Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyway its hopefully just a minority that are taught in as science in America. I've talked to American teens are many of them had an amazing wealth of scientific knowledge so I don't think all the schools are doing bad, they were all atheists though, the religious teens I talked to were less...knowledgeable.
These are the kind of topics that are covered in undergraduate classes in Special Creation at Universities such as UND or Biola.
1. First principles of science, the doctrines of Uniformitarianism and the Copernican Rule.
2. Verifiability and falsifiability. History of scientific naturalism.
3. Entry-level epistemology, justification theory and ontology.
4. Observables and non-observables in science.
5. Comparative biology.
6. History of evolutionary syntheses from Darwin's time to the present.
7. Genesis hermeneutics and exegesis.
Many of these are far from frivolous subjects. In many ways an improvement on the dross they teach in standardised curricula.
Taught properly, I sincerely doubt it is something to be concerned about.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 10-06-2014 at 03:03 AM..
I guess no one is arguing against theology degrees, they exist all around the world. To take a theology curriculum and calling it biology is what is rather unusual across the globe. Personally, I would be concerned if something like that would happen in my country. Since it's not, I just acknowledge it as an American oddity.
I guess no one is arguing against theology degrees, they exist all around the world. To take a theology curriculum and calling it biology is what is rather unusual across the globe. Personally, I would be concerned if something like that would happen in my country. Since it's not, I just acknowledge it as an American oddity.
Depending on the campus, they may classify subjects like this under either religious studies, humanities or science, but the topic itself is too diverse and all-encompassing to be referred to as basic theology.
Things like this are not an exclusively US phenomenon. They're part of a rising anglo-american trend at leading universities in both countries. It's yet to properly disseminate to public perception, given the surprise noted in recent articles like the following:
Quote:
For people born after 1960, having a college degree doesn't cause religious disaffiliation—young, highly educated people are more likely to identify with a faith, according to a new study.
"The core finding is that the association between graduating from college and religious disaffiliation has changed drastically across generations," said Philip Schwadel, the study's author and a professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. For people who were born in the 1920s and '30s, the godless-college-grad stereotype is somewhat true: They were twice as likely as their uneducated peers to be religionless, not identifying with a particular church or synagogue or other religious institution.
But over time, that trend changed. "For those people who were born in the 1960s, there’s really no difference between the college-educated and the non-college-educated in terms of their likelihood of disaffiliating from religion," Schwadel said. "And for those born in the 1970s, it’s actually the non-college-educated who are relatively likely to disaffiliate."
Yeah... I wonder why they cover "Observables and Non-Observables in Science". Certainly not because of one of the most common arguments of evolution deniers, right? Same with pretty much any other topic covered.
Yeah... I wonder why they cover "Observables and Non-Observables in Science". Certainly not because of one of the most common arguments of evolution deniers, right? Same with pretty much any other topic covered.
That's simply philosophy of science. A lot of the teaching is to do with the nature and limits of knowledge and science. Knowing about unobservables equips people to understand that science has definable limitations.
Let's put it like this: I would avoid a university where professors discuss whether students ever saw a monkey turning into a human. Apparently there are people looking for exactly that in the US, which is fine, but they shouldn't wonder that the university will never produce any Nobel Prize winners and that their degree will basically be useless anywhere else in the world...
Let's put it like this: I would avoid a university where professors discuss whether students ever saw a monkey turning into a human. Apparently there are people looking for exactly that in the US, which is fine, but they shouldn't wonder that the university will never produce any Nobel Prize winners and that their degree will basically be useless anywhere else in the world...
This is not what is meant by the observables/unobservables distinction.
To drag this back on-topic, tendencies like this are unlikely to cause consternation against the USA by the rest of the world. It is much more likely to cause consternation towards the rest of world.
It's painful to read this.
It's also painful to know, that half of the People in you country have the same mindset as this AllenK Guy.
It's like we live in the middle ages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
