<p>I would expect “separation” to become more of an issue in some fields than in others, as well as at some schools more than at others. Liberty University has a “Center for Creation Studies” but no geology or physics department. Wheaton has physics and geology departments. The web pages for the Wheaton geology department contain interesting language about Christian stewardship and the role of geology in Christian education. I doubt you’ll find anything quite like that language on the geology department web pages of BYU or selective Catholic institutions (although you may still see some focus on service/stewardship, in addition to pure science.) Neither Georgetown nor Holy Cross seems to offer a geology major at all. By comparison, judging only from the course offerings, geology at Wheaton appears to be a robust department for such a small school.</p>
<p>An emphasis on stewardship and service applications of scientific knowledge can take on quasi-religious (or overtly religious) overtones. That, to me, is different from using a religious world-view to define the basic theory.</p>
<p>Not quite. Men created science, just like the alphabet. Do not worship it. God created scientists, some of whom have become fi-sci’s where the money is huge. And Al Gore created both global warming and the internet. What a guy.</p>
<p>bandgeek, I see where you’re coming from. and really respect you for asking some hard questions. I too have considered both a christian college and secular. I think the other posters have answered correctly by saying it really depends on the christian college as to whether or not they incorporate Bible with science, and how really as a christian, God is a fluid part of every sector of life. The question comes down to your world-view, is God the lens you use to see the world, or do you try to fit God into your views of the world?</p>
<p>The comment about the Bible being disproven struck me, and I can not say I have all the answers. I can offer you this, the Bible has a very take it or leave it mentality, leaving little room for fence sitting. You either must believe it is the inspired word of God and is without fault, or it is not worth your time. Just because the Bible uses the word circle to denote the earth does not mean the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. In fact, does it even mean God endorses a flat earth? I don’t think so. Job used the finite knowledge available to him to describe an infinite God. consider the word pictures and deeper meanings.</p>
<p>My point is not to nit pick over small details, Paul even writes against it. There are two tiers of Biblical theology. The first is the essentials, the things all Christians must agree on. Jesus is the son of God and the only way to Heaven, Jesus died and rose from the dead for our sins, etc. The second tier is the details, many of which we will not know. Whether or not stem cell research or abortion is acceptable, what music is acceptable in church, etc. Paul instructs us to focus on what we agree on and trust God with the rest.</p>
<p>C.S. Lewis, possibly the greatest apologist of our time, phrased your fully logical observation clearly and concisely in how we must view the Bible … “We must accept it all, every little bit … or we must reject it all as simply an interesting story.” And as you’ve noted, not worth our time beyond looking at it as a notable but in the end, just one more example of historical piece of literature. A good book, but not THE Good Book. bandgeek, and the rest of us, should consider reading “Mere Christianity.” </p>
<p>But in the end, trying to place science in some secular box, separate from a sacred God who sacrificed Himself and created man just below the angels and all the world for man to master (see Psalm 8:6) and have authority over is precisely what original sinners Adam and Eve tried and failed, i.e. making up their own “religion” in violation of the rules for living God had clearly given them. They too had to take it all, or take none of it. They chose the latter, and thus our mess and the call for Christ. </p>
<p>And science is one of the tools God has enabled through His creations, to help our understanding of His Creation. Sadly, we’ve become sorely enamored with both the scientists and what they often perceive as their creations, or at least their discoveries, even when they are concoctions of men that exclude the need for a Creator. And that is the ultimate goal of many scientists. To carve out the Creator, making science their idol, and their literal new “golden calf” with lots and lots of money and power at stake. And they’ve wielded that power over young, inquiring, and often gullible, undiscerning minds like some seen here, persuading them of a “truth” that is literally unproven, and virtually unprovable. And along that path, science books written and published by men become more reliable than a Bible inspired and authored by God.</p>
<p>As a science student at a secular university (UVA), I can tell you my science teachers have never pushed specific ethical beliefs. My biology class talked cells, genetics, evolution, metabolic pathways, etc. We talked about what stem cells are, and we talked about miscarriage, but the focus of the class was biology, not bioethics, not religion, and not politics. I have Christian friends taking bioethics classes here and no one has told me that they feel uncomfortable in the class. I don’t know what they talk about for sure, but I assume that all opinions are respected, as is true for most college classes. </p>
<p>If you are worried about research, then be assured that most universities have a large number of research labs allowing students to preform research that they feel comfortable with. Most labs do NOT use stem cells in any way. </p>
<p>I think you could be happy at a secular institution. I also think you could be happy at a christian institution with a strong sciences program. It’s completely up to you. :-D</p>
<p>ssnake, in your very kind and well-intended effort to defend UVA’s bio program and your own choice of education perhaps, you failed to mention in suggesting that you’ve received a somewhat “neutral” or fair and balanced education if they also taught the creation story?</p>
<p>I’m hoping so, betting not, and presuming that yours was not merely an errant omission of the full syllabus. A nice try though and at least good that beyond only teaching one theory, the profs didn’t preach it too directly. Merely implicitly, it would seem. Mr. Jefferson, as an avowed Christian (check out his book in the Monticello bookstore), would be disappointed, I’m confident.</p>
<p>WP, it’s worth checking out Jefferson’s expurgated version of the NT. He excised all the portions he didn’t like (mostly the supernatural portions) so that Jesus ended up a fine moral teacher. Missing from The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth are references to things like prophecy, miracles, the divinity of Jesus, and his resurrection. To be sure, Jefferson was a deist (and apparently thought Jesus was one too, or so he says in some of his correspondence) – so maybe he would have felt differently about creation!</p>