\creation Crisis in Christian Colleges?

[cavell]

Creation crisis in Christian colleges

While many believers are committed to a Christian college education,
escalating college costs are forcing these Christians to be very
careful in their shopping for colleges (either for themselves or for
their children). If one believes, as I do, that creation is
foundational to all education, then an important criterion should be
what the college professors teach about Genesis.

Recently, both the Wheaton College student newspaper and Chicago
Tribune ran stories about the age of the earth in Christian colleges.
Now, controversy in Christian colleges is not new. Nor is young-earth
versus old-earth a new conflict in the church, for it’s been with us
for over two centuries.

So why is there a conflict? The rub comes from the fact that although
44–47% of the population seems to believe in something resembling
young-age creationism, probably more than 90% of Christian colleges and
their professors do not. With the exception of Seventh Day Adventist
colleges, it’s virtually impossible to find young-age creation taught
at denominational colleges (Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Nazarene,
etc.), and some, such as (Southern Baptist) Baylor University, won’t
even teach Intelligent Design. The Christian colleges which teach
young-age creation are few and far between.

OK, but why can’t you simply go to a Christian college and stand firm
on the age of things? The answer, in my experience, is that believers
can more easily stand firm in their Christian beliefs in a secular
university (where you know you can’t believe much of anything you
hear about origins) than to stand in sectarian beliefs in a Christian
college (where it’s hard not to trust professors who stand before you
in such good Christian standing).

As an example, the Tribune article mentions three biology majors at
Olivet Nazarene College who entered the school as creationists, but who
are now theistic evolutionists. As a further example, the Wheaton
College newspaper shows the results of a student survey (42% of the
students responded) which showed that whereas 47% believed in a young
earth before entering Wheaton (the same percentage which Gallup finds
for the population at large in its polls), only 27% believed in a young
earth by the time of the survey. The same survey indicated that Wheaton
professors were a greater influence on their age-of-earth belief than
their parents were!

The adoption of a Christian college’s teaching should be a concern to
any young-earth creationist looking for a good Chrisitan college.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0131colleges.asp

 

[Dannager]

What's that?

People who receive an education are more likely to reject idiocy like young-earth creationism? Increased knowledge correlates with acceptance of solid science? The American public is largely ignorant and wants their closely-held religious beliefs reinforced, especially on their children?

These are all shocking revelations!

 

[dayhiker]

I think all views should be taught and the students challenged to write a paper supporting the view they beleive. This is an excellent way to modivate students to think and learn.

I've always leaned toward the young earth view. But I have some serious problems with some of what they teach. So no view really feels completely right to me.

dayhiker

 

[Dannager]

I think all views should be taught and the students challenged to write a paper supporting the view they beleive.

Nonsense. You're shooting education in the foot by doing this. Start teaching creationism and you have to teach everything else, no matter how irresponsible or unfounded it may be. This is just about the worst policy I can imagine.

This is an excellent way to modivate students to think and learn.

No, it's a great way to cripple our children's education.

 

[cavell]

Nonsense. You're shooting education in the foot by doing this. Start teaching creationism and you have to teach everything else, no matter how irresponsible or unfounded it may be. This is just about the worst policy I can imagine.

At 22 you have never had to fight the invading other beliefs on the battlefield. Talking about shooting the foot, I doubt you could hit a barn door. Today such other beliefs are accepted and with us. Political correctness is the theme, while our children, you included, become turkeys with such thought, and will never reach the skies, your father knew.

The West is going downhill because 'there grew up another generation which knew not the Lord

 

[Dannager]

At 22 you have never had to fight the invading other beliefs on the battlefield.

I've never had to fight invading beliefs? I argue against fundamentalist beliefs every day on here. Your beliefs are repugnant in their short-sightedness. Young-earth creationism is one of the worst symptoms of Christian fundamentalism - both prevalent and dangerous. Your beliefs and those who support them are the reason for declining science proficiency in our children, and that's one of the more minor problems they create.

Talking about shooting the foot, I doubt you could hit a barn door. Today such other beliefs are accepted and with us.

"Beliefs" like evolution? You might as well call gravity a "belief". Young-earth creationism is a belief. And a poor one.

Political correctness is the theme, while our children, you included, become turkeys with such thought, and will never reach the skies, your father knew.

You found your belief in a book you think was written by God. My acceptance of evolutionary theory is based on a university-level education involving field study and actual research on the topic. Your belief hasn't any grounding in reality.

The West is going downhill because 'there grew up another generation which knew not the Lord

We know the Lord just fine. You don't know the world.

 

[dies-l]

People who receive an education are more likely to reject idiocy like young-earth creationism? Increased knowledge correlates with acceptance of solid science? The American public is largely ignorant and wants their closely-held religious beliefs reinforced, especially on their children?

Nonsense. You're shooting education in the foot by doing this. Start teaching creationism and you have to teach everything else, no matter how irresponsible or unfounded it may be. This is just about the worst policy I can imagine.

No, it's a great way to cripple our children's education.

Honestly, I am by no means a young-earth creationist, but I have to admit that it makes me cringe to see liberal Christians (with whom I usually find much more common ground than I do with conservatives) posting comments like this. This post reeks of the same sort of ideological intolerance that I usually associate with fundamentalism. I mean seriously, what harm is there in people whole-heartedly accepting a belief system with which you happen to disagree?!?!? I don't know what it is about this issue that so often makes some liberals act like fundamentalists, but it bugs the heck out of me!

Alright, rant over, carry on then.

 

[Armistead]

When it comes to education most, even biblical based colleges will not teach a young earth of 6-7 thousand years old. If goes against all science. Science is so strong, that it is virtually impossible to teach young earth.

Nor do I believe in a young earth. I also think it makes Christians look silly. I believe the earth is billions of years old. I'm borderline gap theory or evolution within a species created by God. For me, I find the science and the bible to back this up. There is no real evidence for a young earth. Yes, God could have magically sped everything up to get things created and then let nature take it's course, but I don't see that biblically or any other way.

It takes millions of light years for most stars to reach the earth. The fossil records. Schools have to teach logic. To teach young earth is not logical.

Unless the school is private, I want total separation of church and state. That is usually why creation isn't taught. We don't need a theocracy in America. Regardless of the religion, it would do nothing but harm.
Our founding fathers got that one right.

 

[metherion]

One of the reasons most colleges wouldn't teach young-earth creationism is simply because it doesn't work. For instance, over in CvE in the Discussion and Debate section we have at least one person who would gladly and immediately switch over to YEC views if they worked. He is a worker in pharmaceuticals, and a such uses evolutionary theory in his search for new drugs. If the YEC model worked better for his work than the evolutionary one, guess which one he'd use to keep his job?

Heck, if it had enough evidence for it I'd abandon my aceptance of evolutionary theory, geology, paleanotology, astronomy, and several others and join the YEC camp. But there isn't any. All there seems to be is attacks on evolution and demands of equal time. No useful research, no positive evidence, no advances in biology, paleantology, geology, astronomy, etc. No nothing, except people holding an unreasonable, false viewpoint which needs extreme amounts of mind contortion to accept.

While I don't think less of people who hold the belief, I am disdainful of many of the actions of those people, such as trying to get their religious idea taught as ascientific one just because it's in a holy book. I mean, would you be as supportive of Islamic creationism being taught based off of the Qu'ran? The teaching of the Greeks and Romans? The Babylonian creation myths with Apsu and Tiamat? The Native American tales about the world being on the back of a giant turtle? Then why yours?

Metherion

 

[Ave Maria]

I personally feel this is great news. Evolution should be taught in schools, including Christian schools. Evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

 

[Dannager]

Honestly, I am by no means a young-earth creationist, but I have to admit that it makes me cringe to see liberal Christians (with whom I usually find much more common ground than I do with conservatives) posting comments like this. This post reeks of the same sort of ideological intolerance that I usually associate with fundamentalism. I mean seriously, what harm is there in people whole-heartedly accepting a belief system with which you happen to disagree?!?!? I don't know what it is about this issue that so often makes some liberals act like fundamentalists, but it bugs the heck out of me!

Alright, rant over, carry on then.

I have no problem with people believing whatever nonsense they want to. If they want to delude themselves I'm really not going to lose any sleep over it. Don't make the mistake of assuming the distinction is missing.

What I take issue with is people (like the individual I quoted) wishing that young, impressionable children be exposed to idiotic concepts like creationism and being told that they are as valid as solid science. When the prospect exists that our future best and brightest are going to get a flawed education, that's when I have a problem.

So before you start conflating this with fundamentalism, think about the situation.

 

[artybloke]

This post reeks of the same sort of ideological intolerance that I usually associate with fundamentalism.

I have the same ideological intolerance of creationism as I have an intolerance of Nazi race theories, apartheid, and other lies.

 

[Dannager]

I have the same ideological intolerance of creationism as I have an intolerance of Nazi race theories, apartheid, and other lies.

Precisely.

 

[dies-l]

I have no problem with people believing whatever nonsense they want to. If they want to delude themselves I'm really not going to lose any sleep over it. Don't make the mistake of assuming the distinction is missing.

What I take issue with is people (like the individual I quoted) wishing that young, impressionable children be exposed to idiotic concepts like creationism and being told that they are as valid as solid science. When the prospect exists that our future best and brightest are going to get a flawed education, that's when I have a problem.

So before you start conflating this with fundamentalism, think about the situation.

You insist on referring to the position with which you (and incidentally I to some extent) disagree as "idiocy." You "take issue" with the fact that they want to teach their viewpoint to children. Fundamentalist Christians often refer to liberal morality and theology as an "abomination" and other such language and they get angry when schools seek to present the liberal viewpoint to children. I am sorry, but I just don't see a material difference between these two viewpoints. They both exhibit an absolute unwillingness to consider the perspective of the other and an absolute intolerance towards the other's way of thinking.

You claim that you "have no problem with people believing whatever nonsense they want to." This statement betrays itself. When you refer to another's perspective as "nonsense" and "idiocy", you are proving to anyone who hears you that you do in fact have a problem with it, and that you have an intolerance of that viewpoint, which is absolutely no different imo than the intolerance often exhibited by fundamentalists.

 

[dies-l]

I have the same ideological intolerance of creationism as I have an intolerance of Nazi race theories, apartheid, and other lies.

Wha...?!?!?!? Now creationism is in the same class of evil as Nazism and apartheid?!?!? So the belief that all of humanity is literally created in the image of God and is therefore precious and worthy of the same respect and love we have for God is somehow comparable to the viewpoint that certain people are trash and are worthy of discrimination (at best) and extermination and torture (at worst) simply because of who they are?!?!?! This is exactly the type of outrageous statement that I would normally expect to hear in fundamentalist circles, rather than liberal ones. Seriously, I don't know what it is about this issue that brings out the inner fundamentalist in people who or normally a bit more level headed and reasonable!

 

[Digit]

Hello all,

I've always felt that something about our current origins theory just doesn't add up. There are too many exceptions, too many special cases, it's as if somewhere we have classified something incorrectly, and based on that it has knocked all subsequent records out of sync. That isn't going to convince anyone, but it's just my personal hunch on things. Our theories change quite rapidly, from one to the next, medical science even changes from day to day, and I think it's folly to put all your eggs in one basket, and make origins one of the roots of your faith.

If we all follow Christ, it doesn't matter how we came to be. Yet I see a lot of people caring and resisting (quite vocally) about our origins. I am not aiming this at anyone here, but I feel this isn't a good way to uphold Christ's integrity. By this I mean, when we see someone stumble and fall in sin, we don't come down on them nearly as harshly as we often do on people (fellow Christians) with differing beliefs about aspects of our faith.

Personally, I love Creationism. Why? Because to me it seems like an undiscovered land, there are so many unknowns to it. It's very new, and currently it's major focus is revealing what we have taken for granted. Something which I found out today only, is that there are 8 times more natural chronometers for a young Earth, than there are for an old Earth. Here's a couple that I found most interesting:

* The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.

* The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth. Drowning would be the least of our concerns!

Something, somewhere, doesn't add up. Again a concern from people, for anyone really is that children are not being presented with all the facts. There are actually six required stages for evolution to take place - cosmic, chemical, stellar/planetary, organic, macro, and micro. Only micro has actually been observed. The rest are assumed. Why are we not presenting the whole story to people? Secular society preaches open-mindedness, yet when it comes down to it, the lowest common denominator is that we Christians believe in God, and they do not, so anything that shows God as a possibility is censored. It's odd, I hear very often in the General Apologetics forum how atheists there are open to the possibility of God, yet it seems that's as blatant a lie as you can get. Dawkin's certainly isn't open to that possibility. The issue in the education system, is that we are raising a generation of people who are taught a small portion of inconsequential data which yields an unreasonable conclusion.

At the end of the day, for me personally, I am not really phased which is the correct answer. In addition, I find it highly unlikely we will uncover the correct answer, as I read a Bible verse the other day that said something along the lines of, "God has hidden the workings of His creation from man." (I can't find it now after searching) which seems to me to say we actually won't reason it out. The main point for me is that I won't accept a theory of something that has so many holes in it, and is also a major tool of atheistic evangelism.

Like I said, this is my personal belief, I am not saying you are bad, evil, horrible people for believing otherwise.

All the best!
Cheers,
Digit

 

[metherion]

So the belief that all of humanity is literally created in the image of God and is therefore precious and worthy of the same respect and love we have for God is somehow comparable to the viewpoint that certain people are trash and are worthy of discrimination (at best) and extermination and torture (at worst) simply because of who they are?!?!?!

Nope. The problem is believing that a book of Hebrew mythology is literal scientific fact and trying to get that belief to usurp legitimate science that is integral for biology and thus things like medicine, while getting that legitimate science booted out of schools using only political pressure, demonization and misrepresentation of the other side, and PRATTs, with no positive evidence for the belief in the literalism of the Hebrew mythology book other than "I believe my God intended it that way."

And that if you don't believe the same thing you're going to hell. That's a big problem too.

THAT is the problem.

@ digit:
1. I don't know enough about the earth magnetic field decaying to talk about it. Mind providing your sources?

2. http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/moon_worldbook.html

According to Nasa, the moon is ~380,000 kilometers away. It is also receding at 3.8 cm/year. if it has been receding at a constant rate all that time, over 1.2 billion years it would have moved 4.56 billion centimeters. Agreed? 3.8 * 1.2=4.56 4.56 * 1 billion = 4.56 billion.
4,560,000,000 centimeters.
Now, we whack 2 zeroes off the end to get it in meters. 100 cm to the m.
45,600,000
45.6 million meters.
Now, to get km, we whack off 3 more zeros. 1000 m to the km.
45,600.
forty five thousand six hundred kilometers.

Whoopsie. 380,000 != 45600. As a matter of fact, even if we take this back to 4.8 billion years ago (which is a little longer than the age of the earth) we get 380,000!= 182,400. So, even at this rate, the moon wasn't touching the earth. You, sir, are wrong. Especially because is was probably receding more slowly in the past because as the distance was smaller gravity's pull was greater.

This argument fails. Miserably. They weren't touching 1.2 billion years ago. They were ~7/8 the current distance apart 1.2 billion years ago.

Now, on to the "6 types of evolution." I've seen less smelly things come out the rear of an elephant. Evolution deals with biological organisms. There is no macro/micro distinction. Both have been observed (at least, until the fact that it has been observed is noticed and the goalposts are moved.) Now, the only thing that hasn't bee shown is crossing the "kind" barrier which has NO MEANING as the word "kind" is not defined anywhere, because as soon as it is it will be blown to pieces.

Cosmic is supposedly the generation of the universe from nothing, correct? Well, guess what. Secular science doesn't think it came from nothing. It really doesn't know where it came from, just that it did. Some ideas on the matter are it all came from energy (remember, matter and energy are interchangeable- look at the atomic bombs!) Others are a singularity, or a previous universe. We just don't know. But that doesn't mean God did it, it just means we don't know. (Being a TE I do believe God did it).

IIRC, "chemical evolution" is how hydrogen and helium turned into all the other elements, right? It's called NUCLEAR FUSION. We can sustain it here on earth for 7 seconds last I heard (about 2 years ago.) It happens in the core of stars and also in fusion bombs. It's been observed, buddy.

"Stellar/planetary evolution" is how stars and planets are made, right? Guess what. We can see that going on now. Or 424 years ago if you wanna get picky. Well, at least as far as the planet bit goes. You can probably google yourself up some "forming star" news reports.

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/head...ditions_Just_Right_for_Building_an_Earth.html

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/head...t_baby_picture_of_our_early_solar_system.html

"Organic evolution" is abiogenesis, and research is being done on it right now. And the reason we don't see it happened in nature now is because anything that would start to resemble a new form of life would immediately be outcompeted by existing life and either be eaten or starve.

So, yes. Less smelly things out of an elephant's rear end.

Metherion

 

[dies-l]

And that if you don't believe the same thing you're going to hell. That's a big problem too.

THAT is the problem.

But, it is not a problem when people on the other side of the discussion insist that believers in YEC are idiots?!?!? Don't get me wrong. I have no issue with the fact that this topic is debated; it should be! In fact, my own views, if I really sat down and thought about it, would likely be not all that different from your own. However, I am troubled by the lack of civility in the discussion when we resort to calling an opposing viewpoint "idiocy" or "nonsense", especially when neither viewpoint is demonstrably true either by scientific or philosophical reason. To point to the fact that some YECs (though a VERY small minority) claim that not believing in YEC will send you to hell does not justify taking on an equally obnoxious and intolerant viewpoint toward YEC.

Seriously, the reason I keep posting on this topic is that there is something amazing about what this topic does to people. Generally, I prefer speaking to more liberal Christians, because they generally tend to be more accepting of divergent viewpoints and more willing to have civil conversation. But, I have noticed on several threads that, when the topic of creationism comes up, very often the liberal perspective is enunciated with the same kind of hatred, venom, and intolerance that I have generally come to associate with fundamentalism. Nothing that anyone has said so far has provided a legitimate explanation for this phenomena. All of the responses I have gotten, with the exception perhaps of yours, have only demonstrated to me the deep irrational and unjustifiable hostility that some theistic evolutionists have toward YEC.

 

[Dannager]

You insist on referring to the position with which you (and incidentally I to some extent) disagree as "idiocy."

Because it's idiocy.

You "take issue" with the fact that they want to teach their viewpoint to children.

Yes.

Fundamentalist Christians often refer to liberal morality and theology as an "abomination" and other such language and they get angry when schools seek to present the liberal viewpoint to children.

Yes, that is a similarity. That doesn't mean that my views are fundamentalist.

I am sorry, but I just don't see a material difference between these two viewpoints.

Because you're not looking for one. You're looking at nothing but the similarities.

Note how one position has evidence to support it. Look how one position actively tries to engage in reasoned debate. Look how one position doesn't run from challenge. There are dozens of reasons that this position is radically different from a fundamentalist viewpoint. But you aren't looking for them.

They both exhibit an absolute unwillingness to consider the perspective of the other and an absolute intolerance towards the other's way of thinking.

Nonsense.

I've been here for going on three years now, Dies3l. There must have been a hundred times where I've told myself, "Self, keep it in check. Yes, you're probably right here, but play devil's advocate for a moment or two and see if you can get somewhere with it." And, on rare occasion, it's turned out that the position I support has been flawed.

I do not have an absolute intolerance towards creationist thinking. I think it's idiocy, yes, because it is. Any sort of belief that practices willful ignorance and self-deception in order to preserve a religious comfort qualifies as an idiot's belief in my book. But I'm not going out and persecuting creationists for the hell of it. I'm debating with them here, where they have come voluntarily to do the same (ostensibly).

So calm down. I'm very familiar with what it takes to be a fundamentalist, and I'm very careful to avoid anything that could start a person down that path.

You claim that you "have no problem with people believing whatever nonsense they want to."

That's right, I don't.

This statement betrays itself.

No, it doesn't.

When you refer to another's perspective as "nonsense" and "idiocy", you are proving to anyone who hears you that you do in fact have a problem with it,

No, those are my opinions of the viewpoint. There's a difference between expressing a negative opinion and having an actual problem with something. The latter occurs when someone's viewpoint actually has a negative impact on your life, or the life of others.

and that you have an intolerance of that viewpoint, which is absolutely no different imo than the intolerance often exhibited by fundamentalists.

Then your opinion needs to be revised. I've explained why it's incorrect.

 

[Dannager]

But, it is not a problem when people on the other side of the discussion insist that believers in YEC are idiots?!?!?

No, it's not.

Don't get me wrong. I have no issue with the fact that this topic is debated; it should be! In fact, my own views, if I really sat down and thought about it, would likely be not all that different from your own. However, I am troubled by the lack of civility in the discussion when we resort to calling an opposing viewpoint "idiocy" or "nonsense", especially when neither viewpoint is demonstrably true either by scientific or philosophical reason.

If neither viewpoint was demonstrably correct by either reasoning, I wouldn't be here. Evolutionary theory is, for all intents and purposes, correct. It has never been successfully challenged by a competing theory. All of its predictions have been verified so far. Young-earth creationism, on the other hand, is demonstrably false. The few scientific claims it is able to make have been shown to be patently incorrect. All of them.

So yes, I agree that if we had a grey issue here it might be questionable to label a viewpoint as idiocy. But this really is clear-cut. Those who support evolutionary theory do so because they actually know the theory. We've looked very carefully at large amounts of evidence over the course of our stays here. Furthermore, we readily acknowledge that if the evidence instead pointed towards young-earth creationism, we'd switch. Those who oppose evolutionary theory do so because they don't know what the theory says. Indeed, they often don't even know how theories work.

To point to the fact that some YECs (though a VERY small minority) claim that not believing in YEC will send you to hell does not justify taking on an equally obnoxious and intolerant viewpoint toward YEC.

I agree. My viewpoint is not justified by their claims that I'll go to hell. It's justified by their continued, persistent and unlawful efforts to introduce young-earth creationism as a competing scientific viewpoint in science classrooms.

Seriously, the reason I keep posting on this topic is that there is something amazing about what this topic does to people. Generally, I prefer speaking to more liberal Christians, because they generally tend to be more accepting of divergent viewpoints and more willing to have civil conversation. But, I have noticed on several threads that, when the topic of creationism comes up, very often the liberal perspective is enunciated with the same kind of hatred, venom, and intolerance that I have generally come to associate with fundamentalism. Nothing that anyone has said so far has provided a legitimate explanation for this phenomena.

How about the truth: young-earth creationism disgusts us. The very idea that people could willingly blind themselves to reality because they're too frightened and uncomfortable to revise their religious views is disturbing. It doesn't disgust us because it was written in a book somewhere that we're supposed to be disgusted. It doesn't disgust us because some figurehead told us that God wants us to be disgusted. It disgusts us because it's the progeny of intellectual cowardice that has somehow managed to infect half of America.

All of the responses I have gotten, with the exception perhaps of yours, have only demonstrated to me the deep irrational and unjustifiable hostility that some theistic evolutionists have toward YEC.

My hostility towards the viewpoint is neither irrational or unjustifiable, as I've explained.