On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:52:11 -0600, Michael Smith wrote: > Mike Palij wrote: >> "It is unfortunate how Prof. Smith edits posts because he edited out >> the questions I asked which I reproduce here:" >> >> "...Why he focuses on the summary answer I provide to the question in >> the Subject line is beyond me." > > Well, Mike, it may be beyond you, but if you look at your own post, > the only question you actually asked was in the subject line. Given > that you wanted me to answer something I took issue with your wrong > answers to that question.
I'm sorry Prof. Smith, you must be confused because in the post you are responding to I made clear which questions I was referring to: > |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... If you find yourself unable to answer these questions, that's okay, and no one will think the worst of you for it.. As for why I asked about Statements of Faith, let me explain: places that require one to sign a statement of faith then requires one to teach and behave in accordance the beliefs in that statement. The clear example I provided is that of Patrick Henry College which had the practice of teaching creation along with evolution which was the reason why it was denied accreditation in the first place. I asked if your college's Statement of Faith, with its claim of an inerrant Bible also required such a practice. I also asked if you had signed such a statement and whether it affected how you present evolution in your courses. You have not directly answered these questions AND THAT'S OKAY TOO. I understand if you don't want to answer them because you simply don't want to or because this is a public record and your response might pose problems down the line. > I find it curious though that the majority of your lengthy prose was > to a peculiar end. That is, "I have gone through this review in order > to reach a particular point, namely, the "Statement of Faith" for > Taylor College:" > Why would that be Mike? See "Patrick Henry College", teaching creation and evolution and Biblical inerrancy. Their Statement of Faith clearly had an effect on their teaching. You teach at a College that appears to be similar to Patrick Henry College, a point you could clarified by saying "yes" we are or "no" we're not and this is how we differ. It is still unclear what your situation is. > Now, in your last post in this thread (Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM) > you did pose a number of questions which I suppose in your mind you > believed that you asked in the post of Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:31 AM, > but actually did not. > > These questions included creationism/Intelligent Design/homosexuality/etc. Yes, because if you are required to believe that the Bible in inerrant, then there is a support for some of these things (creationism/ID) and not for others (homosexuality, a womon's right to choose, etc.). Let come right out with another question: Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you do not, how does that square with the Taylor's Statement of Belief? > This may come as a surprise to some, but, as in the general > population, Christians have varying opinions about these issues and > varying levels of commitment to their opinions (at least in Canada). Non sequiteur. The purposes of Statements of Faith is to establish a core set of belief and if a college requires you to abide by them then failure to endorse them, especially if this was a condition of employment, then you can be fired. I know that there are a variety of positions in religion, I made this point clearly in another post involving the interview with the President of Notre Dame. Variety is not news, a college limiting academic freedom to the acceptance of a particular secterian viewpoint in its teaching and norms for behavior is. Although brief, there is a Wikipedia entry on Statement of Faith and perhaps other Tipsters can explain what a Statement of faith is to you; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_of_faith > Another surprise perhaps: > Being that I work in a Christian institution, I am not required to > present ANY particular view. Note that this is NOT the case at a > secular university where professors are required to teach a particular > view, for example, that homosexuality is not pathological, and that > abortion is a woman's right. A couple of points: (1) If you work at an institution like Patrick Henry College and you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, you therefore will believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it's promotion is the work of Satan. I assume that this is the position of PHC as well as many other sectarian institutions (a number of Notre Dame alumni thought it should have been their college's position after hearing that the college allowed a Queer/Gay film festical on campus). (2) With respect to secular universities, I can teach that homosexuality is viewed by certain groups who feel that according to their authorities, one being the Bible, it is an abomination before God and is thus pathological. The scientific evidence for this view was somewhat supportive in the first half of the 20th century but it became clear that the research was severely flawed. With the development of better research designs, it has become clear that homosexuality is not, in and of itself pathological, but since its practicioners have often been marginalized and oppressed, it is not surprising to see homosexuals, much like other oppressed groups, experiencing significant stresses and difficulties in living their lives. There is much research on this point as well as histories (damn! too bad we don't have a historian on the list who could provide some good references ;-). But then again, you're not so hot about research. > Now of course, it will be claimed that the teaching of these views > are not so required, but just try teaching that homosexuality IS > pathological and that abortion is NOT a woman's right and see if you > keep your job--so much for academic freedom. If I were a clinician, I would say that you've attempted to present such views at the nonsectarian universities and were met with with a bad reaction which you have now generalized to all nonsectarian universities and I would suggest you attempt to work this out. But good thing I'm not a clinician. > "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." > > Yes, you are wrong. Which part am I wrong about? That Taylor believes in the inerrancy of the Bible? Isn't that what they claim in their Statement of Faith? -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
