On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:35:22 -0700, Professor Michael Smith wrote: >Mike Palij wrote: >> If he pleases, Prof. Smith might answer these questions.
It is unfortunate how Prof. Smith edits posts because he edited out the questions I asked which I reproduce here: |How Taylor college's statement [of faith] translates into what |can be taught in the classroom, whether creationism/ID is taught in |biology courses or whether the Bible informs psychology classes, |I cannot say... These are the questions I was referring to. Why he focuses on the summary answer I provide to the question in the Subject line is beyond me. >>> In summary, it appears that there are two answers to the question I posed >>> in the Subject line: >>> (1) Not at all. >>> (2) Very, very carefully if one doesn't want to lose their job. > >Hmmm. Let me see. >I would say neither. >"Conservative" institutions would respond I imagine probably in >similar ways to how they handle the fossil record now. I don't know if >they would, but that would make sense to me. Why do I get the impression that you didn't read the rest of my post? Do you think that Patrick Henry College's mixture of evolution and creationism was valid? How would a creationist account explain a 4.4 million year old hominid skeleton? Would a biologist teaching that creationism was nonsense at PHC not be fired for taking such a position? I have to ask, when you explain evolution and evolutionary psychology, do you incorporate creationism/ID? Do you really just say that Ardi is 4.4 million years old or do you say carbon dating isn't that accurate (if you do say this, what are ther references you use to support it?). >For Taylor (and I imagine many many other christian institutions), I >taught the scientific theory of evolution as a theory, a fact, and a >logical necessity. Of course students are free to reject that as they >are free to reject it at any educational institution. That's very good but it leaves unaswered the question of whether creationism/ID had to be presented as well. I assume that you had to affirm Taylor's Statement of Faith, presumably by signing a contract that you would? Correct me if I am wrong on this account. I do not completely understand all of the components of the Statement of Faith but it seems to me that it states that the Bible is an inerrant source of knowledge which would seem to mean that the genesis account of creation has to be accepted as fact. Is this your interpretation as well? Is it your institution, Taylor College's interpretation as well? >Neither was my job at Taylor in any way under threat from anything I >taught with regard to psychology--I was totally free to teach whatever >areas I thought important to an understanding of modern psychology. >And we, as a college encouraged looking at controversial issues or >ones that were important from a christian perspective (evolution >wasn't one of them). So, when you cover homosexuality, do your present it as an acceptable way of being or as a pathology? >As well, all our psychology courses (and most, if not all, courses >from the other departments as well) were transferable to the >University of Alberta (the secular provincial university). Of course, >none of this contradicts their statement of faith. I'm sorry, do you mean Taylor's statement of faith or the U of Alberta? I was unaware that they had one. Also, just to be clear, the courses taught at Taylor would be just like the courses taught at a secular public university, including human sexuality courses that affirms homosexulity as a nonpathological condition, a woman's right to control her own body and to exercise choice over pregnancy, and so on, you know, the topics that most conservatives just love to condemn. If true, that would be truly amazing. >Hope that answers the two questions :) It answer two or more questions but not the ones I asked. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
