior. Thus to deny on any level makes the Conservative immoral and harmful to the advancement of society

In neither points 1 or 2 do I attempt to disprove secular/progressive thought, nor do I wish it eliminated it from academic discussion. Rather, the claim that Conservatives are anti-academia rests not in a misunderstanding or archaic belief system; instead, it rests in a healthy distrust for an intellectual belief that destroys discussion as an avenue of self promotion. Academia is a very exclusive thought, building political walls to prevent non-progressive ideas from entering. This is the biggest difference between the academics of today and those 500 years ago. It has led too much of the social failures of the 20th and 21st centuries.

This is embodied in the Gruber revelations. He has used his academia credentials to promote a social theory by closing down dialogue. ACA is not based on open discussion. It is built around secular/progressive belief system that knowledge rests on a theory’s relative association to secular/progressive thought and not its ability to survive academic debate.

If academia is to regain trust and once again become a beacon for intellectual thought, it needs to accept its own bias, its short comings and the need for the opposing view.

s