Liberty University requires "creation study" courses for biology degrees, etc.

[Questioninggeller]

I thought this article is pretty interesting:

Quote:

Liberty University disputing evolution
By Christa Desrets
Lynchburg News and Advance
Published: February 14, 2009

On a recent Tuesday, a dozen or so Liberty University students are in the midst of a lecture in one of their required courses, creation studies.

This is an advanced section of the course, and many of the students are biology majors. Neuroscientist David DeWitt, their professor, leads a lecture on natural selection.

He draws on an example from the documentary film “March of the Penguins” that shows female penguins journeying to find food, and then a seal singling out one to attack.

“Which penguin gets eaten?” he asks. “The one that’s genetically inferior, or the one that’s in the wrong place at the wrong time?”

That element of chance, he argues, begins to unravel the idea of natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” a key mechanism in the theory of evolution.

At the front of the class, a slide on DeWitt’s presentation displays a biblical passage from Ecclesiastes 9:11.
...
“At this university, we’re going to be celebrating creation,” announced Law School Dean Mathew Staver to a cheering crowd of students at a convocation service in early February.

Liberty is on the front lines in the battle of creationism vs. evolution. And it has a battalion of creationist lawyers, scientists and professors in dozens of areas who weave creationism into their coursework and teach students on how to refute the theory of evolution.

“One of the distinguishing fac-tors of Liberty is that every single student here takes a class called creationist studies,” said Campus Pastor Johnnie Moore. “It’s kind of at the core of our identity.”

Liberty leans toward young- Earth creationism, DeWitt said, which is a literal interpretation of the Bible that God created the heavens, Earth and all life in seven days, less than 10,000 years ago.
...
At Liberty, the science classroom is exactly where students learn about creation, and the content also is woven into many other areas of coursework.

The college is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award degrees in science programs including biology, biochemistry and molecular biology, nursing, psychology, engineering, health sciences and kinesiology.

DeWitt, who is director of the school’s center for creation studies, teaches biology and two versions of creation studies — one for students in the sciences that includes more “scientifically detailed subject matter,” he said, and another that most students take, which does not.
...
“I show them side-by-side — Here’s the human. Here’s the chimpanzee,” he said. “If I would not present evolution and their best evidence and arguments, then I would not be a scholar and I would not be providing the best service for the students.
...
DeWitt’s personal views are critical of evolution, he said.

“If a frog turns into a prince with a kiss then it’s a fairy tale. If a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, it’s science,” he said, referencing the theory of evolution. “It’s almost ridiculous.”

“I’m a scientist, and I’m not denigrating science. I’m critiquing the idea that millions of years is the magic wand that makes it possible.”
...
Moore said Liberty students, no matter which program they’re in, should understand arguments that support the creationist perspective so they can defend their beliefs.
...

Lynchburg News and Advance

The full article discusses recent lectures with Michael Behe and intelligent design. I would think teaching creationism to be at odds with the Liberty University's accreditation to award biology and other relevant science degrees. Thoughts?

And its tied to Answers in Genesis:

Quote:

Creationist Conference on Refuting Darwin Draws 4,500
By Elena Garcia
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Feb. 17 2009 08:59 AM EST

A conference hosted by a creationist ministry to help Christians defend their faith against evolution drew over 4,500 people during its opening evening on Sunday.

Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis, which hosted the three-day "Answers for Darwin" conference, told the crowd in the opening session that America is becoming less of a Christian nation everyday and that it is due in part to the influence of Darwinism.
...
Referring to the culture war, Ham said there are increasing pervasive attacks in America, including abortion and the removal of the Bible, prayer and creation from public schools.

"What is wrong?" he asked the audience at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va. "I suggest to you the foundation is being taken out of this nation that was once here and we see the structure collapsing."

Ham compared Christianity to a building, which without a foundation would collapse. For Christianity, that foundation is the authority of the Bible, he contended.

But the evolutionary theory proposed by Charles Darwin has helped to undermine biblical authority by challenging the account of creation in Genesis, according to Ham, who believes in the literal interpretation of the six-day creation story in Genesis.
...
Following Ham's address, the crowd also listened to talks by Dr. Andrew Snelling, a scientist with Answers in Genesis who holds a Ph.D. in geology, and Liberty University professor Dr. David DeWitt, who holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience.
...

[fuelair]

If they have been accredited in Biology and/or any real science, the accrediting body should be abolished. The degrees will obviously be worthless anywhere that counts in the real world of science.

[Toke]

I find it rather sad, what will they do to science?

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by fuelair

If they have been accredited in Biology and/or any real science,

I don't think they have.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally Posted by fuelair

If they have been accredited in Biology and/or any real science, the accrediting body should be abolished. The degrees will obviously be worthless anywhere that counts in the real world of science.

According to Southern Association of Colleges and Schools:

Quote:

Institution Details
Institution Name: Liberty University, Inc.
CEO: Mr. Jerry Falwell, Jr.
Title: Chancellor/President
...
Level: V
Status: Accredited
Public Sanctions: NONE
Candidate: 01/01/77
Accredited: 1980
Reaffirmed: 2006
Next Reaffirmation: 2016
Control: Private Not-for-Profit

Liberty's requirements for a biology degree include "CRST 290 History of Life". Here is part of a syllabus for CRST 290 History of Life (starts on page four):

Quote:

COURSE SYLLABUS
CENTER FOR CREATION STUDIES
CRST 290
HISTORY OF LIFE

COURSE DESCRIPTION
An interdisciplinary study of the origin and history of life in the universe. Faculty of the Center for Creation Studies will draw from science, religion, history, and philosophy in presenting the evidence and arguments for creation and against evolution. This course is required for all Liberty students.

RATIONALE
This course is designed to instill in our students a clear understanding of the relationship between science and Scripture as it pertains to the study of origins. In particular, it is designed to help students develop a clear and consistent Biblical creationist worldview and defend it.

I. PREREQUISITE
Successful completion of a college science course.

II. REQUIRED TEXTBOOK
Dewitt, David. A. Beginnings: Unraveling the origins controversy. Lynchburg, VA: Creation Curriculum/Knowledge League, 2006.

III. MATERIALS FOR LEARNING
A. Internet access (broadband or cable recommended) and Microsoft Word.
B. Textbook is available as an online book or downloadable as an E-book only through www.creationcurriculum.com
C. Online PowerPoint lectures with audio are provided with purchase of the book.
D. Videos may be viewed online free with purchase of the book or they can be purchased separately as DVDs:
1. Icons of Evolution www.coldwatermedia.com
2. Thousands not Billions produced by www.icr.org
3. Evidences II: Tale of the Trilobite www.grisda.org
4. Lucy, she’s no lady www.answersingenesis.org
5. Genesis: Key to unlocking the culture www.answersingenesis.org
....

So according to Dewitt's syllabus, the class is required for all students and it teaches material by the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute and the Geoscience Research Institute. All of these are fundamentalist Christian organizations promoting religion.

Why is this acceptable? Doesn't such a class conflict with secular accreditation, and as a result tax-payer funded Pell Grants?

[Third Eye Open]

Quote:

“Which penguin gets eaten?” he asks. “The one that’s genetically inferior, or the one that’s in the wrong place at the wrong time?”

Again, the creationist mind shows a complete lack of the ability to grasp the concept time beyond their own experience, i.e, time periods longer than hundreds of years. Of course there are some unlucky penguins, but this number becomes very close to irrelevant when you are looking at billions of penguins over millions of years.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Again, the creationist mind shows a complete lack of the ability to grasp the concept time beyond their own experience, i.e, time periods longer than hundreds of years. Of course there are some unlucky penguins, but this number becomes very close to irrelevant when you are looking at billions of penguins over millions of years.

And a little bit of random luck is involved in evolution. Selection pressures occur against a background of random mutations. Some traits propagate as the result of being paired on genes with successful traits and so on.

I cringe at the ignorance in that piece.

[Goshawk]

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Why is this acceptable? Doesn't such a class conflict with secular accreditation, and as a result tax-payer funded Pell Grants?

All accreditation signifies is whether other universities who are members of the accreditation board will accept University A's graduates as having completed a particular curriculum to everyone's satisfaction. Accreditation boards are private groups that charge membership fees to belong, they're not generally taxpayer-funded.

As long as Liberty includes the stuff that those other universities who are members of the accreditation board consider "essential" in their curriculum, they're free to add any other stuff that they desire, such as Special Creationism. Accreditation boards don't penalize for extras, they're only looking to make sure the requireds are being taught.

Also, you're allowed to use Pell grants to go to any number of religion-based colleges. A short perusal of their Website turns up Judson College, Augustana, and Greenville, all religious colleges in Illinois, all accredited and eligible for Pell grants. The purpose of Pell grants is to encourage people to go to college who might not otherwise be able to go, so to that end the government has not restricted the grants to secular institutions.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally Posted by Goshawk

All accreditation signifies is whether other universities who are members of the accreditation board will accept University A's graduates as having completed a particular curriculum to everyone's satisfaction. Accreditation boards are private groups that charge membership fees to belong, they're not generally taxpayer-funded.

As long as Liberty includes the stuff that those other universities who are members of the accreditation board consider "essential" in their curriculum, they're free to add any other stuff that they desire, such as Special Creationism. Accreditation boards don't penalize for extras, they're only looking to make sure the requireds are being taught.

Also, you're allowed to use Pell grants to go to any number of religion-based colleges. A short perusal of their Website turns up Judson College, Augustana, and Greenville, all religious colleges in Illinois, all accredited and eligible for Pell grants. The purpose of Pell grants is to encourage people to go to college who might not otherwise be able to go, so to that end the government has not restricted the grants to secular institutions.

My point was that teaching material that is designed to directly undermine the instruction in degrees offered seems to contradict an adequate education. Accreditation from a U.S. Department of Education recognized group is required for the federally supported student loan program.

Why should U.S. tax dollars, as in student loans, be spent to undermine a basic education in subjects where degrees are offered? It is like offering degrees in history as they deny aspects of history they don't like.

That they add material on top of the accreditors' requirements is fine. That is those additions undermine those requirements isn't.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I don't expect to get anywhere with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, but Liberty has both graduate and baccalaureate nursing degree programs. And I've written this draft letter I intend to send to the nursing accreditation organization. Anyone have any editing comments or suggestions to add to the letter before I send it?


bmurray@aacn.nche.edu

Quote:

Director Murray,

This is not a comment on the current accreditation Proposed Standards Document. But at the same time, I wish to address a critical issue regarding something that has just come to my attention and involves an educational standard any college or university accreditation should address.

I am not certain where one would insert a requirement in an accreditation standard for a university nursing degree, that the college or university must meet a certain level of quality in biology classes. But this unique situation calls for such a standard. I am speaking of the issue of teaching Creationism and Intelligent Design in university biology classes.

This came to my attention in a discussion about just such a practice at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virgina. This university is fully accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accrediting body. And in addition, the university has both an MSN and a BSN program accredited by the CCNE.

The following is a news article which prompted the discussion:

Liberty University disputing evolution
http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/...olution/13475/

Quote:

"...Liberty University students are in the midst of a lecture in one of their required courses, creation studies.

This is an advanced section of the course, and many of the students are biology majors. Neuroscientist David DeWitt, their professor, leads a lecture on natural selection.

He draws on an example from the documentary film “March of the Penguins” that shows female penguins journeying to find food, and then a seal singling out one to attack.

“Which penguin gets eaten?” he asks. “The one that’s genetically inferior, or the one that’s in the wrong place at the wrong time?”

That element of chance, he argues, begins to unravel the idea of natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” a key mechanism in the theory of evolution.

At the front of the class, a slide on DeWitt’s presentation displays a biblical passage from Ecclesiastes 9:11....

...Liberty is on the front lines in the battle of creationism vs. evolution. And it has a battalion of creationist lawyers, scientists and professors in dozens of areas who weave creationism into their coursework and teach students on how to refute the theory of evolution.

“One of the distinguishing factors of Liberty is that every single student here takes a class called creationist studies,” said Campus Pastor Johnnie Moore. “It’s kind of at the core of our identity.”...

...At Liberty, the science classroom is exactly where students learn about creation, and the content also is woven into many other areas of coursework.

The college is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award degrees in science programs including biology, biochemistry and molecular biology, nursing, psychology, engineering, health sciences and kinesiology.

DeWitt, who is director of the school’s center for creation stud-ies, teaches biology and two versions of creation studies — one for students in the sciences that includes more “scientifically detailed subject matter,” he said, and another that most students take, which does not."

It's not the religious elements that are at issue here. Nor is it the idea one is teaching so called 'alternative interpretations' of scientific evidence. The issue is teaching false information. The issue is distorting the basis of evolution theory in order to then claim, the evidence isn't solid. That a "neuroscientist" who doesn't fully comprehend the mechanisms which drive evolution should be teaching this subject to trusting students then proclaiming, "See, the explanation fails", is appalling.


Does science matter in a nursing degree? Evolution theory is at the core of modern medical research. Is a masters prepared nurse supposed to practice with a distorted understanding of the medical research and treatments used in his/her practice? All the nurse needs to know is that antibiotic resistance occurs, and it's fine if one's understanding of how that occurs is completely absent? After all, that nurse is just carrying out those doctor's orders, no need for an understanding of one of the most important pillars of biology.


Would a medical school meet accreditation standards if the biology classes taught misinformation and declared evolution theory was unsound because of the misinformation? Why should nursing education standards lack scientific integrity?


We have moved into the age of evidence based medicine. I would hate to see the nursing profession left behind. One of the greatest achievements of Florence Nightingale was her work as a pioneer in scientific observation and taking an evidence based approach to nursing care. It does matter that an accredited nursing program teach the actual science of biology, not the poorly informed distorted version that some people would like biology to be. And if university accreditation programs overlook this deficiency, it is up to the nursing profession to see that it is not overlooked in our standards.

We need university nursing programs. The nursing shortage has been a reality my entire career. But we shouldn't be diluting our professional standards because it is politically correct or because we need nurses. I am interested in your response.


Thank you for your time.

[Goshawk]

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Why should U.S. tax dollars, as in student loans, be spent to undermine a basic education in subjects where degrees are offered? It is like offering degrees in history as they deny aspects of history they don't like.

Because the United States of America isn't composed solely of secular atheists--there are a goodly number of religious people here, too. And the government is underwritten by the taxes contributed by both atheists and non-atheists, and thus, it is designed to serve both atheists and non-atheists, and thus student loans are offered impartially to both atheists and non-atheists.

It's government of the people, by the people, and for the people--and some of those people are religious, and it isn't fair to cut them off from access to government student loans which they themselves have helped pay for, just because they themselves are religious. It would be discrimination, see. And the government is expressly instructed not to discriminate against people on the basis of religion. If the government says, "you can't have a government student loan because you want to use it at a non-secular college", then they're discriminating.

And some of those non-atheists happen to be Special Creationists. And the government can't discriminate against them, any more than it could discriminate against Mormons at Brigham Young.

Which BTW is accredited for Pell grants. If the government has to give Pell grants to Mormons, then it has to give them to Special Creationists; it's only fair.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Goshawk

Which BTW is accredited for Pell grants. If the government has to give Pell grants to Mormons, then it has to give them to Special Creationists; it's only fair.

Special creationism is a belief about science, so it's not accurate to compare special creationists to Mormons. I don't know if Brigham Young archeology classes have a section on the Laramites of North America.

I agree this is an issue for the accreditation body and not the government.

[Edges]

Quote:

“I show them side-by-side — Here’s the human. Here’s the chimpanzee,” he said. “If I would not present evolution and their best evidence and arguments, then I would not be a scholar and I would not be providing the best service for the students.
...
DeWitt’s personal views are critical of evolution, he said.

“If a frog turns into a prince with a kiss then it’s a fairy tale. If a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, it’s science,” he said, referencing the theory of evolution. “It’s almost ridiculous.”

Ok, I'm a Creative Writing Major so my university science class was basically "Science for Dummies" and even I know that is a very silly thing to say. If you want your students to be able to argue well against evolution, shouldn't you be teaching actual evolution? Even I understand that the theory of evolution does not state that humans evolved from chimpanzees nor does it state that one species can evolve into a completely different species. If this is how and what he is actually teaching his students, he is doing them a major disservice and setting them up to look foolish.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Edges

Ok, I'm a Creative Writing Major so my university science class was basically "Science for Dummies" and even I know that is a very silly thing to say. If you want your students to be able to argue well against evolution, shouldn't you be teaching actual evolution? Even I understand that the theory of evolution does not state that humans evolved from chimpanzees nor does it state that one species can evolve into a completely different species. If this is how and what he is actually teaching his students, he is doing them a major disservice and setting them up to look foolish.

This presumes people actually hear the evidence when it is spoken. That's not what happens. These people literally latch on to the lie the last guy passed on to them and they pass it on to the next believer all the while, tuning out the facts.

We've had threads where people carefully talk someone through the facts, one at a time. And before the thread is through the Creationists or IDer is repeating the same false facts and never acknowledges the long careful explanation. This pattern is true in the CT threads and it is especially true in the evolution threads.

I've mentioned this before, but now is a good time to repeat it. The problem is not a knowledge deficit, it is knowledge avoidance. And for that, we need new solutions.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by godless dave

Special creationism is a belief about science, so it's not accurate to compare special creationists to Mormons. I don't know if Brigham Young archeology classes have a section on the Laramites of North America.

I did find a class in the Anthropology department:
280. Archaeology and the Scriptures. (3:3:0) Evening Classes only.
The Bible and the Book of Mormon compared with archaeological findings on early civilizations.

[Holler Hoojer]

OK, those of you who took graduate science courses, think back. Remember the people in class with you? Remember the lady from MIT who just broke the curve every time? The guy from Carbondale who asked questions you couldn't follow? You probably remember folks from McGill, GA Tech, Harvard, CalTech, UNC, and so on. But, did you ever run into anybody from Liberty?

[Edges]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

We've had threads where people carefully talk someone through the facts, one at a time. And before the thread is through the Creationists or IDer is repeating the same false facts and never acknowledges the long careful explanation. This pattern is true in the CT threads and it is especially true in the evolution threads.

I've mentioned this before, but now is a good time to repeat it. The problem is not a knowledge deficit, it is knowledge avoidance. And for that, we need new solutions.

That was sort of my point, actually. Although the Creationists and IDers may not recognize it, they look foolish when they continue to argue against "facts" that have already been dismissed as misrepresentations.

And this class will only lead to more of that as this man's students will believe that they are being taught the facts of evolution. I would expect them to stick their fingers further in their ears than anyone because acknowledging that they were misinformed could call in to question their education in general.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Edges

...acknowledging that they were misinformed could call in to question their education in general.

I may incorporate that into my email.

[TsarBomba]

Quote:

From OP: “I’m a scientist, and I’m not denigrating science. I’m critiquing the idea that millions of years is the magic wand that makes it possible.”

I guess he favors the instantaneous magic wand that his deity must have used.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally Posted by Goshawk

Because the United States of America isn't composed solely of secular atheists--there are a goodly number of religious people here, too. And the government is underwritten by the taxes contributed by both atheists and non-atheists, and thus, it is designed to serve both atheists and non-atheists, and thus student loans are offered impartially to both atheists and non-atheists.

It's government of the people, by the people, and for the people--and some of those people are religious, and it isn't fair to cut them off from access to government student loans which they themselves have helped pay for, just because they themselves are religious. It would be discrimination, see. And the government is expressly instructed not to discriminate against people on the basis of religion. If the government says, "you can't have a government student loan because you want to use it at a non-secular college", then they're discriminating.

And some of those non-atheists happen to be Special Creationists. And the government can't discriminate against them, any more than it could discriminate against Mormons at Brigham Young.

Which BTW is accredited for Pell grants. If the government has to give Pell grants to Mormons, then it has to give them to Special Creationists; it's only fair.

I have no idea what secular atheists have to do with this. The thread is about education. Education is about teaching facts and the current state of academic fields. Education is not about offering pseudoscience as science then awarding degrees for it.

[Robster, FCD]

LU grads in the sciences will have to face academic selection (haha) when trying to get a job or into a grad school.

[Questioninggeller]

I was looking at the Department of "Natural Science" at Bob Jones University, and noticed it is a lot like Liberty University.

Bob Jones University offers biology degrees and pre-med degrees. There are 18 faculty in their science department and their education is lised here.

What immediately jumps out:
1) 0 of the 18 have biology PhDs. (1 of the 18 has a PhD in biochemistry.)
2) 13 of the 18 have undergraduate degrees from the school they teach at.
3) 2 of the 18 have no degree in ANY science/medical field. (How can you teach a class and offer a science degree when the teacher doesn't even have a science degree? Why is someone with an MA in English teaching science at a "university"?)
4) 15 of the 18 have a PhD in science, which according to its department include Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electrical & Computer Engineering, and Dental Science. (I didn't include the Doctor of Medicine from a school in the West Indies.)
5) 7 of the 15 who have PhDs got their PhD from Clemson University (I have no idea what that is about.)

What strange department for offering biology degrees, and pre-med instruction. How many of their students go to graduate school or get accepted to medical schools?

Then the Bob Jones University statement of science and creation:

Quote:

BJU and Creation

Although Bob Jones University is primarily a teaching institution, the members of the science faculty have a long tradition of speaking, writing, and doing research related to defending the Bible’s account of creation.

And they make clear their stance with this on the "Gap Theory":

Quote:

Gap Theory Statement
...
In conclusion, while the faculty of the Division of Natural Science at Bob Jones University understand the gap theory interpretation held by other sincere Bible-believing Christians, especially those of past generations, we see no necessity for it. We believe that the best way to understand both Scripture and the scientific evidence is in terms of an earth that is only 6 to 10 thousand years old. For this reason, none of our faculty either believes or teaches the gap theory.

That page has a link to the faculty denying evolution.

A class biology majors take:

Quote:

Bio 300 - Evolution and Origins

Discussion and critical evaluation of the biology and philosophy behind neo- Darwinism (materialism), the intelligent design movement and special creation. Extensive use will be made of a current evolutionary textbook, important recent monographs, scientific journal articles and position statements. The course will engage students in critical thinking and problem solving and prepare them to answer challenges to a biblical world view regarding evolution and origins.

First semester, three hours. Prerequisites: Bio 203 or Bio 208 Prerequisite.

I should also point out that Bob Jones University Press is a big publisher for text books for home schooled and Christian school children. Some of their books were part of Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al. over the University of California's science requirements.

[Wowbagger]

Quote:

“Which penguin gets eaten?” he asks. “The one that’s genetically inferior, or the one that’s in the wrong place at the wrong time?”

Is there a real significant difference, from the point of view of nature? I would guess that a statistically significant percentage of adaptive evolution comes from genes that keep life forms away from the "wrong place" at the "wrong time".

Quote:

That element of chance, he argues, begins to unravel the idea of natural selection, or “survival of the fittest,” a key mechanism in the theory of evolution.

If that's the case, then how come modeling penguins with natural selection is helping scientists learn much more about them....

Quote:

At the front of the class, a slide on DeWitt’s presentation displays a biblical passage from Ecclesiastes 9:11.

...and your Bible quote is not?

[Molinaro]

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open

Again, the creationist mind shows a complete lack of the ability to grasp the concept time beyond their own experience, i.e, time periods longer than hundreds of years. Of course there are some unlucky penguins, but this number becomes very close to irrelevant when you are looking at billions of penguins over millions of years.

Wouldn't it be the herding instinct that's being selected against? A penguin who goes off on his own is less likely to evade a predator than one who stays in a group?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Edges

Ok, I'm a Creative Writing Major so my university science class was basically "Science for Dummies" and even I know that is a very silly thing to say. If you want your students to be able to argue well against evolution, shouldn't you be teaching actual evolution?

This wouldn't work. Because arguments against evolution are based on strawmen, not on evolution. Giving them a real understanding of evolution would permit them to see how deceptive and dishonnest their teachers really are.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

I did find a class in the Anthropology department:
280. Archaeology and the Scriptures. (3:3:0) Evening Classes only.
The Bible and the Book of Mormon compared with archaeological findings on early civilizations.

This may or may not be a perfectly valid secular course. The question is do they claim that the evidence supports the bible or the book or mormon more than it does.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

I was looking at the Department of "Natural Science" at Bob Jones University, and noticed it is a lot like Liberty University.

Bob Jones University offers biology degrees and pre-med degrees. There are 18 faculty in their science department and their education is lised here.

What immediately jumps out:
1) 0 of the 18 have biology PhDs. (1 of the 18 has a PhD in biochemistry.)

Now that's not true. PhD's in Entomology, zoology and plant physiology are very much biology degrees.

However...

Quote:

5) 7 of the 15 who have PhDs got their PhD from Clemson University (I have no idea what that is about.)

I think I may have some idea what that's about, seeing how all the actual biology degrees came from Clemson University.

[LarianLeQuella]

Skeptigirl, send it, and send a copy to Liberty as well.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by H'ethetheth

I think I may have some idea what that's about, seeing how all the actual biology degrees came from Clemson University.

Do you think there's a creationist "mole" running a diploma mill out of his office at Clemson?

My guess: Clemson and Bob Jones are right next to each other. Bob Jones faculty slots aren't exactly a huge draw for newly minted Ph.Ds; Bob Jones "bachelor of science" degrees aren't exactly a bright shining star on their alumni's CVs. So I can imagine that there's a local industry where the Bob Jones grads put down roots in the area, get the idea of teaching at the old alma mater, and then look for a Ph.D. program that they can complete without leaving home. And Clemson is the only thing in the area.

I suspect you'd see a similar thing for lower-tier colleges all over the country---I suspect that you see a lot of UW grads teaching at Seattle Pacific University, a lot of University of Miami grads teaching at Barry and Miami-Dade College, etc.

Just a guess, though.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by ben m

Do you think there's a creationist "mole" running a diploma mill out of his office at Clemson?

My guess: Clemson and Bob Jones are right next to each other. Bob Jones faculty slots aren't exactly a huge draw for newly minted Ph.Ds; Bob Jones "bachelor of science" degrees aren't exactly a bright shining star on their alumni's CVs. So I can imagine that there's a local industry where the Bob Jones grads put down roots in the area, get the idea of teaching at the old alma mater, and then look for a Ph.D. program that they can complete without leaving home. And Clemson is the only thing in the area.

I suspect you'd see a similar thing for lower-tier colleges all over the country---I suspect that you see a lot of UW grads teaching at Seattle Pacific University, a lot of University of Miami grads teaching at Barry and Miami-Dade College, etc.

Just a guess, though.

I wouldn't know. It's all too far away from the world I'm familiar with, here in communo-elitist Europe.

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

I was looking at the Department of "Natural Science" at Bob Jones University, and noticed it is a lot like Liberty University.
<snip>

I ordered a creationist book from Inter Library Loan because I did not want to buy it. When it arrived yesterday, I realized that it had come from Mack Library, Bob Jones University. Inside the front cover is a sticker that says:

Quote:

The fact that this volume is included in the Bob Jones University Library does not mean that the University endorses its contents from the standpoint of morals, philosophy, theology, or scientific hypotheses. The position of Bob Jones University on these subjects is well known.

In order to standardize the work and validate the credits of Bob Jones University it is sometimes necessary to include in this library books whose contents the University cannot wholly endorse.

I cannot imagine that the truly dreadful creationist book offends them, but perhaps they put the sticker on all their books to make it clear they only own the evil science books for accreditation purposes.