<p>“Most religion flies in the face of science.”</p>
<p>Yes it does. And as long as a college keeps their religion in their religion dept and their science in their science dept, that’s fine with me.</p>
<p>
“Show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.”</p>
<p>“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
- James 2:18-26</p>
<p>
“All that is required for evil to triumph…” -Edmund Burke (maybe)</p>
<p>LU seems to garner enough suspicion to warrant choosing another school if there is a readily workable option. Their philosophies obviously permeate more than just one course. OTOH, OP isn’t pursuing a degree in Biology, as it were, and an online degree seems less likely to imply that OP shares wholeheartedly in the philosophical missions of the school.</p>
<p>the teaching of creation is left outside the sciences at LU. Note they call it creation studies–not science and it relies on many areas. There are all of 2 classes that cover it with only 1 required and it is not done in a dogmatic–believe this or you fail way. More akin to a debate–here’s their side-here’s ours-we believe in ours. They know it crosses a line between science and faith. Maybe they should just call it creation theology. </p>
<p>[Creation</a> Studies | Official Page | Liberty University](<a href=“http://www.liberty.edu/academics/arts-sciences/index.cfm?PID=9821]Creation”>Creation Studies | Liberty University)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It appears that current BYU dress codes allow shorts that are knee length or longer.</p>
<p>More curiosity this morning… here’s a list of Cedarville’s math/science staff. I believe Cedarville is the highest academic (incoming stat) college on the list posted a few pages back. Their list includes more Christian college undergrads (including their own), but still a variety of PhDs including one from Princeton. It’s an alphabetical list… There are also more XX chromosomes represented compared to Liberty’s XY dominance. There’s a little bit of geographical diversity too.</p>
<p>[Meet</a> our Faculty and Staff | Science and Mathematics | Cedarville University, a Christian College](<a href=“http://www.cedarville.edu/Academics/Science-and-Mathematics/Faculty-Staff.aspx]Meet”>http://www.cedarville.edu/Academics/Science-and-Mathematics/Faculty-Staff.aspx)</p>
<p>I was going to do Biola too (chosen due to hearing the name before), but they don’t have faculty by major - just a list of pics from the whole school. I don’t have time to figure out who’s in Bio, etc. Based upon the pics they have the most diversity, but to be honest, I never looked at the “other” majors at the other schools, so I can’t really conclude anything.</p>
<p>[Biola</a> University Faculty](<a href=“Faculty | Directory, Biola University”>http://faculty.biola.edu/)</p>
<p>Ah well, off to actually do something for a living… but it has been an interesting look to see who these “awful” Creationist-believers are (or a little bit of their background anyway). One person I know IRL who is a young earth creation believer is a professor (not science) at a 4 year secular college. Their background is totally secular schooling up through their PhD.</p>
<p>On this thread [some] people seem to care even if it’s not related to the job at hand (understandable when it is). IME I just don’t see it happening. It’s a belief that apparently 40% (give or take) of the people have to some extent. Big deal. It has no bearing on 99% of the jobs out there and is an amusing conversation piece at best.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are deliberately being obtuse. The theology classes at BYU or Notre Dame etc are being taught as THEOLOGY // RELIGION classes. They are not being taught as SCIENCE classes. One can discuss the meaning and belief behind transubstantiation without writing a scientific equation to “prove” that a wafer transforms into the human body and that wine transforms into blood during a service. How you can put Liberty on the same plane as BYU and Notre Dame is beyond me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t particularly care what 40% of the US population believes. The average person is an idiot. A lot of people choosing to “believe” something doesn’t mean that it’s ok for a college to go against scientific fact. Teaching that the earth is 6000 years old is akin to teaching that the moon is indeed made of green cheese.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But there is no DEBATE, barrons, that the earth is well over 6000 years old. Why do you keep pitching this as “belief system A versus belief system B”? Belief systems are belief systems and facts are facts. Stop trying to pretend there are “controversies” when there aren’t any.</p>
<p>I once read that the vast majority of Americans believe the Earth is closer to the sun in summer than in winter. Not sure how they explain Australia. I wouldn’t want an astronomy teacher teaching that in class.</p>
<p>
One class that is required for all students. And I don’t buy the argument that it is separated from science–the creation studies department is headed by the same guy who is the chair of biology.</p>
<p>My problem with this is that I would have trouble trusting the scientific integrity of somebody who would not accept counter-evidence, no matter how persuasive it might be, if it conflicted with their interpretation of Scripture. Intelligent design, at least, doesn’t have this problem because it’s ultimately an unprovable (and undisprovable) religious or philosophical position. Young-earth creationism is a different story. It’s like believing the earth is flat.</p>
<p>I once read that the vast majority of Americans believe the Earth is closer to the sun in summer than in winter. Not sure how they explain Australia. I wouldn’t want an astronomy teacher teaching that in class…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, ain’t it amazin’ how those Aussies avoid falling off the earth, being on the bottom and all that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://religiousstudies.lss.wisc.edu/sites/religiousstudies.lss.wisc.edu/files/361Syllabus2012.doc[/url]”>http://religiousstudies.lss.wisc.edu/sites/religiousstudies.lss.wisc.edu/files/361Syllabus2012.doc</a></p>
<p>“I once read that the vast majority of Americans believe the Earth is closer to the sun in summer than in winter.”</p>
<p>It is, in Australia. :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe invisible strings hold them fast to the face of the earth. Perhaps that should be taught as a theory on par with the theory of gravity. Surely it’s just “teaching the controversy,” eh?</p>
<p>Isn’t that “string theory”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they did, then there wouldn’t be a problem. They are teaching it as scientific fact and deliberately discarding pieces of evidence (the overwhelming evidence) to the contrary. That’s a problem, barrons. I don’t know why you keep pretending that it’s not or dismissing it as an “alternative point of view” or “teaching the controversy” or bringing in unrelated stuff about how you can’t wear short-shorts or have premarital sex at BYU. </p>
<p>If Liberty were a totally secular university that taught the earth is 6000 years old, I’d have a problem with that as well, and I wouldn’t look highly upon a degree from there. Wrong is wrong. It’s an awfully super-liberal point of view on your end and Creekland’s end to pretend that everything is relative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chances are, their believing this doesn’t affect their job performance one iota. For the astronomy teacher, yes, but for the 99% whose jobs aren’t related, no.</p>
<p>But you do have me curious… I wonder what the percentage believing this is and whether it varies among countries in the northern hemisphere. I don’t doubt it in the least as we often have to clear that misconception up in school (including with some intelligent exchange students). I don’t know that we can find comparison stats on it though. And, in any event, it doesn’t affect the majority with their job performance.</p>
<p>
Actually, the exact mechanism of gravity is still unclear. The search for gravitational waves is underway someplace or other. Controversies do still exist in physics!!</p>
<p>:)</p>