Do Fundamentalist Colleges Deserve a "Weary Eye [sic]" in Science Education?
 

Given the rapidly declining academic rigor in many US universities, I think most knowledgeable people are right to look at science degrees from ALL institutions ranked below about 100 or so with a "weary [sic]" (or wary) eye. Why worry about the 5-10% or so of the disputed "science of origins", when such a poor job is being done by the majority of institutions with the other 90-95%?

Read More ...

Do they teach that evolution stuff?

Each institution addresses this differently. Many teach evolution as the scientific consensus along the lines of:

I accept evolution by natural selection (and other consensus theories of origins) as the best available scientific conclusion if one strictly applies methodological naturalism. Just as Euclid?s postulates lead to Euclidean geometry, the axiom of naturalism in the scientific method leads to the consensus theories of origins.

Most faiths at some point deny the universality of naturalism and posit an epistemology that accounts for the supernatural. Any faith that includes accounts of historical miracles does this either implicitly or explicitly. It is beyond the scope of secular science to speak to which of these faiths or epistemologies may be more reasonable than the others. Stephen Jay Gould described this as ?non-overlapping magisteria.? Sure, these epistemologies can be discussed by scientists, but one quickly enters more of a philosophical or theological realm and are outside the scope of pure science.

So, they teach it, but they don't believe it.

Well I would rather my daughter be taught facts and not fairy tales.

My view is that high school students should have broad latitude in the colleges they apply to, and ultimately the decision on which college to attend belongs to the student rather than the parent.

A parent's input might reasonably be proportional to their financial contributions to the endeavor, but if the college students are paying their own way (as ours are so far) parental input is merely advisory and not directive.

But the question of the original post is more geared toward assessing the value of graduates and diplomas.

The curriculum matters. I have not argued in any way that science courses should exclude the consensus theories of origins. My point is that if a student really understands the consensus theories of origins, it matters less whether they believe them to be absolute truth. Very few university mathematicians and physicists believe Euclidean geometry any more. Yet, it still accounts for a full year of high school for most students. Believing Euclid is not nearly as important as being able to understand and apply Euclid. Why is believing Darwin any different?

If two schools are ranked comparably in a discipline, their programs are similarly accredited, and two graduates have the same GPA, standardized test scores, and research accomplishments, why should the graduate from the fundamentalist school be treated differently in hiring processes and/or admissions to medical school, grad school, or other professional school (vet, pharm, etc)?

Science likes to present its theories as if they are concrete indisputable facts. I have a problem with that. Schools should teach evolution as a possible theory AND teach Creationism as a possible theory.

They present them as theories. A theory is not a fact. A theory that has been proven time and time again is then considered law. There still is no law of evolution, although most in the scientific community consider it to be a law.

Evolution should not be such a divisive topic. Believing in evolution in no way means you do not believe in God. You can have it both ways.

Euclidean geometry hasn't stood the test of time. Thats how theories work, they can not become law until they stand the test of time and become proven over and over again. Evolution is still a theory even though it has stood the test of time for over 150 years. With all the technological advancements, evolution still stands the test of time. The discovery of DNA and the technology we have now to determine how closely related species are, still points towards evolution. You can interpret the results anyway you want, but the facts are there right in front of us. Evolution generally takes a LONG time, but here are some examples that happened or are happening right before our eyes

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-ex...ion-in-action/

Bingo. While the Catholic Church doesn't really have an "official" position on Evolution, the last several popes, including the current have said that the theory of evolution is likely correct and is not counter to the Catholic faith as long is you reserve the understanding that only man has an immortal soul.

F.W.I.W. the "Big Bang Theory" (the actual theory not the TV Show) was first proposed by a Catholic Priest Monseigneur George Lema?tre.

Interesting link. I do believe in natural selection and adaptation. But to believe that a slug morphed into a reptile then into a mouse, then into an ape, then into a human being and that all that just happened randomly on its own is just too much for me to believe. In other words, I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist. :)

And Darwin actually waited over 20 years before he published his findings for numerous reasons. He wanted to be absolutely sure, and he also knew what his findings would mean to the Church at the time. When Lord Alfred Wallace began finding similar clues to evolution is when Darwin came out and published his findings

People interpret evolution differently and hear what they want to hear. We did not come from a chimpanzee, but we share common ancestors. So much so, that 99.9% of our DNA is the same.

All these changes dont happen randomly overnight. They happen from different evolutionary pressures and geographic isolation.

I believe in evolution but prefer to call it addaptation. It's why animals put on a winter coat. It's why a deer from Canada weighs 300 instead of our little ones. Coyotes up north weigh 50lbs instead of our wood muts. God gave them the ability to adapt according to their environment.
As far as the school part all I can say is it's not for everyone. We certainly need scientists, biologists and so on but I think a lot of the world has forgotten the importance of a man that makes a living getting dirty. Oil field, mill wright, mechanic or even the guy at the gas station. Get up and put your boots on everyday.

The Origin of Species. If you read the original you see that Darwin did believe in a creator he just didn't say God. Page 529.

Winter coats and larger body size are definitely adaptations, but not necessarily evolution. Changes in body size with latitude is something known as Bergman's Rule.

Individuals may adapt in a short period of time to changes in their environment. Darwin's finches EVOLVED over a significant period of time to take advantage of different food sources. They didn't develop different beak shapes and functions over the course of a few years.

We may transplant a deer from LA to Wisconsin, and, if it survives, it will adapt to its new environment. There is a reason wildlife agencies were able to trap and transplant deer and turkeys across the country with no issues. They were able to adapt relatively easy to the changes. It did not require evolution.

On the other hand, let's say we have a cardinal. If all I present for this cardinal to eat is a steak, it will likely die. The bird will not adapt to use this food. It would take a very significant amount of time and changes to its genetics to take advantage of the food.

If I move to Cuba with my dog, he isn't going to grow a winter coat this year. He won't need it. But, if I move back, he will develop a winter coat again. Is that evolution?

Just my opinion, but the two are not one in the same. Akin, but not one in the same.

And even if you believe the terms describe the same concept, it doesn't change what it means. Evolution is much more complex than body mass and winter coats.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

These are all interesting points and questions worthy of discussion, but let's refocus for now on the original issue before running down rabbit trails. The questions raised are addressing the matter of whether certain Bible-based beliefs are true.

However, there should be no need to support the truth of religious beliefs to recognize that they are protected against discrimination under the social contract formed by our Constitution and laws against religious and other discrimination. I'd hate to give the wrong impression at this point in the discussion that a strong case for TRUTH needs to me made in support of my point that fundamentalist colleges should not be discriminated against.

If two schools are ranked comparably in a discipline, their programs are similarly accredited, and two graduates have the same GPA, standardized test scores, and research accomplishments, why should the graduate from the fundamentalist school be treated differently in hiring processes and/or admissions to medical school, grad school, or other professional school (vet, pharm, etc)?

To emphasize that a case for truth of the fundamentalist school need not be made, please note that I believe equal consideration should be given regardless of whether the fundamentalism in question is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. Our social contract promises that we will not discriminate based on sincerely held religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are wrong.

What is the justification for unilaterally changing that part of the social contract (without amending the Constitution)? If science "disproves" other aspects of sincere religious beliefs, can we then discriminate against people and institutions that continue to hold them? The virgin birth? The resurrection? Miracles of Islam? That is a very dangerous precedent.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Are these colleges being looked at differently? Their graduates?

Otherwise, I don't see why we are having this discussion.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

right, and thats why it took him decades to publish his findings. He was worried about it, and what it would do the Church.

not sure if you have noticed, but there are hundreds of different religions and each one believes something different (and will argue with each other as well). Which one is right?

It may be that we all do believe in the same God without knowing it. We just have different names for him

Deep thoughts by Duck Butter

Great question. What is the point of this discussion MG? Did you get turned down for a job or know someone who did because of this?

Very true.