<p>OP,
I think it depends on your definition of “Christian College”. Are you embracing all Christian Schools including Catholic and Protestant-supported (like Moravian) or limiting your definition to conservative Protestant as many on this board seem to do?
A non-Christian would be perfectly comfortable at the Catholic school that my daughter attends as a nonCatholic. As a liberal Protestant she loves going to mass, which is not required. Many of her friends are Christians of all flavors, but the ones who are not religious are very comfortable at the school.<br>
On the other hand, she would go nuts even as a Christian at a conservative Christian school. She does not want to be told that she must adhere to a specific way of approaching her relationship with God or specific theological interpretations (eg only males being allowed to be pastors). Many of the conservative schools require daily chapel attendance, and I don’t imagine a nonChristian would appreciate that much.</p>
<p>
Whistle Pig, would it be “thought policing” if a school condemned a professor for saying that Adolf Hitler was born in 1799 and was a chief combatant at the Alamo? Or would they simply be correcting someone who is, by all reasonable accounts, wrong?</p>
<p>Eddie, I’m really glad my closest childhood friend was catholic. Devout. Confession often as we were frequent, robust sinners. Plastic JC on the dash. The fully monty. Otherwise I might be inclined to think they’re all idiots. I’m happy I know at least one who’s not. 
;)</p>
<p>I’m just trying to see what statements counter to the bulk of all evidence should or should not be targeted by the “thought police.”</p>
<p>“Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.” - Stephen Jay Gould</p>
<p>I would expect that the thought police at Lehigh would have an equally dismissive view of any avowed apple-levitationists in its Biology department. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Well, I know where I won’t be taking my anti-gravitation device!</p>
<p>Also, nice 6000.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Much of what Gould says is undeniable, accurate, true. Do you believe the ideas that I’ve left of your quoting him? Evolution = fact ??? Do you know what he means when he uses the term “evolution?” That is so often abused, misused, and confused with natural selection, the latter of which is undeniable. Finches have different colors and beaks. Facts. Finches become elephants and tortoises? Theory </p>
<p>Humans evolving from monkies? Funny, fiction, at best a theory. No evidence of monkies becoming men … or mice becoming monkies. The fossil record does not lie. </p>
<p>But let’s be really clear here, because dropping Einstein’s name and quoting a Harvard professor do not connote truth, reality, or anything much beyond religious beliefs they’ve held but termed “facts” and “theory” as they worship at the throne of King Darwin. Why? Simple … money, power, peer pressure. But nothing about truth or the alleged search for it. </p>
<p>gadad, I cofess to being a bit surprised at your succumbing to these “theories.” I do understand however that be your position functions of chicken or egg, i.e. you believe and valued this so-called intellectualism and therefore have devoted yourself to embracing the values and positions worshipped there generally. Or that you’ve spent your life laboring there, and it’s what you are fed and therefore become. Either way, Dr. Behe and a whole bunch of other “radical” if underground thinkers recognize the brain-washing phenomenon. The greater challenge and problem faced by our society is that most students and even parents do not recognize that reality.</p>
<p>In any case, it is a sad reality that virtually all professors, despite the proclamation that they are about discovering or discerning new knowledge, are like lemmings, headed to the sea. And the outcome of their pursuits are determined not by their findings nearly as much as their beginnings. Where they start determines where they finish, and it is virtually totally predictable where professors start these days. </p>
<p>And at its essence, THAT is the primary reason anyone caring about their eternity should ponder the question of Christian vs. secular institution. It is all about … where do most profs at XYZ College “start” in their exploration and presentation of the world.</p>
<p>
Strawman, actually. There is no evolutionary record of anything like this, and you chose the animals to sound ridiculous. They did, however, evolve from a distant common ancestor.</p>
<p>
The fossil record does show humans and apes evolving from a common ancestor. If the fossil record does not lie, how do you explain Australopithecus?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter … you imply that there is somekind of logical “progression” in your notion of mud to man … but that finches to frogs is somehow silly or “ridiculous.” Of course it’s ridiculous and silly. And so is yours! You see, it’s the same mud puddle and monkey that man and muskrats come from. Talk about the need for a deep, religious faith! Seems you’ve subscribed to it hook, line, and sucker. </p>
<p>Please show us the comic book or science book where you read of your “truth” of discovering that missing link that no credible scientist, be he a Darwinian or a Creationist or something else, has dared call “fact.” Funny, maybe.</p>
<p>We believe the god we worship. I know Mine. And I know yours. The primary difference is that my text never requires any “oops. we need to revise that. seems that discovery also was a fake. But it did garner another grant to keep us playing in our proverbial sandbox.” “Could you please pick some other word than ‘proverbial.’” “Oh, sure, I’m not sure where the genesis of that one came from.” “Jesus, Fred.” “Now you’re talking, George! I never knew you were for Him.”</p>
<p>@ Whistle Pig
What? Are seriously saying that there is no progression between apes and primitive humans?</p>
<p>That’s what I’m saying. What makes you think there is that marvelous progression? Said in your world …</p>
<p>Are you seriously saying there is a progression between apes and primitive humans?</p>
<p>(btw, WHAT IS a primitive human???)</p>
<p>[Human</a> evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution]Human”>Human evolution - Wikipedia)
[“MISSING</a> LINK” FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?](<a href=“National Geographic”>National Geographic)</p>
<p>A primitive human are what people know as cave men. Some primitive humans are a bit more primitive than what people picture as cave men, like the Australopithecus. </p>
<p>While evolution is a theory, it has a lot more evidence behind it then Intelligent Design and Creationism.</p>
<p>That’s a pretty strong claim that I fear (the careful, correct word, btw) you’d have enormous difficulty confirming. Why? Because it’s simply your idea. No more. No less. But I’m confident, and no offense is intended here, you probably know more about the clarinet or trumpet than you do about the book of Genesis or the truths of literally every alleged “discovery” of that missing link over the past 100 years. So lesson #1 in your road to becoming an engineer is that truth is not what you hope, desire or even believe it to be. It is what it is. And your statement, while not uncommon thought among young people who’ve been immersed in the worship of science in schools … and it is a religion, have no doubt … and those who’ve perpetrated this because THEY believe it and more so have invested their very lives and livelihoods in it, uses some well understood facts and principles to purport and extrapolate and even proclaim theories and ideas (as well as ideals) as facts. Text books support much of this, and we often explicitly or otherwise think …"Hey it’s in the book, right. Must be ‘true.’ " I’ve several of my own science texts and it is stunning how many “facts” are no longer. Guess what? Those ones you perceive as your “gospel” of science will be precisely false and out of date so fast it’ll make your head spin. I promise. Guarantee it. And if I’m lying? See me in Heaven, and I’ll even up with you. For I’m always always thirsty for THE truth, and vomitous of stuff like you and I’ve been fed by the culture. The difference right now, between you and me? I know it. You don’t. Will you? I can’t answer that, but what I DO KNOW about YOU? Where you end up will depend upon where you start. You are in a VERY RISKY place, trying to put God in one box and science in another. And if you don’t want to buy it from some on-line nut you think you’ve figured out? Test it on your pastor. And here’s praying you’ve a God-fearing and loving leader unafraid to tell you THE Truth. 
</p>
<p>btw, Christianity has no place for “primitive” human beings according to your definition, i.e. less “evolved” perhaps? Adam was #1 and he had a wife and they were both totally coherent, altho they lived without need or desire for clothing or eating meat, etc. You apparently don’t believe that? Even their surroundings could not be describes as “primitive.” You see, both yours and God’s ideas are not coherent. Whose report do you think you and I should buy?</p>
<p>I don’t ‘worship’ science.
I simply enjoy being well-informed and not being ignorant of the world around me. I believe in some religion ideas and see that some of them just aren’t possible. Seeing as the Bible was not written by God, I don’t have any doubts parts of it are totally wrong, and I don’t think God will hold it against me. Humans mess things up all the time and they clearly don’t know everything. There is no commandment saying “The Bible is your law” but there is one about worshiping false entities. Worshiping the Bible isn’t Christianity.</p>
<p>This isn’t the place for a debate on if Bible is true (it’s against the rules of this page).</p>
<p>What do you think the Bible is? Who do you believe wrote it? What if any role did your God play in that? What role does the Bible have in your proclamation of being a Christian? What does your church say the Bible is? Which church? denomination?</p>
<p>I’m afraid until you sort out these questions, indeed you will have a “debate” as you have a foundation that cannot be defended beyond “I think” “I feel” “my science teacher says this” etc. </p>
<p>What is against the rules? You need to re-read what it says about topics including politics, religion, ethnicity, etc. I’m not “slamming” or denigrating Christians, and this is totally in context to your question and exploration. Absent knowing what you think, answers are simplistic and meaningless, although that may be precisely what you’d prefer. If so, say so. And quit wasting time(s). </p>
<p>I understand you fail to grasp that you may have placed your faith, or much of it, in science (again, only a tool for understanding God’s creation and all in it). </p>
<p>And the purpose of asking about your foundation is that you asked questions, good and fair questions, that can only be answered in context of what you believe and worship. You’ve been candid if vague and rambling about your beliefs. God’s not through with you or me by a long shot, thankfully. </p>
<p>You’ll benefit from working at dropping your defenses and recognizing the complexity of your questions IF you really want answers that are not someone else’s or pablum. You’ll determine which you really want. Bright as you appear to be, I’m banking and hoping that you want real answers, not merely confirmation to that which you’ve been fed and think you think.</p>
<p>" Politics, Religion, etc. Politics, religion, and similar controversial topics should be discussed only as directly applicable to college matters. College Confidential is not a debating society. Hence, “Would a Catholic be comfortable at BYU?” or “What is the political environment at Grinnell?” are fine. “Democrats (or Republicans) are evil!” and other opinions unrelated to the college process are not allowed." Directly from the terms and conditions you agreed to when you made your account.
I believe man wrote it and then more men wrote in it and then much later different men translated it, edited it and threw chunks out (in the case of the King James Bible). But let’s throw in those sources for you to ignore.
[Frequently</a> Asked Questions: Who Wrote the Bible](<a href=“http://www.theology.edu/faq01.htm]Frequently”>Frequently Asked Questions: Who Wrote the Bible)
[The</a> Apocrypha Index](<a href=“http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm]The”>The Apocrypha Index)</p>
<p>
My God is the same as yours, and I do recall Him coming again to revise quite a bit, in the New Testament.</p>
<p>Of course, one can follow something (science, a political belief, etc) without it being their “God.” But I know you interpret religion wildly differently, and are so smugly self-righteous that this won’t get through. I suppose I just want people to know that most Christians aren’t like you. Science is real, I’m happy to say. We can understand the world God made.</p>
<p>A few clarifications:
- God has come again to revise the NT? That is very intriguing can you expand, pls.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Of course one can and many do "follow"science, politics, economics, history, NASCAR, the arts without it becoming their “god.” (small “G”) Conversely, many worship at the altars of those and other worldly phenomenon. Many have forgotten that beautiful music inspires because it lifts us up, edifies the Giver of that gift, replacing it by the glitz and glamour of being part of the symphony, the maestro, the musicians. Science is no different. The performers and performances replace the producer. </p></li>
<li><p>Your interpretation of my challenge to your ideas results in your personal attacks. That is precisely what happens when there is no other recourse. Shoot the messenger. Not good.</p></li>
<li><p>Is your desire really to make sure that you grasp Christianity, Christians, and folks like me? I doubt that, and would encourage you to look further at that motivation. It could lead you in some productive directions of understanding and growth.</p></li>
<li><p>You proclaim “science is real, I’m happy to say. We can understand the world God made.” You know, THAT is believable. You say that with conviction. And it does offer some insight to your heart. I have to wonder if it might not be better to have guide that conviction a bit differently, maybe fist-pumping that, "God is real, I’m happy to say. We can understand world God made through His gift of science. "</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I understand your personal disdain, and far more important than that though is your understanding your own world view and working to embrace and champion God’s views in lieu of trying to edit and re-interpret the Scriptures to fit yours. It’s always intriguing to me that you and many (you are sadly in vast company today) can and do proclaim the miracle of a virgin giving birth to God, that God being able to receive the sentence and punishment for your many sins, His being slaughtered one day and returning to life 3 days hence, and then He ascends and sits on God’s throne @ His right hand. All that you can and do proclaim to believe! Praise the Lord! </p>
<p>And if I asked you, “But how do you know?” The only conceivable answer is the Bible tells you so! Specifically that New Testament you seem to think has been edited to fit. </p>
<p>But then when asked about the earth, man, woman, and more … you suddenly must put on your “Bill Nye/Science Guy” favorite hat, proclaiming … “we all came from a common molecule.” And when asked about how you know? Well, it certainly isn’t from the Bible is it. </p>
<p>And you tell me that ain’t “religion” requiring massive amounts of faith. I think you’re sufficiently bright to figure out this dog doesn’t hunt so good. I think you’ve put your god in one very small box, especially compared to the science kit you’ve created in your mind’s eye. Totally illogical.</p>
<p>Bottom line to all of this is call me whatever you like. It’s a clear sign of conviction, I’m happy to say, because if you really thought I’m nuts, even you would have compassion for me, wouldn’t you? I’d certainly hope so. No, God has not abandoned you, and He really despises your invented theology. And He wants you to know the Truth, whole Truth, and nothing but His Truth. Now, I may not have all of that … or even any of it. But I’m hoping that you’re sufficiently bright enough to realize the fallacy of your dare I say it, scientific method of concluding that which you have for now. You might want to consider a do-over in your lab experiment … before the Professor calls for your report. </p>
<p>Go get 'em! ;)</p>
<p>Ive been wondering the same thing OP. Im a non christian and ik theyre a lot of good christian schools out there. I wonder how itd be going there. I live in the bible belt actually, so ik what its like to be around it all.</p>
<p>P.S. for bandgeek …</p>
<p>You imply the “discovery” of Ida (she was actually “found” in 1983 … and sold several times before she tickled the news media in 2009) is “THE” missing link.</p>
<p>You need to broaden your reading. No scientists of any repute have joined your embrace of this silly story. National Geographic has an agenda and they are fading fast as a reliable source of scientific truth. Great TV though with lots of outrageous implied truths.</p>
<p>One more “fact” exposed as one more attempt to make science.</p>
<p>Check it out:</p>
<p>[Ida</a> (Darwinius masillae): the Missing Link at Last? - Answers in Genesis](<a href=“http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link]Ida”>Ida (Darwinius masillae): the Missing Link at Last? | Answers in Genesis)</p>