<p>I haven’t noticed a thing. I don’t treat him any differently. If he thinks I’m a heathen, he hasn’t said so, so good for him.</p>
<p>lol…</p>
<p>He may think we’re all heathens…Jews, Catholics…anything that doesn’t involve reciting the “one and done,” Sinner’s Prayer.</p>
<p>oh the shock will come later when they see all these people of other faiths up in heaven as well.</p>
<p>barrons, appreciate your example…but still. What’s most concerning is the ongoing and close connection between the religious doctrine espoused by the Falwells/Liberty/evangelical extreme and the hate-filled right-wing agenda being promoted in this country right now. Romney’s appearance as commencement speaker, along with the inherent inconsistencies in Liberty’s “platform,” just goes to show that the university is ALL about politics. (Reread the quote I posted from Falwell Sr. a few pages back if you have any doubt.) Maybe this is OK with you–it isn’t with me. And the fact that 40 percent of Americans believe in creationism is anything but reassuring. It just tells me that our education system is failing, and wedge-issue politics is working.</p>
<p>If I may go back to the OP’s question, this is exactly why you should choose U of Alabama over Liberty–if for no other reason than to avoid this kind of reaction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’d be surprised at the multitude of views I come across at work (mostly from kids). I prefer to stay involved and have a chance to have an influence rather than disassociating from people. My goal is the same tolerance I’m trying to “preach” here. Everyone is free to have their own beliefs, but one should also allow others that same freedom.</p>
<p>We’re a varied world and we’re never going to all believe the same thing. We can choose to go to our own corner and associate with our own types talking about everyone else and how “stupid” they are to have the beliefs they do (while they do the same about us) or we can stay involved, accept that they are entitled to their beliefs and enjoy some interesting conversations about pretty much anything out there. The first leads to more polarization. The last leads to an enjoyable life where we can all get along even if we don’t all agree.</p>
<p>I’m fully aware that those who choose to go to conservative and liberal colleges are fitting into their own corners. It’s why I eliminated both from options for my kids (they weren’t disappointed - we’re more in the middle anyway). But kids (and many parents) choose to go to those places and enjoy their time there. That’s their right. If I want the right to choose for me and my house, they have the right to choose for themselves.</p>
<p>So, we now have conservative U grad and liberal U grad - do we continue the corners or do we start trying to live together?</p>
<p>I’m human enough to know I’d love it if the whole world would agree with my beliefs (which are the right ones BTW 
), but I’m experienced enough to know it’s never going to happen. I don’t want wars and polarization - hence - I prefer inclusion to exclusion. With inclusions and discussions one might change something. With exclusion, it’ll seldom happen. Besides, if I want the right to my views, I need to allow others the right to theirs. If I’d rather not be discriminated against for what I believe, I darn well better not be discriminating against others for what they believe. Two wrongs don’t make a right.</p>
<p>I know (and can name, but won’t, of course) racists, homophobes, staunch conservatives, staunch liberals, staunch libertarians, creationists (both young and old earth), evolutionists (religious and not), vegans, carnivores, environmentalists, global warming scoffers, atheists, and members or believers of pretty much any religion out there. Every person I’m thinking of as I compiled this list I’d consider a friend and feel they’d do the same for me. I like it that way. I disagree with the some views from pretty much anyone (and they do the same with me - most of us joke about our disagreements when they come up), but that’s life. Live and let live.</p>
<p>FTR, most kids at school don’t necessarily know which way I, personally, believe on some of those issues. As I said before, I tend to try to want them to see both sides of an issue when it’s controversial. MY bottom line is ALWAYS - believe what you want, but allow others the freedom to do the same. (This is important when things like voting on gay rights comes up - which it hasn’t yet here, but one never knows.)</p>
<p>(With things like racism they know where I stand. I won’t allow it in my classroom. I may not be able to change beliefs, but I can work on people skills - important life lessons.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROFL. There’s nothing “controversial” about evolution any more than there is about gravity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, Barrons, scientific fact isn’t determined by “what a lot of people think.” Who cares that 40% believe in creationism? 40% might believe that NYC is the capital of NY State and that Alexander Hamilton was our third president. Doesn’t mean it’s correct.</p>
<p>*
40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism*</p>
<p>But how is Creationism being defined when that question is asked? If it is including those of us who believe that the universe is billions of years old, but is the result of Intelligent Design, then that number isn’t telling you what you think it is. </p>
<p>Many Americans believe that God (however one define’s God), was the Uncaused Cause…the Creator. </p>
<p>However, many of us do NOT believe that the universe is only several thousand years old (which means that we do NOT believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth within that time - so we don’t believe that dinosaurs and man roamed the earth at the same time…). </p>
<p>That said, even if 40% of Americans believe that the earth is only several thousand years old, that only indicts the quality of science education is in this country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When science encounters firmly held belief, the belief often wins - even when the science is unassailable and the education about it very strong.</p>
<p>
Belief, as such, doesn’t really have any relevance unless it is manifested in one’s life in some way. There are ideas/beliefs/traditions/practices which are wrong in no uncertain terms, and it isn’t wrong to speak out against them or to point out the errors in believing/practicing such things. Tolerating them is the coward’s way out.</p>
<p>There isn’t scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design, any more than there is to support Young Earth Creationism. Both are religious beliefs, neither is supported by any kind of physical data. </p>
<p>Does that mean that they’re “wrong”? No, I can’t say that. I don’t happen to believe either one, but I could be wrong. There are certainly many brilliant scientists who believe that there’s a higher power that played a role in creating the universe. But they believe that based on their religion, not their science. </p>
<p>What LU is doing, which is teaching the lie that there is scientific evidence for Creationism, and thus calling into question all of scientific inquiry, and the tools and methods used by modern scientists, is wrong. Science needs to be taught in science classroom and religion needs to be taught in homes, or churches, or synagogues, or bible study. A religious college that teaches hard science in their science classrooms, and has religion classes where they discuss or even teach religious beliefs? I’m fine with that. But classes on Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism don’t belong in the biology department.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design</p>
<p>Logic supports the belief in Intelligent Design or the belief in the Uncaused Cause. Something Uncaused, had to cause the start of creation. There was a point when matter was created. What caused that? The Uncaused Cause. </p>
<p>“In the world of sensible things, we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.” (Summa Theologica Question 2; Article 3)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there’s a difference. There is substantial scientific evidence against young earth creationism. There is a lack of evidence for intelligent design. I think the fact that many scientists do believe in “a higher power that played a role in creating the universe” (albeit not scientifically verifiable) whereas none believe the Biblical creation story is telling.</p>
<p>Let’s go back to the issue facing the OP (who seems to have fled the scene days ago, but just in case…).</p>
<p>He/she says: “There are two sides to the Alabama coin. The bummer is that the available online major is “interdisciplinary studies” which seems like it would scare employers off, but I have also heard that any degree from Liberty could do the same…Obviously, neither one of them would be ideal, but I guess it comes down to which one raises less of red flag.”</p>
<p>Notice how no one here has questioned the validity of a degree from Alabama. Yes, “interdisciplinary studies” sounds sort of new-agey, but a lot of universities offer similar programs these days, and as long as you explain on your resume what disciplines you have been studying (and why), you should be in good shape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know if i’d say “logic” supports intelligent design. An argument of that sort would involve a premise claiming that everything has a cause (which is plausible, but at least not obviously true, and certainly questionable.)</p>
<p>The problem with ID is it isn’t just about beliefs. It claims something to be the case. It claims something to be true. People who believe in ID, at least genuinely, don’t simply believe that it’s something they hold. They believe that it’s something which is true of the history of the world and the universe. A belief which is clearly disputed by modern science.</p>
<p>[Abiogenesis</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis]Abiogenesis”>Abiogenesis - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>A university is supposed to be a place of learning. And science, as a field, is prized in establishing a trustworthy body of knowledge based on extensive evidence. It’s simply irresponsible for a university to try to teach it’s undergraduates that something is the case, which is widely disputed by the majority of the relevant authorities in the field, and which, what little evidence the view has, is highly questionable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And beliefs like this cause a huge percentage of wars. No thank you. I much prefer tolerance. Otherwise, imagine those you disagree with being the majority and refusing to tolerate you because it would be “the cowards way out.” It doesn’t take a hard look at this planet to find that happening with poor results in many places, both now and in history. It doesn’t prove “right.” It only proves who has the most power.</p>
<p>Live and let live and we can all get along.</p>
<p>
I don’t call that “tolerance” but, of course, I respect your right to believe in whatever way serves you best.</p>
<p>Creekland – I appreciate your tolerant attitude toward people with different beliefs. I think we could all use a huge dose of that.</p>
<p>However, the OP was concerned about how degrees from Alabama and Liberty would be viewed. This very discussion shows that a Liberty degree is going to raise red flags to a lot of people, whereas an Alabama degree would not. Not only does Liberty have the fundamentalist religious, anti-science focus, there is also a question about how much intellectual challenge students are getting in many of their classes (read Kevin Roose’s book). I would answer the OP this way: A degree from Liberty is going to be suspect among most people, including religious people. Like it or not, that’s how it is. Go with Alabama.</p>
<p>I am a Christian who believes that God created the world. That is my faith, but it is not science. Teaching religion as science devalues both religion and science. You can’t use faith to prove anything scientific; attempts to do so end up looking silly. Also, doing so cheapens faith by taking the mystery and beauty out of it and trying to make it into something totally concrete and explainable. By teaching religion as science, Liberty is sadly making a mockery out of both.</p>
<p>Teaching science in a way that totally contradicts every informed scientific study is like teaching, and repeatedly insisting, that 1+1=1, because of the Biblical teaching that when two marry they shall become one. I would certainly question the credentials of a person graduating from a university that math this way.</p>
<p>This really has nothing to do with belief. The vast majority of Christians I know have no problem accepting evolution. Questioning a degree from Liberty isn’t about discriminating on the basis of religion. It’s about the concern that a Liberty graduate does not have a basic college education.</p>
<p>I think there’s a difference. There is substantial scientific evidence against young earth creationism. There is a lack of evidence for intelligent design. I think the fact that many scientists do believe in “a higher power that played a role in creating the universe” (albeit not scientifically verifiable) whereas none believe the Biblical creation story is telling.</p>
<p>Yes, a higher power played a role in creating the universe. And logic supports that. Even the scientific belief that matter cannot be created supports that. </p>
<p>* I don’t know if “logic” supports intelligent design."*</p>
<p>Sure it does. Water caused the Grand Canyon over a period of a gazillion years (I have no idea of how many years…lol). Everything in this universe had a cause. But the initial cause had to be uncaused. To you, what was that uncaused cause?</p>
<p>You need to read Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not enough of a physicist (D in the only physics course I ever took :() to argue that with you. But I do respect the learned physicists who claim in ain’t so and accept their conclusions. That is completely separate from my faith, which leads me to the belief that a higher power (whose exact nature is unknowable but whose grace and mercy was revealed in the Christ) created the universe and is still active in the world today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>theology != science</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>lol…in it, Aquinas gives the 5 logical arguments. The arguments are not based in “blind faith.” They are logical arguments.</p>
<p>^ Summa Theologica. Start with an assumption and construct an argument to prove the assumption.</p>