Introducing God's Harvard: Patrick Henry College

College Search & Lists
41

<p>I’m sure PHC can recruit some good students and many will earn spots in good grad schools and internships. I’d worry about the potentially homogenious nature of the faculty and student body. Without a mix of Christian, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist, etc. viewpoints (not to mention ultra-permissive liberals and rabid conservatives) it seems like both classroom discussion and late-night dorm bull sessions could be kind of boring.</p>

<p>I don’t know if the school applies a litmus test to the beliefs of applicants, but even if they don’t I expect that a self-selection process occurs.</p>

<p>College should be a mind-expanding experience and a time to question all the stuff force-fed in the previous 18 years, and I’d fear that many students at a school like this might end up postponing that opportunity or missing it entirely. Students raised as atheists should encounter fellow students with strong religious beliefs, and vice versa. Members of one religion should be thrust together with those of other faiths. All will emerge the better for it.</p>

<p>I went to a Catholic high school. It was a great school and provided an excellent college prep education, but I didn’t have any Jewish (or “official” atheist) friends until I went away to college. I’m glad I had that opportunity in college - the friends you make after college are never quite the same, perhaps because you aren’t living, studying, and hanging out together.</p>

<p>I’d note that many colleges with religious affiliation still strive to let a variety of viewpoints be heard on campus, even when those viewpoints may conflict with doctrine. Notre Dame, for example, has an small but active gay/lesbian community. Also at ND, a campus group is staging The Vagina Monologues this spring. There are occasionally conflicts about “official sponsorship” of activities that conflict with Catholic doctrine, but in general these things seem to get worked out. I wonder if PHC allows such diverse viewpoints to be heard in any manner at all?</p>

42

<p>This school is obviously producing results so i don’t see anything wrong with someone who holds such beliefs attending this university over one better ranked on US News.</p>

43

<p>It’s funny how much they brag about their debate. Their debate team (not moot court) is in a league that doesn’t compete against top schools – they don’t hit the best colleges for debate in competition. Schools like HYP, NYU, Emory, etc. compete in different divisions…so it’s no wonder that PHC can claim all sorts of championships, because they don’t compete against the best teams. Also, moot court is a small sort of niche debate at most (not all) colleges.</p>

44

<p>

Agreed, except for one thing – Patrick Henry College doesn’t have a US News ranking, because it doesn’t meet their minimum standard for consideration.</p>

<p>US News – like many graduate schools, state professional boards, and employers – only recognizes colleges or universities with regional accreditation. This is the normal standard for colleges and universities in the US, including all of the schools listed in the big alphabetic index here at collegeconfidential.</p>

<p>PHC has national accreditation, which is normally associated with less prominent institutions like bible schools, truck driving schools, beauty schools, computer training institutes, correspondence schools, etc. Since PHC doesn’t have regional accreditation, it is completely off the radar as far as US News is concerned.</p>

45

<p>I should emphasize that nationally accredited schools are perfectly legitimate institutions, and are excellent choices for many people. </p>

<p>However, anyone pursuing a nationally accredited degree should be aware that such a degree may not be considered equivalent to a regionally accredited degree in all situations. The US News ranking is an example of the limitations of nationally accredited degrees: fairly or not, US News only regards regionally accredited schools as worthy of consideration. </p>

<p>Obviously US News has to draw a line somewhere. PHC doesn’t make their cut.</p>

46

<p>

</p>

<p>See, but this is essentially happening on the other side in “top-tier” institutions, and high schools everywhere. Let’s take the example of teaching about evolution. Government funded teachers are required by law to not present Creationism as an alternative to Evolutionism, in the interest of separation of church and state. Since there is no other viable alternative, evolution is taught uncontested; in many cases students who raise questions - not about Creationism, but about facets of the Theory of Evolution - are scorned and ridiculed by their teachers. Hardly an open-minded, intellectually stimulating environment.</p>

<p>On the Wikipedia page about PHC, an article is cited complaining that macroevolution is presented in a critical light in the classroom. But isn’t that how science is supposed to be approached and conducted: from a critical standpoint? I read the [actual</a> article,](<a href=“http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19225776.100]actual”>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19225776.100) which goes on to insinuate that homeschoolers are unfamiliar with the scientific method. Hmm…</p>

<p>There are essentially two schools of thought on the subject of the origin of species, both of which satisfy observed phenomena according to their proponents: Creationism, and Evolutionism. Fundamentally, both arise not from science but from religious beliefs. (I say “religious beliefs” in a broad context, including atheism. Maybe “worldviews” is better word choice). One is based on the belief that God created life according to the Genesis creation account, the other on the belief that there is no God (or that no higher power was responsible for creation).</p>

<p>If you don’t buy that belief in evolution is based on worldview, just look at the controversy the debate has caused. As far as I know, the validity of macroevolution has no practical benefits. However, it does provide a logical explanation for the diversity of life surrounding us, which would otherwise seem to be irrefutable evidence for the existence of a Creator. Now, if evolution were shown to be false, atheists would have a lot of explaining to do. Since most attempts at an alternative to evolution without invoking a higher power are incredibly far-fetched, many people who want for God not to exist (often for accountability reasons) have a vested interest in defending evolution/lambasting Creationism.</p>

<p>So, if a college (and a private one at that) is promoting Creationism, in contrast to the large majority of institutions which don’t even acknowledge it, they are merely espousing science based on belief just like everywhere else.</p>

47

<p>GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!</p>

<p>Creationism is philosophy. And is taught in that setting.</p>

<p>Evolution is science. And is taught in that setting.</p>

<p>To teach one in the other setting is stupid. Dumb. Ignorant. Clueless. And so many more.</p>

<p>To teach creationism as ‘science’ completely flies in the face of the definition of science. Science must be able to be proven through observation. Gimme a test for god, and maybe I’ll start believing that creationism is science. It is philosophy, just like other solutions to ‘unanswerable’ questions.</p>

48

<p>TurboH, you MUST be kidding. Professors at top tier institutions are not “required”, or even expected, to adhere to any set of beliefs. In fact, diversity of thought, provided it is not racist or represive, is encoured. </p>

<p>Furthermore, students at top tier universities are encouraged to question. That the WHOLE point of an undergraduate education. Without questioning, there can be no learning. We aren’t talking abvout 10-15 year olds, learning the basics. College is about adults developing their thoughts based on an already sound academic foundation presumably acquired in High School. </p>

<p>Case in point, as an undergrad, I took a course in Labor Economics. As part of the course, we touched on the subject of Affirmative Action. The professor teaching that course was one of the founding fathers of Affirmative Action back in the 1960s and is a very strong supporter of it until this day. For my research paper for the course, I chose to write on the negatives of Affirmative Action and why I thought its uses had faded and slipped into obsolescence. The professor loved my paper and gave me an A. I was not surprised with the grade I got mind you. Nor was I affraid of how he would react to my topic of choice or my point of view, even though it went against everything that man believed and fought hard to create and preserve over most of his professional life. That is the entire point of an undergraduate education. Take that away from the equation, and you might as well stay at home and learn from assigned books.</p>

49

<p>Problem is, DSC, there isn’t much good science behind theories of evolution. Yet many professors teach it like it’s more than theory. They teach it as fact. But to-date there isn’t even adequate fossil record than anything or anyone as evolved. I agree with you creationism isn’t a science. Yes it’s a philosophy. But it is a scientific theory that the earth and it’s inhabitants were somehow “created” or “formed” more suddenly and more recently than some evolutionists would like to believe. So I think this arguement goes both ways. As for PHC, I know students there and also professors. Whatever you say about it, you can’t say they’re graduating dumb kids. The kids there are smart and could probably argue their case better than most kids who visit these boards.</p>

50

<p>That’s entirely completely hogwash. Evolution is one of the most tested theories in scientific history.</p>

<p>You don’t even understand the meaning of the word “theory.”</p>

<p>Evolution is a fact. Living things evolve and change over time. That is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The “theory of evolution” is the theoretical scientific explanation for why and how living things evolve, and it has been shaped over more than a century of scientific research.</p>

<p>The theory of evolution is one of the most “complete” scientific theories ever proposed, because it manages to unify so much that we already know, and fits with everything we keep discovering - the fossil record, genetic transmission of data, DNA mutations, adaptations, speciation, observed small-scale evolution, etc.</p>

<p>There is no “scientific theory” that the Earth and its inhabitants were “formed” 6,000 years ago. There’s not a single shred of scientific evidence to support that. Everything we know contradicts it, in fact. The Earth is not 6,000 years old, it’s billions of years old. You want to learn what your religion believes, fine, but don’t expect to be taught it in a science classroom.</p>

51

<p>I doubt you know as much as you think you know. In fact, neither of us really know THAT much about it. We choose sides and then have faith in the ones we choose to listen to. Neither option (evoltion vs. creationism) will ever be proven to be a fact. So until then we both have our theories. Only problem I have is that your theory is taught as a fact and mine is taught as a myth.</p>

<p>But let me ask you, what fossil record do you speak of? What was the skunk before he was a skunk, on the to becoming a skunk? Where are all the fossils of these evolving creatures? Even Dawkins admits it’s true, the fossil record appeared quite suddenly from the Early Cambrian. </p>

<p>Have you read S.J. Gould? He died a few years ago but taught at Harvard for most of his career. Gould:</p>

<p>“We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence. I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. …we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it.” </p>

<p>But anyway, if a student chooses to attend a school like PHC, why are you so angry about it. We all have a right to get the kind of education we want to get. For heaven’s sake, if you want to be a Catholic Priest, you’re not going to attend a Muslim Academy. If you’re a Jew, you don’t go to Mass.</p>

52

<p>Yeah, seriously. A theory is a scientific concept that has been repeatedly corroborated and affirmed. Creationism is NOT a real scientific theory (it may be a theological one, but those are two completely different definitions of the word), as its only basis is holes in the theory of evolution. Haven’t you ever heard the phrase “the absence of evidence is not proof?” Just because there are a few (albeit very small) holes in evolution definitely does not prove creationism. </p>

<p>The reason there are holes in the theory of evolution is this: fossilization is actually a relatively rare occurrence. It can only happen in certain kinds of climates with certain types of soil. So of the creatures that die, only some will have fossilized skeletons. Then comes the problem of finding them. We can only dig up so much of the Earth in search of the missing link. The fact that we haven’t found it yet doesn’t mean that evolution is somehow invalid – all it means is that paleontology is really tough. </p>

<p>Give me some actual scientific proof for creationism that is 1. not based on problems with the theory of evolution and 2. backed up and corroborated by real scientists with real degrees, and maybe I’ll listen.</p>

53

<p>Am I the only one to ask the question: was that guy with 2400 SAT actually ADMITTED to HYPs or just started getting mail from them, like everyone here does? The word “courting” suggests the latter. Maybe the guy never got into an Ivy League school and did’n’ have the chance to “turn them down”. Otherwise each of us can tell that he turned down several Ivies
(well, except those who applied to all eight)</p>

54

<p>And those of us who believe in evolution wouldn’t be so annoyed about creationism if its supporters weren’t trying so hard to have it taught as “science” in public schools. It’s not science. </p>

<p>Good theories should pass Occam’s razor test…
The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.</p>

<p>Creationism is basically one big assumption, with no concrete scientific proof to back it up. Evolution does actually have scientific backing, and can be used to predict future occurrences (a principle tenet of a scientific “theory”) unlike Creationism. It may not be perfect (yet) but it’s certainly a better alternative to the Bible.</p>

55

<p>collegeboard.com only gives the CC, I can’t find the real one!</p>

<p>The article clearly stated that it’s a new school.</p>

56

<p>“Have you read S.J. Gould?”</p>

<p>I was his student. And he’d sit up in his grave and order you into a college geology or biology class if he knew that you thought his remarks provide some kind of support for creationism.</p>

<p>It’s a great mystery – one of the most puzzling in all of science – why the force of gravity is so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other physical forces. But physicists who discuss this immense hole in our current understanding of gravity are not calling the theory of gravitation into question.</p>

57

<p>It’s not that new–it’s been around since 2000.</p>

58

<p>

</p>

<p>Whether or not professors are expected to adhere to a particular set of beliefs, they are sure as heck expected not to teach Creationism. So, of course, most professors are die hard Evolutionists. I’d challenge you to find more than a small handful of professors who have the intellectual honesty to mention some of the shortcomings of the Theory of Evolution.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Now, on the subject of intellectual dishonesty, I’ll be the first to admit that many Creationists abuse the word “theory.” “Evolution is only a theory, not a fact,” they crow. Of course, in the scientific sense, a theory is a unification of observed “facts,” so this argument is completely invalid.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course living things evolve and change over time; it’s called microevolution and has been observed in everything from Darwin’s finches to peppered moths. No reasoning person disputes the occurrence of microevolution. In fact, it’s how Creationists explain the feasibility of Noah’s Ark: there were only a relatively small number of animal “kinds” on the boat, but these kinds eventually evolved into the species we know today.</p>

<p>However, macroevolution is a different story.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Proven through observation? Sure, but by this test macroevolution falls flat on its face. We don’t observe macroevolution. Now, this is nicely explained by the Theory of Evolution: of course, since it took us billions of years to get here, we shouldn’t expect to have observed macroevolution in the time since Darwin - a mere blink of an eye in the eons of our gradual formation. All well and good, but it’s no more “science” than Creationism.</p>

<p>Back to intellectual dishonesty - Evolutionists are quick to bundle microevolution and macroevolution into the all-encompassing term “evolution.” Now, this is very convenient. Imagine an ill-informed Creationist who says, “You know, we haven’t actually seen evolution (thinking that ‘evolution’ is synonymous with ‘macroevolution’).” A suave Evolutionist will promptly point out countless scientifically observed examples of microevolution, leaving the bumbling Creationist confused and at a loss for words. Granted, it’s a clever ploy.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not going to get into this issue of “real scientists with real degrees.” I mean, no scientific journal would consider publishing creationist research, even for reasons of reputation alone. And if I show you research that’s not published in a scientific journal, you’ll say, “But it’s not published in a scientific journal!” This Catch-22 has plagued Creationists in academia for years.</p>

59

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, with the fossil record(as limited as it is) along with the various forms of dating(carbon, uranium, others), and other such materials (insects in amber) offer some hope of proofs. We are limited by the small window we are about to glimpse through, but we can find many things that suggest the accuracy of evolution, and the differences have resulted in the refinement in the theory.</p>

<p>Evolution is fact. It is also theory. That is because we cannot prove a universal negative. So science can only provide us with theories. It does not change the absoluteness of the answer provided. Does gravity exist? No one knows, it’s only a theory. But if it does not exist - it is because there is another force of exactly equal properties. Evolution may or may not exist - but a force of exactly equal properties does.</p>

<p>And how big of a time swath do you need for your proof of macroevolution? Homo habilus to homo erectus to homo sapiens is pretty filled in(and yes I did skip some) and that takes us back 2 million years.</p>

<p>We can trace crocodylidae and various transitions within it back through a couple hundred million years.</p>

<p>So yes, macroevolution can be proven through observation. Not to the same level as microevolution, but there are extensive observations to be made. But considering belief in ‘recent earth’(like the Noah’s ark animal split you refer to) requires the denial of mounds of evidence and scientific methods, and no such denial of evidence is held in reverse(as there is none to be had), I think the understanding should be clear.</p>

60

<p>How can you same evolution is a fact and evolution is a theory in the same breath? I think for some people, they just get a little harried that evolutionists teach as though their theories have been proven and are indeed facts. But scientists aren’t quite “there” yet. Until we can prove it, well then it’s still a theory and should be presented as such. That seems fair to me. This reminds me a little of the global warming debate. Nobody has proven anything (yet) but both sides of the issue act like they have.</p>