Steven Shavin is typical of science historians in acknowledging the debt of the scientific enterprise to the Christian worldview of many early scientists. In The Scientific Revolution Shavin rightly credited 16th and 17th century Christian thinkers for providing impetus and encouragement - not to mention a huge skills bank - to the early work of science.

Especially, Shavin notes, the evangelical movement known as the Protestant Reformation taught that "Direct experience of nature was accounted valuable insofar as it was understood to be engagement with a divinely authored text."

Most of the great minds of the early days of modern science understood that belief in God and His sovereignty was an essential precondition for doing the work of science. They backed up their beliefs by laying a solid foundation for all subsequent work in all fields of science.

These days, however, such a belief can actually prevent you from contributing.

This is the claim, at least, of astronomer C. Martin Gaskell, who, as reported by The New York Times, alleges in a lawsuit against the University of Kentucky that he was denied a prestigious post at a new observatory in Lexington because of his religious beliefs. Dr. Gaskell is an evangelical Christian. When this became known among certain of his potential new colleagues at UK - "evidence of Dr. Gaskell's evangelical Christian faith" was discovered during an Internet search, prompting one professor to warn in an email to colleagues that Dr. Gaskell was "potentially evangelical" - he was asked about his faith during the interview process. This may have led to a breach of lawful protocol, since, subsequently, Dr. Gaskell was denied the post.

Academic science today has become a closed game. Like children indulging their cliquish activity, many academicians look upon evangelical colleagues of equal degree and publications standing as outsiders to be barred from participation: Tick, tock, the game is locked, and only the evolutionists can play.

So much for openness. Secular academics in many fields have become so convinced of the certainty of evolutionary thinking that they will not for a moment entertain any other framework for seeking knowledge of the universe and life, or for understanding the moral, social, and cultural adventure of being human.

Being "potentially evangelical" has become rather like being a carrier of the plague: letting such a person into your department will bring disrespect, ridicule, scorn, and worse on all members of the department and the institution as a whole.

To be fair, we evangelicals have brought some of this on ourselves. The debacles of morally-compromised leaders, the goofiness of some evangelical politicians, and the widespread intellectual laziness on the part of many evangelicals all provide fuel for the contempt of secular thinkers. Evangelicals, the argument goes, are closed-minded, narrow-minded, and perhaps even mind-deficient when it comes to the ideas that really matter in life.

The real problem, however, is not evangelical closed-mindedness, but that of secular thinkers who have grown comfortable in their long-unassailed bastion of evolutionary and relativist thinking and don't want to be troubled by having to rethink their most basic presuppostions in life. That evolutionary thinking is a more comfortable fit with their chosen morality than evangelical beliefs is probably also a factor.

We'll see if Dr. Gaskell can make his case. Too bad he's virtually alone in this. Should not every evangelical Christian be making the case for our worldview, every day, both by what we say and how we live? If there were more power of love and holiness in the lives of evangelical Christians, and more grace, consistency, confidence, boldness, and sound reasoning in our conversations, men like Dr. Gaskell would not have the doors of academic advancement shut in their faces.

The sooner we live up to our responsibilities as spokespersons for and defenders of the faith once for all delivered to the saints, the sooner Dr. Gaskell and others like him will be able to serve in their chosen fields without the suspicion, distrust, and scorn of their colleagues.

We can't do anything about closed-minded secularists. But we might be able, by being more responsible in our evangelical callings, to take away at least some of their excuse for not wanting to associate with us.

Additional related texts: 2 Corinthians 10.3-5; 1 Peter 3.15; Proverbs 26.4, 5

A conversation starter: "As long as he or she is professionally qualified, do you think a person's evangelical faith should disqualify him or her from serving in any field of endeavor?"

T. M. Moore