Christian schools can teach what they like because, as far as I know, they are not federally funded. So, they can teach creation to the exclusion of evolution.
“Secular” schools, however, are federally funded. Enter “separation of church and state.” Not that that phrase seems to mean anything to hardcore fundamentalists, since they seem determined to turn “secular” schools into “Christian” schools…
Exactly.
Logical Phallusy, that would be fine in principle, except that are a number of religions practiced by children who attend schools. So, I assume there are a number of creation philosophies/beliefs. Do we teach all of them?
But is creationism a real science? One would think that if it were, it could answer the 11 questions. Would you care to take a crack at them? As is, no creationist has been able to demonstrate that creationism can explain even the most basic data, so I don’t see why we should give it the time of day.
BTW, my high school was run by fundamentalist Christians, and one of the science teachers taught creation science. The other science teachers simply didn’t address evolution at all.
-Ben
I seem to remember Baylor University (not associated with my medical school, which has no religious affiliation) last year had a big controversy over teaching evolution. The president used covert action basically to open a center, the Polanyi Center for Intelligent Design, to teach intelligent design at the school.
The matter was brought before the faculty senate, which approved of future research into intelligent design by the center over some arguments from the biology staff. The director of the center, a probability prof, later posted some inflammatory remarks on the internet, saying in essence that the vote from the faculty senate was an approval of creation science. He was promptly relieved from his position. The Center’s name was eventually changed as Dr. Polanyi, who died in 1976, never worked on intelligent design. Later, the center was absorbed into another institute at Baylor, the Institute for Faith and Learning or whatnot. I believe it still exists there, but there is little reference to it on the Baylor web pages.
Man, sometimes I wish DeBakey would just croak so that they can get around to changing the name of my medical school…
Let me start with IANAB.
But is it really necessary to teach these classes from an evolutionary perspective? Is it possible to teach zoology from a different angle? Does this mean that the knowledge gained is somehow less valuable?
That’s a nice quote, and it certainly applies to the field as a whole. But what if someone, trained at said university in microbiology would apply for work at a pharmaceutical company? Do you think this person does not have the necessary skills for the job because he wasn’t taught the evolutionary theory?
I realise that the question is pretty much hypothetical because other posters have already established that evolution is in fact a part of most (fundamental) Christian Colleges
Ben says:
Well, I personally think not, but there is no reason why it couldn’t be taught as an anthropological/religious theory.
I’m all for teaching religion in public schools as part of the English/Social Studies cirriculum, myself – perhaps the Top Six Religions of the World, just to be fair.
(Maybe then we’d have a citizenry that knows what Islam teaches, instead of using half-assed stereotypes from Hollywood movies and demanding war with all Muslems after today’s terrorist attacks…)
puk:
What other perspective? Sure, you can teach zoology, kind of, by saying “this is a bird, this is a duck,” but the relationships between living things are so great that I cannot help but think that zoology without evolution is little more that rote memorization.
:shrug: I suppose that someone could do a passable job in the biological sciences with no understanding of evolution. But I think the lack of context would be ultimately crippling, and “passable” is not acceptable in research.
rjung:
Inshallah.
Yes. To do less is to shortchange our students of the ability to understand the changes and development life has undergone in the past and will undergo in the future. How could someone claim some understanding of the present, if they have no understanding of the past?
Yes. I’m sure they do teach it somehow. I am at a loss to explain how they manage to turn the subject into a comprehensive whole, though.
Less knowledge is gained. Perhaps the knowledge that is gained is as valuable, but at least as important as the knowledge is the understanding, which would definitely be poorer in a student without any knowledge of evolution.
I suppose it would depend on what s/he did at the pharmaceutical company. Let’s say s/he’s researching potential new drugs as treatments for disease. In our hypothetical example, this person may not be aware that a species from which a useful drug is extracted may have related species that contain similar compounds. This knowledge would be useful to their work, but s/he would have difficulty using it, never having been taught about such relationships. That is an example where a person with knowledge of evolutionary theory would do a better job.
It is, of course, also possible to think of examples where that person would do just as good a job. It wouldn’t always be important to her/his work, just sometimes.
I suppose it is pretty much a hypothetical: how many biologists does Bob Jones Univ. produce anyway?
FWIW, I teach at a small liberal arts college affiliated with the United Methodists. However, in my brief tenure at this school I’ve come to realize that a good minority percentage of the student body are fervent Creationists; we are located in a geographic region where fundamentalist Christian denominations are prevalent.
Evolution is covered at the introductory level classes as well as those higher-level classes which only science majors would be exposed to. Similarly, I draw heavily on evolutionary theory in at least a couple of my own classes (which are not at all science classes). A few students of mine expressed concern that I was forcing evolution down their throats in a non-science class, yet as it turns out affirming or denying ET in my classes has no bearing on one’s grade.
In short, the college I teach at does not disavow evolution at all, yet neither would I package our curriculum with that of Bob Jones.
Good questions. What made it even weirder is that religion classes are required. And if I remember correctly I had one right after the other that semester. So for one hour I was being told that the world was billions of years old and mankind evolved from earlier hominids. Then the next hour I would be told that the world was a few thousand years old and we are all decended from Adam and Eve. It gave me a headache. This was also part of the reason I left BYU and went to a State University.
BYU is a widely regarded school with high quality programs. Within those programs they seem to try to teach to established academic standards. This includes the theory of evolution. As long as it is the prevailing theroy of the differentiation of species, any biology class at BYU will treat it as fact. In fact my understanding is that if I had been taking any other class within the appropriate departments, we wouldn’t have even been given the statement we were. The only reason the profesor felt he needed such a disclamer was because it was a general education class for non-majors. So the professor’s actions seem to be in accordance with school policy. Given the rather wooden way he put his disclaimer, I was under the impression that he was being asked to state this specifically.
Some more information about the incidents to which you referred:
Before Dembski becomes a martyr (William Dembski is the former director of the Polanyi center).
Baylor Releases Polanyi Center Committee Report
Dembski Relieved Of Duties As Polanyi Center Director
Chance and devination: Dembski gambled and lost
[aside]
jharding, are you at Ky Wesleyan?
[/aside]
I know … I was extrapolating. 
My point was that we (as Christians) have gone from producing the most brilliant scientific minds to producing a bunch of fuzzy thinkers.
I compare this the Arts: we have gone from producing the Sistine Chapel to Left Behind: The Movie. Oooh, ahhh. :rolleyes:
Uhh … probably not.
Personally, I don’t see a problem. As a Christian, if I were to be a scientist, I would see my duty to be the best scientist I could possibly be and to seek the truth no matter what it is.
If I have faith in God, why should I fear what science has to say? Why should I always be trying to prove the Genesis Creation account (which I feel is highly symbolic anyway) in any way possible?
If I really believe, and am comfortable in my faith, then I should be content to see where the evidence leads without being threatened by it.
Because no matter what “Creation Scientists” say, as soon as you start to formulate a theory based on the Bible, you will wuickly be going beyond the Bible. At this point the theory should then be removed from the protective folds of theology and tested in accordance with scientific methods.
[aside the aside]
Oooh, nice guess andros. Right state but I’m in the far southeastern corner of Kentucky–town of Barbourville at Union College. Why do you ask?
[/aside the aside]
[still aside]
I grew up in the UMC, and know some people who went to Wesleyan. I don’t think I even knew that Union was Methodist. (And I knew you were in KY from your profile.)