<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>