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

[DaPointIsDaBomb]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by DaPointIsDaBomb

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.