News: Christian College Denied Accreditation

Yet their graduates seldom if ever have difficulty getting into accredited post-graduate schools and usually excel.

Just another attempt by you to to leave an unfair impression based on your bias and prejudices.

 

Scott,

I'd be really interested to see statistics on this - particularly in the field of religion where I would expect their preformance at academically rigorous, nationally-accredited schools to be particularly poor.

Of course I have biases against BJU. I can't understand how anyone, anywhere takes their rabid hyper-fundamentalism seriously.

Joshua

 

How very Goebbels of you! The prevailing "scientific theory" in Nazi Germany was that the Jews were a mud race. The German youth were definitely taught to "think in certain ways" that devalued human life. Evolution demotes man to a highly developed animal. It devalues human life.

"Prevaling" does not equal "true." The best education is one that teaches people to think and critically evaluate what they are told, not to simply accept what they are told. Like it or not, when a kid is told that evolution is a theory but it is the only scientific theory, it is nothing less than teaching it as fact.

Logically? Evolution fails on the same 'logical' criterion that creation does. The fundamental premise of creation is that an unseen, immeasurable creator made all things according to his power. Evolution assumes that an unseen, immeasurable force created all things according to chance. The key difference in logical terms is that there is no reason to believe that chance will ever produce the kind of order observed in creation. There is every reason to believe that a supremely intelligent designer would create things with a great degree of order.

Two problems to this statement:
1- Evolutionary science is not critical to any branch of applied science. Not even geology. The assumptions of why things are does not change how things are expected to occur. In fact, evolution does a very poor job of predicting geology. The "anomalies" out number the rule.

2- Evolution often ignores the scientific method by making assumptions that are either unprovable or unproven the premise for statements of fact, such as chemical dating.

 

The prevailing "scientific theory" in Nazi Germany was that the Jews were a mud race.
Exept for one thing. This view was not taught as a theory. It was part of an indoctrination program to control the people. Evolution is taught as a theory, not a fact.

That's a good example of what happens when an administrative body tells the sceince department what to teach, just like the college in this case telling the science department it may only teach creation.

Evolution demotes man to a highly developed animal. It devalues human life.
Whether or not it demotes or promotes anything is irrelevant to the fact that it should be taught in science becais it it the prevailing accepted theory, and is supported by evidence (whether or not we like the evidence is irrelevant).

"Prevaling" does not equal "true." Nor does nonprevailing equal true. Science is not about teaching biblical truth. History is not about biblical truth. Math is not about biblical truth. Phys Ed is not about biblical truch. Science should be about science.

Now, if they want to intrduce creation and evidence for or against it, fine, so long as they teach creation as a theory not a fact. But to not teach evolution because some stuffed shirts on the board don't like it is ludicrous.

 

According to what has been presented here, this college does teach evolution. It simply teaches it as a false option.

On the other hand, a teacher was recently commanded not to teach evolution critically. He didn't introduce creation. He simply said "this is what evolutionists say" and this is the possible faults in their logic.

I think you greatly underestimate how much of a dogma evolution is.

Except that evolution is ultimately dependent on philosophical, not scientific, assumptions. It is supported by interpretations of the evidence, just like the intelligent design and scientific creationism arguments are.

I agree. It should be about true science. In cases where concrete truth is not known then all reasonable arguments should have a hearing unless or until one is proven to be fact by the evidence. It is not the creationists that would disallow this approach.

... or stuffed shirts that believe in evolution to the point of dismissing everything else.

You made several points about "prevailing" opinion. To follow this up, the prevailing opinion of Americans according to secular polls is that some form of creationism is true and that evolution should not be the only origins idea taught in schools.

Can you cite a poll of "scientists" that gives evolution a predominance without limiting it strictly to certain sub-categories? I doubt that you can. I would submit to the fact that among scientists working in fields directly relating to evolution, evolution is the prevailing opinion. But open that up to doctors, chemists, engineers, and others working in science... the results will be different.

Evolutionists in academia are no less captives of their professions than Catholic monks are. The costs of critically looking at what they believe is just too great.

[ September 16, 2002, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I think you greatly underestimate how much of a dogma evolution is.
What's underestimated is how much the zealous religious community tries to negatively influence the field of science, as happenned with Columbus, Galileo, and Kepler.

...evolution is ultimately dependent on philosophical, not scientific, assumptions. Science should be about science.
I disagree. Theories of evolution is ultimately dependent on logical conclusions based on gathered evidence. As additional evidence is gathered, the conclusion changes. That is why the evolutionary models have changed dramatically since Darwin's first formulation of the idea. The scientific community is not afraid of updating their models based on new evidence. The religious community, however, is.

...It should be about true science. In cases where concrete truth is not known then all reasonable arguments should have a hearing unless or until one is proven to be fact by the evidence. Science is not about "equal time" when it comes to theories. Nor should it be. Can you imagine having to give time to geocentrism or flat earth theorists just because we should give them equal time?

Also, since the creation of the earth is in the past, and no one was around to witness it, a specific origin will never be known as a fact, only theories. If a theory can be tested and remains unchanged, the theory becomes accepted as a scientific law (ie, laws of physics).

It is not the creationists that would disallow this approach.
I disagree. The scientific community will accept changes to theories that are based on evidence (as exemplified that the fact that evolutionary models have changed dramatically over the last 100 years), and even discard theories that no longer fit the evidence. The creationist community will never discard their theory based on conviction.

...stuffed shirts that believe in evolution to the point of dismissing everything else.As I said, the scientific community readily accepts changes based on evidence.

You made several points about "prevailing" opinion. To follow this up, the prevailing opinion of Americans according to secular polls is that some form of creationism is true and that evolution should not be the only origins idea taught in schools. The "prevailing" opinion I referred to was the opinion of the scientific comminuty, not the results of gallup polls.

 

wow - this thread made it to the second page before people started calling each other nazis - great debating technique there

and where did I say otherwise?

I totally agree that education should give people a grounding in critical thought and show them how to apply logical constructs to the opinions of others.

but you, once again, fail to understand what science actually means - science is the process which tries to find natural explainations for the behaviour that we see around us - supernatural explainations are never, ever going to be scientific explainations.

 

I don't want to argue the points being discussed here. However, let me tell you about the Natural Science course that is taught here at Southeastern College at Wake Forest. It is natural science taught from a biblical perspective. We spend an entire semester covering evolution. At the same time the professor provides sound information that punches so many holes in the theory that by the time we are finished there is no thing left of the theory. Likewise, we are accredited by SACS. The problem that a Christian School faces is not what it teaches about evolution, it is how it teaches about evolution. If the school ignores it they have not done their job nor have they prepared their students to deal with it.

 

Evolution is a rank absurdity from any point of view - biblical or scientific. What should any school be required to even mention it?

Mark Osgatharp

 

Hello Mark,

A Christian school should never fear teaching about the theory of evolution. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that it does not exist. We must prepare our students to meet it head on and defeat it using the "Science" to which its supporters cling. We cannot simply quote the Bible to them (those that follow evolution) and think that we will win them over. Generally, they reject the Bible outright.

For example, there is a Noble Prize winning Harvard (I believe) Biologist that said something to the effect, "Pasteur and others during the last century proved beyond a shadow of doubt that evolution is impossible. However, because I choose not to believe that God exists, I must continue to hold to the theory [I am paraphrasing here]." Now that my friend is faith. It is misplaced, but it is faith nonetheless.

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with teaching our kids that some scientists believe in evolution and they use it to explain our world. However, we must not fail to teach them its failures and teach them to approach science with their biblical lenses in place. Creation Science can meet evolution head on, in its own backyard, and wipe it out. I say bring them (the evolutionist) on.

[ September 17, 2002, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Many faithful Christians happen to feel the same way about a six day creation. That has no bearing on scientific acceptance.

 

Some Mid-West state , Kansas, I think(!) was going to implement teaching Creation (Not God, just a higher power than us) along side evolution! Seems that the evolutionists got their panties in a wad over this and effectively killed the option of letting the students hear both sides.

And no, I can't verify now because this story was some time ago, and I did not keep records!

Accept or reject as you please, I'm not going to waste my time digging for PROOF for those that do not wish to accept!!!

 

Sorry if it came across that I was calling you a Nazi. That was not my intent. The point I wanted to make is that it was his job to "teach people a way to think." Propaganda- to a terrible outcome.

No. I am quite aware of what science actually means. One thing genuine science will never do is arbitrarily discount things that cannot be directly observed or measured. When dealing with things that occurred before written history, no logical explaination of the natural record that is consistent with observed science can be discarded... regardless of the presumptions regarding God.

Your definition of science is based on an over-riding and clearly unscientific philosophical basis: "that everything that is must have a strictly naturalistic explaination, independent from any unobserved force." This assumption is neither provable nor unprovable therefore it is not scientific.

BTW, much of creation science and ID does precisely what you suggest. It explains the observable by evidence from the past... it simply does not discount God in the process. In fact, it recognizes one scientific fact that evolution stumbles over... that complex, organized systems do not arise out of disorder by chance. Evolution is a faith based system.

At this point, I could be satisfied if evolution were just taught critically as a rule. Similar to what another poster said was done at (Wake Forest?). Today it is not. It is taught not only as a theory... but the only scientific theory. An unnecessary distinction is drawn between what is true in religion and what is true in science.

 

...complex, organized systems do not arise out of disorder by chance.

That's applicable to inertia, but it's not applicable to biology. It's apples and oranges.

Evolution does not say things evolved by chance. It only says things evolved. Typically, evolution seems to have happenned when acted upon by an outside force or event (ie, change in the environment, etc).

 

This is an assumption, not a proven fact. Can you cite an example where a living organism was observed to have increased its genetic complexity in a permanent, beneficial way thus creating a new species?

So evolution says that things evolved by design? That is not what my kids' science books say.

Actually your two sentences are contradictory unless you are suggesting that the outside "force or event" was scripted in an intelligent way. But you have already rejected the supernatural as a reason for anything to occur in the natural realm.

However, if you do choose to introduce a Creator (theistic evolution) then you can no longer claim evolution as a purely materialistic theory. You can no longer object to creationism based on its connection to religion.

 

[evolution is] not a proven fact. Can you cite an example where a living organism was observed to have increased its genetic complexity in a permanent, beneficial way thus creating a new species? First of all, when you say 'beneficial', that's a subjective term. Beneficial is in the eye of the beholder. Microevolution is already a fact that's been observed. There have been new species of plants that have been developed. It's a matter of time before we see the same thing happen in animals, since reproduction for both is similar. We've done enough genetic engineering to produce quite a few positive results: New species of horticulture and produce. New strains of vaccines. We've seen it happen in nature as well: New subspecies of fish that develop as a result of a change in a river's environment, etc.

So evolution says that things evolved by design? No, I said nothing about design. I said that the theory indicates that biological life forms can evolve when acted upon by an outside force or event. If one wants to think that the outside forces are part of God's design, I see nothing wrong with that.

Actually your two sentences are contradictory unless you are suggesting that the outside "force or event" was scripted in an intelligent way. Well, we're affected by outside forces all the time. Changes in climate, weather, volcanic activity. Again, if one wants to think these events are part of God's design, I see nothing wrong with that.

But you have already rejected the supernatural as a reason for anything to occur in the natural realm. On the contrary. It is you who has said that it is not possible for God to create man via evolution.

However, if you do choose to introduce a Creator (theistic evolution) then you can no longer claim evolution as a purely materialistic theory. You can no longer object to creationism based on its connection to religion. Not at all. My personal view is that God created all life and used evolution as His tool. The millions of years it would take are but a blink of an eye for Him. I don't really care how I was created, so long as God created me. Just as it doesn't matter whether I was concieved in a hotel room or back seat of a car, or in a bedroom, I was still concieved.

[ September 17, 2002, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Agreed.

Through the reinforcement of existing genetic traits and the permanent loss of others... not by the addition of genetic information. The resulting "species" is actually less complex than the original species.

If I am not mistaken, microevolution has been observed in animals... macroevolution has not been observed anywhere.

Notably this genetic engineering requires intelligence. It does not occur within the natural realm.

So what other options are available beyond design and chance?

Yet if someone says that an omnipotent God created everything in 6 days you declare it to be unscientific. Why? Because atheistic evolutionists cannot accept such a prospect?

No. I said that it should be looked at critically and compared to other ideas. I have looked at the arguments enough to conclude that has serious weaknesses without regard to any other explaination.

So why would you object to allowing the case for creationism or at least the case against evolution being part of the standard science curriculum? After all, we have already agreed that learning to think critically is a vital aspect to education.

I have no problem with teenagers being shown the two models and being allowed to choose for themselves which one seems more reasonable. I don't even have a problem with teenagers being taught evolution from a critical stand point that acknowledges its weaknesses. What I do have a problem with is when the 4th grade text books teach it as the ONLY scientific explaination- indirectly implying that the biblical account is superstition without ever analyzing either idea.

 

Notably this genetic engineering requires intelligence. It does not occur within the natural realm.

Except for the nectarine. Don't forget the nectarine!! The best conclusion might be that we don't know for sure if it happens, but there's fossil evidence to support the idea.

So why would you object to allowing the case for creationism or at least the case against evolution being part of the standard science curriculum? After all, we have already agreed that learning to think critically is a vital aspect to education.... I don't even have a problem with teenagers being taught evolution from a critical stand point that acknowledges its weaknesses.

I personally have no problem with a school teaching what there is in regards to creationism. I simply don't think a school should be forced to, if it is not scientific accepted popularly. I've taken biology twice, in high school, and college. Both times, in discussing evolution, the weaknesses were discussed as well. In college, creation was discussed, and I've done a bit of research on my own as well, and the evidence supporting a one time creation is pretty weak in my opinion.

Again, I'd like it to teaching geocentrism. Should we teach it just because it's a theory? There is some evidence, weak though it is, to support it. The majority of evidence tends to support non-geocentrism.

As for evidence for a six day creation, none of the evidence that points to a one time creation makes a distinction of six days, one day, or one year. It just suggests a one-time creation.

Whew!!! Looks like this thread has gotten way off the topic of the school's right to accreditation, and turne into a creationism/evolution debate. It's probably a good idea to move this thread to that forum.

[ September 17, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]