Big name presidents of Christian colleges...still no strong sciences

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Thought I'd tie two totally separate threads together. :-)</p>

<p>So we have:</p>

<p>Philip Ryken, President of Wheaton College
Dinesh D'Souza, President of The King's College
Kenneth Starr, President of Baylor (not necessarily in the same class of Christian colleges as the first two)</p>

<p>Are there other well known presidents of Christian colleges?</p>

<p>Secondly, why are Christian colleges still weak in math and science, particularly physics? Some of the greatest minds in these areas throughout history have been Christians. There are actually a stunning number of Christian math and physics professors in secular colleges. Why can't the offerings at a Christian college be much meater? I think there are a lot of talented/gifted Christian kids choosing secular colleges because of this. There are no graduate level math and physics courses available at any Christian university except Baylor, as far as I know, and again, Baylor isn't what I'd consider a "Christian" college, per se. If there are other Christian colleges offering meaty math and physics, particularly through graduate level, I'd love to know about them.</p>

2

<p>You’re ignoring Catholic schools, many of which have impressive graduate programs in science and mathematics, but I’ll put that aside to answer one of your questions.</p>

<p>

Some of the greatest minds of old Europe were Christian, generally in the time when just about everyone in Europe was Christian and just about every college was Christian. Copernicus, a Catholic monk, made advances in the time when all the universities around him were Catholic, as did Catholic lay-person Galileo. Isaac Newton was a Christian of sorts (though he called worshiping Christ as God idolatry) and a scientist in the time that Oxford and Cambridge had deep ties to the Church of England.</p>

<p>In modern times, however, the secular universities prevail, being seen as embodying the principle of separating religion from other matters (despite histories of excluding Catholics and Jews and other religions). The vocal minority of Christians who think science is a lie and that evolution and the Big Bang are wrong have biased people into thinking the view of the average Christian is that the universe was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, while the truth of the matter is that many of even this past century’s great scientists have had religious convictions (Albert Einstein, a Jew, was very religious, as was his Christian friend Father Georges Lema</p>

3

<p>Hi Billy,</p>

<p>I don’t really follow your logic of why Christian colleges don’t build up significant departments in math and physics (specifically). I also don’t think that you can make sweeping generalizations of Christians who are young earth and say they think science is a lie. You mean they think what a lot of secular scientists have to say is a lie?</p>

<p>What Catholic universities are strong in math and physics? Are they truly Evangelical Catholic schools or just going through the motions like the University of San Diego here in town?</p>

<p>We are not Catholic and my children would most likely not attend a Catholic college/university but they have certainly enjoyed their music experience and the people on the campus of USD.</p>

4

<p>The market responds to demand, and the Christian colleges offer the types of courses as the demand for them is. </p>

<p>Holy Cross has a very strong math department, I think. Georgetown, Notre Dame, BC, Villanova, to name a few are excellent schools as is Fordham,and their reputation goes beyond their religious identities.</p>

5

<p>That makes sense, cptofthehouse; thus, my son is looking at secular colleges.</p>

<p>I guess what I’m asking about Catholic Universities such as the above is, do they hold fast to Catholic doctrine? One of my dearest friends is a Catholic (I would be considered more aligned with Reformed and Evangelical with a charismatic component) and she is leary of Catholic colleges that are pro-abortion and don’t hold to fundamental Catholic doctrines. </p>

<p>But I digress. Yes, I was originally talking about Evangelical Christian colleges such as Wheaton, Grove City, etc. that do have fairly strong math and physics but don’t offer enough for a student that comes in with significant college level experience in these areas.</p>

6

<p>

You’re right, looking back, I did not convey that point very well. What I meant was that a lot of science and math professors with secular educations (the large majority of math/science PhDs) may have reservations about working at a Christian school, because of the unfair reputation given to Christian colleges that they are anti-science.</p>

<p>

I mean that the vocal minority of them in the news suing schools over teaching evolution often give Christians and believers in a God-made world a bad name. There are the people who are very loud about thinking that secular scientists are wrong or the work of devils or what have you, and they are given more attention than the many many more Christians who are much more agreeable and wanting to learn about science, whatever their interpretation/beliefs.</p>

<p>

Notre Dame and Boston College both have math and physics grad programs of some note, though Catholic schools do tend to focus on undergraduate studies somewhat more than graduate studies. I can’t think of any that are evangelist in the way that they don’t try to convert non-Catholics, but they have varying levels of “religiousness,” so to speak. Jesuit schools (like Georgetown, Boston College, Fordham) tend to be more liberal and have more of a religious mix (~50% Catholic), whereas Notre Dame is more conservative (though in the Obama/McCain mock election, they went 50/50, so it’s pretty much a perfect split) and is seen as “more Catholic” (~85% Catholic, >90% Christian).</p>

<p>At various Catholic schools, there were non-Catholic students and professors ready to attest that they felt comfortable in their religions there because of the value placed on faith. However, many non-Catholic students wouldn’t fit a Catholic university very well, and there’s nothing wrong with that; I wouldn’t fit an Evangelical university very well, either.</p>

<p>

There are no pro-abortion Catholic colleges, and none allow campus stores to sell contraceptives. However, some have more liberal students, and a couple have significant gay communities. All Catholic liberals I know are economically and usually socially liberal, but always very anti-abortion, so I wouldn’t imagine that being a problem.</p>

<p>

There seem to be nice people on a lot of campuses, so that’s always a good thing.</p>

<p>

If I were you, I would email a couple of math/science professors at these colleges. They might have a thing or two to say that might interest you or answer your questions.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>Worldview is essentially everything. While Billy and I’ve debated the difference, which he implicitly conveys in using Catholic in lieu of Christian, as a self-avowed Reformed, Evangelical, charismatic … I’d beg to say while Billy’s bright and makes fine arguments for his points, your WV and his could hardly be more disparate. btw, while he might argue that “there are no pro-abortion” Catholic U’s, he’s conveniently forgotten the heated issue of NDU inviting a pro-abortion president to speak. Sorta like inviting Quadaffi or the Iranian dude to speak at a military academy. Perhaps “enlightened” but if one really believes, it doesn’t hold water. Another anecdote that I’m hesitant to call a movement, but perhaps Billy might. Several HSs in our area have recently determined to change their names from Christian to Catholic. What’s that about if Catholic is a subset of Christian. Which is the greater identity? Does marketing trump the Cross?</p>

<p>Lastly, is the issue of theology. While there is definite overlap, on many key issues of theology, there is no common ground between Catholics and Reformed Evangelicals. Works, Mary, clerical hierarchy are just a few. While many like to pooh-pooh these things, broad-brushing it all by saying … it’s just Jesus … well many, perhaps most apologists would not. Catholics … and Evangelicals may both be fine people with great values. And for that matter, throw in Mormons and some other cults and sects. But they are literally worlds apart. Btw, this is NOT the same as discussing differences between the Methodists and the Presbyterians and the Baptists and the … This is about major theological issues. </p>

<p>Lastly, IF those differences are not significant, then why do Billy and Catholic schools insist on pushing Catholicism over Christianity. </p>

<p>Now, what’s the point? I’d argue that yours and Billy’s opinions are informative, and informed. But yours is a different view of the Gospel than his. And that should guide you in how far you can afford to buy his contentions … or your Belief. Remember, lots of opinions But only one truth. Billy proclaims his, you yours. Which do you really think is THE TRUTH, realizing for Christians, there is no such thing as A truth. Merely “A(n)” opinion, which can be respected, even tolerated, but not believed.</p>

8

<p>Responding to Sbjdorlo’s math and science question - not debating theology:</p>

<p>People in our society fall into two groups as critical thinkers. It would seem obvious to assume that people keep an open mind, seek information and weigh it objectively, and then decide what they believe based upon the preponderance of the evidence. That sounds like an obvious process, but those who follow it are IMO very much in the minority. It’s far more common, I believe, for human beings to decide which side of an issue to favor and then selectively seek only that information that tends to support their predetermined conclusion (especially in our currently highly-polarized society). The tendency for humans to lean toward the latter approach is a big part of what universities are here to address, and particularly so in the sciences. If a higher education does anything, it should teach an informed, objective decision-making process - the process that is so endemic to scientists that they call it the “Scientific Method.”</p>

<p>IMO, evangelical schools teach that deciding on a predetermined outcome and then selectively finding the corroborating evidence is an acceptable critical thought process. It isn’t, and that would make such an environment unacceptable to many scientists. Now, I’d have no doubt that there are many fine scientists who do teach at evangelical campuses - they choose to compartmentalize their lives, applying one method to their work and another to their faith. But ultimately, if you’re true to the Scientific Method, you can’t have it both ways. You either weigh objective evidence to come to informed opinions or you generate opinions and reject any evidence that doesn’t fit them. Most scientists will not tolerate the latter approach.</p>

9

<p>gadad,</p>

<p>I would respectfully say that what you describe Christians in science doing is what I see secular scientists doing-taking a worldview and trying to fit evidence (whether it fits or not) into it. While I would agree that Christians in the sciences are guilty of that, too, the street definitely runs both ways.</p>

<p>Whistle Pig, I wish I had time to comment on your thoughtful post. It’s true, I really am anathema to the Roman Catholic Church, yet, therein lies God’s amazing grace that resuces humans despite our complete undeservedness. (Is that even a word?)</p>

<p>Well, wherever my son ends up, it will certainly be interesting for him to have some deep theological discussions with Christian math/science professors and perhaps discuss the topic of my original post.</p>

<p>I really wan isted my son to go to Grove City or Wheaton or Taylor, but I think God has another plan.</p>

10

<p>

Notre Dame has a tradition of inviting every single US President to speak there in their first year of office. They extended the invitation to pro-war, pro-death-penalty, pro-rich, pro-capitalism President Bush, too. Obama just decided to accept, to the protests of a significant group of students and professors and the delight of another significant group of students and professors.</p>

<p>

So… California Baptist University, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, Creation Research Science Education Foundation, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Faithway Baptist College, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Southern Methodist College, Southern Methodist University, Southwestern Adventist University, Temple Baptist College, and all other “Evangelical,” “Baptist,” “Presbyterian,” “Methodist” colleges… Not Christian?</p>

11

<p>Go to the “Answers in Genesis” (AIG) website if you want to know why “Christian” colleges are weak in Science in general and Physics in particular. They are in the midst of a huge campaign about what is being taught in the Science departments of “Christian” colleges. First, they consider the Catholic Church to be a false religion in the same category as Islam so the do not even bother with Catholic colleges and universities. They are excoriating many “Christian” colleges and universities as being “compromised” because they do not teach the literal six day 6,000 years ago Genesis account of Creation in courses in Astronomy and Geology and instead teach “anti-biblical” things like the Big Bang Theory. They viciously attack by name schools and individual professors that they believe have compromised the “truth of the bible with fallen sinful man’s opinions”.</p>

<p>If you spend more than a minute or two on their site you realize what they call science could be politely called pseudoscience or, less politely, irrational babbling. Most of us could not care less what these ignorant fools at AiG think about us but many Christian fundamentalists and Evangelicals, particularly homeschoolers, consider them an authoritative source of scientific information and will give great weight to their opinions on where “Christians” should send their children to college to avoid compromise of biblical beliefs. As long as fundamentalist Protestant colleges feel they have to stay in the good graces of organizations like AiG they are going to be doomed to having weak science offerings.</p>

12

<p>Me thinks thou doest protest too much, Monsieur Lemaitre. You may and obviously do disagree with the fundamental contentions of Answers In Genesis, but fools they are not. To the contrary, there are highly senior and most distinguished scholars among this group of Christians. And their contentions are basic and clear. Two are simply, to be believed by Believers, the Bible … including the Genesis story … must be believed in total. And in doing so, science is a partner in analyzing, explaining, illustrating and countering much of the incorrect information you, I, and every student of the past 150 years have been fed in school … as “fact.” It is significant, voluminous, and illustrates the “buy in” (and investment) much of the scientific community has in the theories of Darwin and his evolution bunk. You see, where you start with your contention and beliefs, will determine where you end up. </p>

<p>The work they are doing is credible, truth-pursuing and revealing, and oh so threatening to those determined to defend all they’ve been fed for decades. How could all those egg-heads be wrong, right? Well, their predecessors said the same when Columbus took off toward the edge of a flat world.</p>

<p>But the real issue is why would these AiG scholars, supported by literally hundreds of thousands of Christians and scientists, be so committed to the idea of validating the Creation story as scientifically possible, probable, and in fact, true? Well, as noted earlier, there is the issue of Bible believability, and completely. But the purpose of this is evangelism to a world filled with worldviewers, perhaps sailing along with Lemaitre.1 People who may or may not have grown up in homes where the notion of the Cross, crucifiction, nature of a just AND loving God, idea and reality of a God-man dying for them, and even seeing themselves as sinners and not "good. Creation is critical in helping these lost souls to consider where they (and man more generally) came from, why they came and why they are not merely sophisticated frogs whose purpose is to regenerate ever-more sophisticated frogs (or monkeys, if you prefer the “scientific” view. Remember all those pictures of our ancestrial knuckle-draggers in your “science” books, all taught as “facts” and thus “truth”??? Talk about factual fiction!) </p>

<p>And re: the Catholic vs. Christian debate, that’s thousands of years in the making. Do we or do we not need a pope to access God? Was Mary worthy of worship or merely a peasant girl chosen by God with a very specific calling. In the end, I’d argue Catholicism is a religion, and an outward execution of what people believe. Christianity is an outward expression and relationship to the Creator of an altered inner state. No dogma necessary beyond that which the Bible illuminates. No more, no less. Catholicism is, like Presbyterianism, etc. man-contrived. </p>

<p>Lastly, watch this closely and ask yourself, why is it sooooo important that institutions persist in labeling “Catholic” along with Christian? Rome knew way back then. Rome knows today. Brand is everything there. Brand is nothing in Heaven, I’m persuaded.</p>

<p>Again, suggesting the men and women involved in the mission of AnswersInGenesis are buffoons is, well buffoonery. Ex: One Ivy-educated Ph.D. there has taught bio-chemistry at Washington University Medical School for some 30+ years. His conviction is simple and clear … the biological, chemical, physiological complexities of the eye, ear, other bodily functions … are so intricate, complex, delicate, and temporal that they could not have been created by Darwin’s notions. You see, for Christians, the Creation story is as true as is the crucifiction, resurrection, ascension, retention of the Holy Spirit. And we (there you have it … I Believe!) have to believe it all, or as C.S. Lewis concluded, none of it has merit. So … where will you start your search? (That will determine where you finish.)</p>

<p>Trust me, you will not be “doomed” because of what some prefer, no MUST demean as “weak science programs.” In the end, that will have nothing to do with your eternal future beyond what you choose to believe. And it is an informed choice. But … when all begins to fail? Shoot the messenger. In Lemaitre’s case that is AiG.</p>

13

<p>For a very different way of putting science and the Bible together, check out BioLogos, an organization founded by Francis Collins. BioLogos ahs an extensive website, with all kinds of resources at [The</a> BioLogos Forum](<a href=“http://biologos.org%5DThe”>http://biologos.org)</p>

14

<p>Seems there’s good news and otherwise here. Dr. Collins recognizes that science and theology are not in opposition at all. His contention that Darwin and Jesus can be married is a seriously flawed hypothesis, I’m afraid.</p>

15

<p>WP, we’ll have to disagree on that, I guess!</p>

16

<p>I suspect. Like you, before spending some time studying this one, I thought evolution (of the species … NOT natural selection) and Christianity could be married. And I worked at marrying them, like Dr. Collins formulating my own non-biblical theory of this. Upon close exam, I came to agree with others that it isn’t possible. It’d be fun to have Dr. Collins and Ken Ham’s best players debate these issues. </p>

<p>If you’ve not begun to really look at the genetic, terminological, historical vs. observational scientific data, you might find it interesting and challenging to what you think you think. </p>

<p>Here’s a link to start.</p>

<p>[Get</a> Answers - Answers in Genesis](<a href=“Answers | Answers in Genesis”>Answers | Answers in Genesis)</p>

<p>And if you’ve a chance to visit the Creation Museum in Cincy … it is amazing. Despite aggressive efforts to keep it from being built there, it has now become the #1 attraction in the Greater Queen City region. Like the global warming, now climate change dilemma, many “invested” scientists are severely threatened by an idea they proclaim as simple, simplistic, unscientific. This one’s not going away. It never has. But lots of money, power, privilege, position tied up in the notion of our coming from from a bucket of chemicals, monkeys, or whatever … and that we immediately began to procreate the species.</p>

17

<p>It is interesting to find professors out there who are not only Christians but who are also young earth creationists. I have spoken to a physics prof at Cal Fullerton who is a young earth creationist and there are more PhDs around the country like him.</p>

<p>For a somewhat interesting book that explores the various beliefs of Reformed Christians on origins, though I don’t agree with the conclusions the authors draw, check out _Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Evolution, and Design by Deborah Haarsma, a physics professor at Calvin College.</p>

<p>My biggest beef with either side of the issue as it relates to Christians and where they stand on origins is the legalism that can creep in. I tend towards young earth creationism since I understand God is fully capable of creating the universe, the world, and everything in it in 6 days, and I’m also really interested in reading the works of young earth scientists. OTOH, many of my Christian friends and even my other wacky homeschool friends (yes, I am a wacky homeschooler) are not young earth creationists. My favorite apolgeticist, Greg Koukl, of Stand to Reason, is not a young earth creationist but he is certainly not a Darwinian evolutionist and he has some great materials that my son has listened to.</p>

<p>Honestly, my son, the physics/math nut, has not worked through his own thoughts on these issues. He’s taken 7 semesters of college physics and is doing graduate level physics research this summer but the issue of origins apparently hasn’t come up.</p>

<p>I’ve communicated with several Christian professors at Harvey Mudd but haven’t asked them their views on origins; same is true for professors at Grove City. However, all that I’ve spoken to are passionate about Jesus Christ and His life, crucifixion, death, and resurrection. </p>

<p>I am ok with the gracious debate between young earth creationists and other views on creations, but as WP said, I think Christians like Francis Collins are mistaken in their support of Darwinian evolution.</p>

18

<p>Just a few more thoughts on this. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Prior to looking @ the logic of the Creation story vs. the Darwin story, I really hadn’t given this much thought. Ham’s contention that most people in today’s culture have grown up worshipping Darwin’s dream and have considered science’s embrace of his ideas as “fact.” It’s in our science books, teachers told us, therefore it must be “true.” </p></li>
<li><p>Bright folks like Dr. Collins … and many more have invested huge amounts of emotional, educational, intellectual and professional capital in Darwin’s notions, ( and very little in examining the potential truths of biblical explanation. It’s become de facto “religion.” It is these biblical explanations that Hamm and his scientists (and increasingly, many other modern day scientists) are committed to examining. </p></li>
<li><p>And as such, here is perhaps THE issue for science … i.e. one’s hypothesis determines one’s direction and conclusions. Said another way, where you begin will determine where you finish. Many scientists are committed to proving evolution and its caveats to be “true” (and Creationism thus to be false). And huge resources are invested in this path. Concurrently, others, even fellow scientists who believe Creationism merits exploration are demeaned and ostracized. Doubt this? Check out how Prof. Behe’s fellow bio-profs and department qualify his presence among them at Lehigh U. He is a major proponent of the possibility of Creationism as meriting scientific consideration. </p></li>
<li><p>One of the major confusions here is terminology … evolution is NOT natural selection. There are vast variations in dogs. That is natural selection. There is no known illustration of being able to verify that while a wolf has morphed into a poodle, none of a poodle becoming a siamese cat. </p></li>
<li><p>Genetics is illuminating in this discussion and search for THE truth of where we’ve come from (and consequently what is our purpose/reason for being). Creationism assumes all genetic coding information for all living things was all there from the get-go. God made it whole. Conversely, and think about this … all in the theory of evolution, all genetic code … ALL of it … had to come from inanimate matter. And “grown” since then. Now for anyone grasping the enormous complexity AND the rules of genetics as we know them now, that is a huge leap. You see, all evidence shows that genetic code is lost, not gained in each pairing. So while there are nearly infinite genetic combinations, NO NEW CODE/genetic info is added. A poodle has less genetic code than does a wolf. </p></li>
<li><p>So how in the world (literally) would a molecule ever become a man? A rock a rock star? </p></li>
<li><p>And the flood is another entire matter. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>The point is that Dr. Collins places God in his box. And it does not work. God’s is way way bigger, is my informed guess. If he can create the stars … why would he even need evolution? Study, study, study … and it becomes ever more clear. </p>

<p>And remember, where we start the exploration will determine where we finish. If we assume the biblical narrative is myth, then there is no chance to find it true. If we hypothesize it as possible? The explanations become remarkably, and scientifically crystal clear. Not so in examining the idea of evolution. Rather than hanging together, it disintegrates.</p>

<p>P.S. The initiative for focusing on Creation vs. evolution is simply this … validation of the truth and accuracy … from a scientific perspective … of the former and the massive “holes” and scientific falsehoods portrayed as fact (ex: the old drawing in our science books portraying monkey morphing to man. Now we know that was fully science-FICTION. The big picture is that validating Creationism will facilitate evangelizing a culture that is heavy into science, little into God, Jesus, Holy Spirit and the purpose of resurrection, need for redemption, etc. All the crap the culture tells us.</p>