Evolution’s Backers in Kansas Start Counterattack
 

Harry E. McDonald, a moderate Republican seeking a board seat, campaigned door to door last week.
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: August 1, 2006
KANSAS CITY, Kan., July 29 — God and Charles Darwin are not on the primary ballot in Kansas on Tuesday, but once again a contentious schools election has religion and science at odds in a state that has restaged a three-quarter-century battle over the teaching of evolution.
Ed Zurga for The New York Times
Less than a year after a conservative Republican majority on the State Board of Education adopted rules for teaching science containing one of the broadest challenges in the nation to Darwin’s theory of evolution, moderate Republicans and Democrats are mounting a fierce counterattack. They want to retake power and switch the standards back to what they call conventional science.

The Kansas election is being watched closely by both sides in the national debate over the teaching of evolution. In the past several years, pitched battles have been waged between the scientific establishment and proponents of what is called intelligent design, which holds that nature alone cannot explain life’s origin and complexity.

Last February, the Ohio Board of Education reversed its 2002 mandate requiring 10th-grade biology classes to critically analyze evolution. The action followed a federal judge’s ruling that teaching intelligent design in the public schools of Dover, Pa., was unconstitutional.

A defeat for the conservative majority in Kansas on Tuesday could be further evidence of the fading fortunes of the intelligent design movement, while a victory would preserve an important stronghold in Kansas.

The curriculum standards adopted by the education board do not specifically mention intelligent design, but advocates of the belief lobbied for the changes, and students are urged to seek “more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.”

Though there is no reliable polling data available, Joseph Aistrup, head of political science at Kansas State University, said sharp ideological splits among Republicans and an unusual community of interest among moderate Republicans and some Democrats were helping challengers in the primary.

Kansas Democrats, moreover, have a strong standard-bearer in the incumbent governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who has distanced herself from the debate.

“And if a conservative candidate makes it through the primary, there’s a Democratic challenger waiting” in the general election, Professor Aistrup said.

Several moderate Republican candidates have vowed, if they lose Tuesday, to support the Democratic primary winners in November. With the campaign enlivened by a crowded field of 16 candidates contending for five seats — four held by conservatives who voted for the new science standards last year — a shift of two seats could overturn the current 6-to-4 majority. The four-year terms are staggered so that only half the 10-member board is up for election each two years.

The acrimony in the school board races is not limited to differences over the science curriculum but also over other ideologically charged issues like sex education, charter schools and education financing. Power on the board has shifted almost every election since 1998, with the current conservative majority taking hold in 2004.

“Can we just agree God invented Darwin?” asked a weary Sue Gamble, a moderate member of the board whose seat is not up for re-election.

The chairman of the board, Dr. Steve E. Abrams, a veterinarian and the leader of the conservative majority, said few of the opposition candidates were really moderates. “They’re liberals,” said Dr. Abrams, who is not up for re-election.

He said that the new science curriculum in no way opened the door to intelligent design or creationism and that any claim to the contrary “is an absolute falsehood.”

“We have explicitly stated that the standards must be based on scientific evidence,” Dr. Abrams said, “what is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and unfalsifiable.”

In science, he said, “everything is supposedly tentative, except the teaching of evolution is dogma.”

Harry E. McDonald, a retired biology teacher and self-described moderate Republican who has been going door to door for votes in his district near Olathe, said the board might have kept overt religious references out of the standards, “but methinks they doth protest too much.”

“They say science can’t answer this, therefore God,” Mr. McDonald said.

Connie Morris, a conservative Republican running for re-election, said the board had merely authorized scientifically valid criticism of evolution. Ms. Morris, a retired teacher and author, said she did not believe in evolution.

“It’s a nice bedtime story,” she said. “Science doesn’t back it up.”

Dr. Abrams said his views as someone who believes that God created the universe 6,500 years ago had nothing to do with the science standards adopted.

“In my personal faith, yes, I am a creationist,” he said. “But that doesn’t have anything to do with science. I can separate them.” He said he agreed that “my personal views of Scripture have no room in the science classroom.”

Dr. Abrams said that at a community meeting he had been asked whether it was possible to believe in the Bible and in evolution, and that he had responded, “There are those who try to believe in both — there are theistic evolutionists — but at some point in time you have to decide which you’re going to put your credence in.”

Last year’s changes in the science standards followed an increasingly bitter seesawing of power on the education board that began in 1998 when conservatives won a majority. They made the first changes to the standards the next year, which in turn were reversed after moderates won back control in 2000. The 2002 elections left the board split 5-5, and in 2004 the conservatives won again, instituting their major standards revisions in November 2005.

Critics said the changes altered the science standards in ways that invited theistic interpretations. The new definition called for students to learn about “the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory.”

In one of many “additional specificities” that the board added to the standards, it stated, “Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal.”


John Calvert, manager of the Intelligent Design Network in Shawnee Mission and a lawyer who wrote material for the board advocating the new science standards, said they were not intended to advance religion.

“What we are trying to do is insert objectivity, take the bias out of the religious standard that now favors the nontheistic religion of evolution,” Mr. Calvert said.

Janet Waugh, a car dealer and the only moderate Democrat on the board whose seat is up for election, said that just because some people were challenging evolution did not mean their views belonged in the curriculum.

“When the mainstream scientific community determines a theory is correct, that’s when it should be in the schools,” Ms. Waugh said. “The intelligent design people are trying to cut in line.”

The races have been hard-fought. With the majority of the 100,000 registered Republicans in Mr. McDonald’s northeast Kansas district usually ignoring primary elections, a few hundred ballots could easily be the margin of victory.

So Mr. McDonald, who with $35,000 is the lead fund-raiser among the candidates, printed newsletters showing his opponent, the conservative board member John W. Bacon, with a big red slash through his face and the slogan, “Time to Bring Home the Bacon.” Mr. Bacon did not respond to several calls for a response.

But many of the homeowners Mr. McDonald visited Friday night showed little interest in the race. Jack Campbell, a medical center security director, opened the door warily, and when Mr. McDonald recited his pitch, seemed disappointed. “I thought I won some sweepstakes,” Mr. Campbell said.

Last Thursday night at Fort Hays State University, Ms. Morris debated her moderate Republican challenger, Sally Cauble, a former teacher, and the Democratic candidate, Tim Cruz, a former mayor of Garden City, whom Ms. Morris once accused of being an illegal immigrant. (He said he was third-generation American, and Ms. Morris apologized.)

The audience asked about Kansas being ridiculed across the country for its stance on evolution.

“I did not write the jokes,” Ms. Morris said.

Spectators split on the winner.

“There are so many more important issues in Kansas right now,” said Cheryl Shepherd-Adams, a science teacher. “The issue is definitely a wedge issue, and I don’t want to see our community divided.”

Who would have thought that science has a bias that supports what science has found?

What the hell is the problem with presenting both views, stating that most scientists believe that evolution is the most accurate?
If one is secure in their religion they would have no issue with it, right?

If they want to teach religion is childeren's science classes, we should also teach science in children's religion classes - and see who comes out ahead in that bargain.

(In Sunday School we can have a science advisor on hand to demonstrate, at length, everything that the rational adult mind makes note of while studying religion.)

Sure.

And in shop class, we could give instruction as to the use and usefulness of the hammer, with, say, a big rock, as an alternative all the while proclaming that most people agree that the hammer is better, buy your mileage may vary.

And in driver's ed, let them choose which side of the road to drive on because the pavement goes both ways, doesn't it?

And in English class phonetic spellings are acceptable and invented definitions on vocabulary tests will be given equal weight.

Hey, if you go put a [/sarcasm] tag at the end of your post, I'll delete this one. Deal?

That is not remotely the same thing and you know it.
There are scientists that believe in intelligent design, I have never been on a site where they wanted to replace my hammer with a rock. Waste of time V.

You are really serious, aren't you?!

I'm with flint on this one... Teaching religion is fine and dandy... in religion class. If I'm taking science I want to hear SCIENCE, not religion. FACTS, not unsubstantiated beliefs. I am planning on studing religion in school at some point... then you can tell me all you want about what the bible/torah/koran/book of mormon/whatever states. Otherwise, give me the theory that is right, or tell me that it isn't.

I don't mind being told about the old theories of continental drift, because they have been disproven and they tell me exactly why the current theory must be right, or at least much more right than the old ones.

Kansas test:

Q: 2 + 2 =
A: God works in mysterious ways

Q: Who founded Rome?
A: God caused Rome to be founded

Q: Describe a woman
A: Looks like Adam's rib

Q: How long can you survive A)in outer space? B)In the belly of a fish?
A: A)seconds B)3 days

Q: What is the shortest route from Cape May, NJ to Lewes, DE?
A: Part the sea, and drive

:D

The quote about evolution departing from tentitive science is interesting as well. I saw quite a change in attitude in my senior bio class once we entered the evolution chapter. Previously the teacher put in footnotes whenever he felt it was necessary to point out unsolved problems and dilemma's within the existing scientific framework. Come evolution time though, and it was a take-it-or-leave-it battle to the death. Questions about grey areas or contradicting theories were met with acusatory threats and veiled references to 'betraying science'. If the man wasn't holding my GPA over my head like a dagger I would've pointed out to him just how similar his behavior was to religious dogmatics.

These people believe this stuff to be FACT! Because it's in the Bible, it is INDISPUTABLE FACT. Science is just what mere humans think. It's scary.

I disagree with this metaphor. The scientific community is reacting to an attack on reason. If the population loses the ability to think then what do you have?

A Dark Age.

Noah's Ark
 

This reminds me of this awful talk show I heard on a road trip last week where the "archeologist" was being interviewed by Dobson or Robertson or whoever the fuck about the remains of Noahs Ark in Turkey. Two of every animal? Uh...what about fish, marine mammals, insects, on and on. The whole idea is so preposterous yet here they trot out the science of archeology to prove some myth. I got sooooooo mad I almost dropped my Slushie!:mad:

He was making an attack on reason himself. He allowed no questions regarding assumptions about geology and genetics and if he found himself unable to answer something he attacked the student who brought it up, saying that the only reason they would have to ask such a question is that they obviously have no idea how science actually works and that they'd better talk less and listen more. A response of "hmmm, can't answer that now. I'll pass it around in the department and see what I come up with" would have be nice.:right:

Once we had it through our heads that we were to simply shut up and accept what we were told he became almost liveable again.

Good for him. Fuck ID.

This is cool, guys, really. I'm simply advocating that the government also force science and evolution to be taught in church.

Actually, this I disagree with, because you have to keep in mind... The Bible is not to be taken literally.

It has been found that that area (which to them was the whole world) flooded massively around that era... and remains of a damn big ship was found down there... but when the bible says every animal, it probably means, you know, some deer, some cats, some dogs, a goat or two... etc.

Just like the story about the star over Jesus's birthplace... Some astrologers think they have found evidence of a star that went nova and would have made a bright light appear in the sky here a couple thousand years ago... And a really rad dude named Jesus DID live back then... The bright light probably wasnt right over his head when seen from wherever the hell the 'wise men' were from, but it makes for a good story.

Not every single word of the Bible is a lie... But that doesn't mean the truth isn't streched or exaggerated or objective... and some are just simple mistakes. The world was 'created by god' because they had no way of figuring out differently, the same way that thunderbolts were hurled by zeus because there was no other explaination the ancient greeks could have figured out. The Bible is roughly equal parts moral homilies, 'scientific' theories, and not-too-literal history.

The more I have thought about it, the two scientists that I know that believe in intelligent design are not in that field, it should not be taught in schools.
It is not a theory that can be quantified in any way. Until it can be, it should not be taught.

::: puts away my rkzenrage-beating-stick :::

Don't be hasty baby.

Have you been very, very bad?

Oh yes... so very bad!

Ok.

Long answer: Why not teach it in math class? If the student is confident in their arithmetic skills, what's the problem? Or PE? Good athelete, no sweat. Or in music? Only the tin ears have anything to fear. These suggestions are no less ridiculous than suggesting we teach it in science class. It is *exactly* as appropriate in all those classes, including science.

There may be scientists who believe in Intelligent Design. Are you one? Can you cite one? ID is not science and it has no place in a science class, any more than the idea that the earth is flat. Show me. Use science and persuade me, teach me why it belongs in the same breath as science. I've an open mind. I'm skeptical, but willing to give your ideas a chance. That's part of the scientific method: peer review. Let us all review your ideas. Let us all subject them to the same tests and the same standards that other hypotheses are subjected to. If you want to play at science, you must follow the rules.

Otherwise, you're right. It's a waste of time.



Short answer: Because it's not science.

That's because the rest of it hasn't been under constant rhetorical assault for decades. The teacher can't let the class devolve into a public reading of answersingenesis.com when the evolution chapter is reached. It would probably be nicer if the teacher had a website that collected all the standard challenges and their refutations, but I'll guess he was just battening down the hatches and trying to get through the material.Sometimes that's true. Like "If man evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" If a student is trying to filibuster the class by asking all the standard creationist questions, at some point you have to push on.

Outside, Looking in......

You guys have me in hysterics..... the rest of the world looks on, gob-smacked, as the nation that put a man on the moon actually gives credence to the far-right bible-thumpers idiotic ramblings.

Well, as you can see in my post in the engagement thread, Kentucky will soon have it's own Creationism museum to entertain and enlighten the children so that they can complete their science education and find careers in the fast growing fields of dowsing and phrenology.

Try living here. It isn't as remotely humorous as outsiders might find it. :(

That was staged on a Hollywood backlot. Didncha know?

We wern't trying to get in the way of anything. Trying to teach evolution in two weeks means that all the information is incredibly disjointed, so we often had no idea how any of it fit together. I had lots of questions about the genetics aspect of evolution, I wanted to know how things like rapid intron mutation fit in and stuff like that.
Evolution is always going to raise lots of questions from an inquiring class because unless you have a very good teacher who puts things in the right order and gives LOTS of connecting detail that isn't in your standard textbook it doesn't make any sense. If you tell an intelligent student that evolution occurs over extremely long stretches of time, then say that it is caused by discrete events such as genetic isolation from others of the same species combined with environmental changes it's only natural that the student will want to know exactly how an event which is a few tens of years in duration can provide genetic pressure for the millions of years we were told was needed that is great enough for specification but not so great that it kills off the animals(*deep breath*).

Now, the guy wasn't the brightest bulb in the lamp (I haven't run into alot of highschool science teachers that could explain past the textbook) and he probably only used the textbook for reference, but if you want me to learn something then at least let me point out where I need some more info.

Tail-posting is rude.

My brain hurts.... High-tech museum brings creationism to life

Please define 'tail posting'.

When you post without reading the previous posts in the thread.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...TailPoster.jpg

Gods, not the God of the Hebrews.

I checked twice, and I can't find the chapter in Genesis where Romulus and Remus were suckled by the She-Wolf.

I still don't get it, but I really don't give a shit.

A tail-poster is someone who comes in and posts something which has already been resolved, showing that they, obviously, have not read previous posts.
Tail-posting onto the thread instead of reading the whole thing first.
In this case I had already changed my view on the subject and moved-on, in the other camp... then V comes along and starts arguing with me, quoting an old post, not having read the ones that came after it.
Tail-posting onto the end of the thread.
It is just how it sounds.

Message board posting is just like that ... it's not a linear conversation. People come into a thread at different times, and even if you consider some point resolved, they may not, or just want their two cents heard, or to support another poster with whom they are in agreement.

You just don't get it. Don't worry about it.

The Stirring On The Mount
St. Helens used in drive to prove biblical creation with science

Who says that genetic isolation or environmental changes only last a few decades? And you don't need any particularly "great" pressure for speciation, just the separation. Both groups are then under their own normal pressures, and there is no pressure to keep them in synch if they aren't interbreeding, so they diverge.

Yes, it would have been nice if he could have explained that, but it's a question that is worded in a way that might trip up someone without a good grasp of the material, and as you say:
Nothing else in the textbook has organizations arming students with tricky questions to stump the teacher. My guess is you would have found him just as "dogmatic" with any other chapter if subjected to the same level of questioning.

Yes, but
 

I understand that there might be stories in the bible that relate to actual events, perhaps even a boat with animals, but the problem is that many creation scientists DO take the Noah story literally, so much so that they create Noah's Ark Feasibility Studies! You guys gotta check this out:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ark/index.htm

What are you talking about? Feasibility studies? They found the thing!

Tail Posting
 

I will state, without shame, that I absolutely do not feel any moral obligation to always read an entire thread before posting - especially if the thread is running up to multiple pages. I am at work. I am here, at this site, for light entertainment. In the interest of moving a conversation along, I do make an attempt to gather the context of the discussion, and not waste time re-hashing tired subjects. Unless I have something new to add, that is. Ultimately the decision is mine, and the decision is up to every user as to how they want to use the site, as long as they are following the rules. Now of course we would not enjoy the site if total anarchy erupted and every thread became a string of selfish stream-of-conciousness rants. But, there is a middle ground. For instance, I have not read much of this thread, but I am responding to a particular aspect of it. I may go back and read more if I choose to devote my time to a deeper level of participation. Or, I may post a one-off observation. It is really up to me.


I think wolf gets it just fine. Maybe you don't get what she is saying.

Nice... waste management

Isn't God responsible for ALL things? Didn't He design our universe so that Romulus and Remus founded Rome? And since he did, is it not right and righteous to give Him credit and worship Him through Jeeeezusss Christ, our Lord and Savior? *genuflects*[/sarcasm]

I think Jesus' philosophy on how to live your life is a good way to live your life. I try to live my life that way, and I think I do a fairly good job of it. But the whole magic aspect of the Judeo-Christian God is just a little too far-fetched for me. Raising from the dead? Pu-leeze! If "God" was the name of the alien leader, in the mother ship named "Heaven", the bible stories would make as much sense. A bright light shines down on Saul? Boy, that doesn't remind you of Close Encounters, does it? (I know - it's a movie).

The site starts with which sends up the red flags for me. :headshake

And because the turkish goverment says, Yup, it's an old boat, that makes it the Ark.

Here's a really fun site sorts of scientific and historical contradictions from the Bible (as well as other religious books). http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

I get a kick out of using this information to question people who try to take the Bible literally and argue it as fact.

Stormie

Skeptic
 

But why, Stormi, if you try to point those contradictions out to a believer, they refuse to acknowlege them or retreat to some convoluted, faith-based explanation?:mad:

As with my mother, you just can't win. One cannot use rationality or reason when discussing the world with the faith-based crowd. I try to explain contradictions in the bible only for myself; because I don't have to.:(

This is, I think, what makes this debate so difficult. It is job of those that work in the sciences to review each other, find flaws, and discount theories. They are often wrong and it is part of their job to accept it.

Those who deal with faith-based theories are never wrong and cannot be.

For entertainment purposes only :D . I never try to earnestly convince or reason with my mom or others like her...but it does help keep her/their sermons to a minimum.

Stormie

Moms
 

But there are times when she says very bigoted things about gays, and in the last few years she's even become a bit anti-semitic, and I feel I should argue with her out of principle. She's a Polish Catholic, and I think some of her anti-semitism might relate to that fact. I know I'm gonna be conflicted when her "time" comes; and that will be soon since she's 84.:worried:

I'd make that, debate impossible. There can be no debate when one side is debating and the other side preaching.

And, they're preaching literal acceptance of a text written 60 to 90 years, minimum, after the alleged incidents.... by people that told us the world was flat.

Criminologists have proven, that eye witness accounts are not all that reliable, by comparing them to surveillance videos. How can handed down oral histories be more accurate than eye witnesses?

Oh, I forgot, the authors (and translators), were guided by the hand of God....case closed. :smack:

Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Posted: 9:21 a.m. EDT (13:21 GMT)
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS....evolution.jpg
Kansas
GOP
or Create Your Own
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- Conservative Republicans who pushed anti-evolution standards back into Kansas schools last year have lost control of the state Board of Education once again.

The most closely watched race was in western Kansas, where incumbent conservative Connie Morris lost her GOP primary Tuesday. The former teacher had described evolution as "an age-old fairy tale" and "a nice bedtime story" unsupported by science.

As a result of Tuesday's vote, board members and candidates who believe evolution is well-supported by evidence will have a 6-4 majority. Evolution skeptics had entered the election with a 6-4 majority.

Critics of Kansas' science standards worried that if conservatives retained the board's majority, it would lead to attempts in other states to copy the Kansas standards.

"There are people around the country who would like to see the Kansas standards in their own states," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which supports the teaching of evolution.

Also Tuesday, Kansas Republicans chose a nominee to challenge Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in November. With 96 percent of the state's precincts reporting, state Sen. Jim Barnett captured his party's nomination with 36 percent of the vote, besting six other candidates.

Control of the school board has slipped into, out of and back into conservative Republicans' hands since 1998, resulting in anti-evolution standards in 1999, evolution-friendly ones in 2001 and anti-evolution ones again last year.

Late-night comedians have been making cracks about Kansas, portraying it as backward and ignorant. Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" broadcast a four-part series titled, "Evolution Schmevolution."

A wider intelligent design movement
The school board contest was part of a larger effort by the intelligent design movement to introduce its ideas in public schools.

A suburban Atlanta school district is locked in a legal dispute over its putting stickers in 35,000 biology textbooks declaring evolution "a theory, not a fact."

Last year, in Dover, Pennsylvania, voters ousted school board members who had required the biology curriculum to include mention of intelligent design. A federal judge struck down the policy, declaring intelligent design is religion in disguise.

A poll by six news organizations last year suggested about half of Kansans thought evolution should be taught alongside intelligent design.

Proponents of Kansas' latest standards contend they encourage open discussion.

"Students need to have an accurate assessment of the state of the facts in regard to Darwin's theory," said John West, a vice president for the Center for Science and Culture at the Seattle-based, anti-evolution Discovery Institute.

The standards say that the evolutionary theory that all life had a common origin has been challenged by fossils and molecular biology. And they say there is controversy over whether changes over time in one species can lead to a new species.

Three incumbent conservatives faced primary foes Tuesday, and there was a contested GOP race for the seat held by a retiring conservative. A pro-evolution Democratic incumbent also had a challenger.

With almost all the votes counted early Wednesday, pro-evolution Republican Jana Shaver picked off a conservative incumbent and won the primary for the open seat.

Conservative Republican John Bacon kept his seat by besting two pro-evolution challengers, as did another conservative incumbent, Ken Willard. Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat who opposed the new standards, easily defeated a more conservative Democrat who favored the anti-evolution language.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

We don't vote for a state board of ed in PA or NY. How common is it nation-wide? Do you like/dislike it?

The farther removed from the county the power structure is the more I dislike it.

It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy. (Groucho Marx)

I live in the KC Metro area. I work in Kansas City, Kansas. I am unhappy as hell that these Right Wing idiots are shoving this tripe into the public education system.

They're going to save our souls whether we want them to or not.

Appreciate why so many Americans are dropping in science and math literacy. A recent study of education in America found that private schools are not doing as well as public schools. And that largest, most obvious drop is the math skills of evangelical school students.

So I decided to see what is taught in a Christian College. No math abilities is made woefully obvious. Some examples:
Northwest Christian college
http://www.nwcc.edu/programs/majors.html:
Bible & Christian Ministry Studies
Bible & Theology
Biblical Studies
Christian Theology
Christian Ministries
Missions/Global Ministries
Pastoral Ministry
Youth Ministry
Business Administration
Communication
Exercise Science
Journalism
Speech Communication
Computer and Information Science (CIS)
General Studies
Global Studies
Human Services
Humanities
Interdisciplinary Studies (Individualized)
Music
Pre-Professional Health Sciences
Psychology
Social Sciences
Teacher Education

http://www.occ.edu/Academics/OCC.Degrees.aspx
Ozark Christian College
Bachelor of Theology(5-yearDegree)
Majors include: Preaching, Ministry, Christian Education, Old Testament, New Testament, Missions, Music
Bachelor of Christian Ministry (4-year degree)
Specializations include: Adult Discipleship, Ministry, Campus Ministry, Child Care Ministry, Children’s Ministry, Church Planting Ministry, Cross-Cultural Family Ministry, Preaching Ministry, Student Ministry, TESOL Ministry, Women’s Ministry, Double Major in Bible and Psychology, Double Major in Bible and Missions, Double Major in Bible and Deaf Ministry
Bachelor of Music and Ministry (4-year degree)
Bachelor of Music and Worship (4-year degree)
Bachelor of Bible and Ministry (2-year degree, requires previously earned bachelor’s degree)
Bachelor of Bible and Missions (2-year degree, requires previously earned bachelor’s degree)
Associate


Dallas Christian College
http://www.dallas.edu/Degrees/degrees.htm
BS-BIBLE AND GENERAL STUDIES
BA-BIBLE AND GENERAL STUDIES
BS-BIBLE & PSYCHOLOGY
BA-BIBLE & PSYCHOLOGY
BS-BIBLE & PREACHING
BA-BIBLE & PREACHING
BA-BIBLE & YOUTH FAMILY MINISTRY
BS-BIBLE & YOUTH FAMILY MINISTRY
BS-BIBLE & CROSS CULTURAL MISSIONS
BA-BIBLE & CROSS CULTURAL MISSIONS
BS-BIBLE & CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
BA-BIBLE & CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
BS-BIBLE & MUSIC MINISTRY
BA-BIBLE & WORSHIP AND YOUTH MINISTRY
BS-BIBLE & WORSHIP AND YOUTH MINISTRY
BA-BIBLE & WORSHIP ARTS
BS-BIBLE & WORSHIP ARTS
BA-BIBLE & BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
BS-BIBLE & BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

EDUCATION DEGREES
BS-BIBLE & EDUCATION ENGLISH SPECIALIZATION
BS-BIBLE & EDUCATION HISTORY SPECIALIZATION
BS-BIBLE & EDUCATION ENGLISH & HISTORY SPECIALIZATION
BS-BIBLE & MUSIC EDUCATION

QUEST DEGREES
BA-MINISTRY & LEADERSHIP
BS-MINISTRY & LEADERSHIP
BA-MANAGEMENT & ETHICS
BS-MANAGEMENT & ETHICS
BS-EDUCATION & ETHICS, ELEMENTARY
BS-EDUCATION & ETHICS, SECONDARY


Great Lakes Christian College
http://www.glcc.edu/academics/degreeprograms.php
Bible/Theology Major
Christian Education Major
Christian Ministries Major
Cross-Cultural Ministry Major
Family Life Education Major
History Major
Interpersonal and Organizational Communication Major
Music Major
Psychology/Counseling Major
Youth Ministry Major


History major has 14 history classes, lots of bible classes, no math, no chemistry, no physics, no biology. Only math course offered in the entire school is an introduction to statistics and something called Quantitative Literacy which reads like junior high school math ("apply mathematical reasoning in the everyday world"). Biology is Biological Foundations of Nutrition and General Biology. One general science course called Physical Science: "A survey of the nature of matter and the basic laws describing its behavior as revealed through a study of chemistry, physics, astronomy, and earth science."

Nowhere did I find any courses considered minimally necessary when I went to school. A common factor in all such schools - it teaches how to maintain a status quo existence without questioning anything. Nothing sufficient (as science teaches) to push out the envelope - to test and experiment - to question. No wonder these religious fanatics know things only because they just know. There are no courses that teach how to learn a fact. Just more bible classes.

So I went to a local Christian College. Math is called Business Math - basically how to add and subtract for book keeping. Courses were mostly about the bible, communication courses (necessary to promote propaganda), and basic health courses (how to keep yourself alive with the right foods). Nothing on how to learn new ideas. No college level math courses of any kind. No laboratory sciences necessary to become a lab technician, scientific researcher, skilled designer, or anything else that America desperately needs. Just things necessary to found new churches, promoate propaganda, recruit, pay the bills, and maintain a status quo.

Even tech schools teach more useful concepts. Given what Evangelicals are taught, then they must believe only what they have been told. They have no tools necessary to question. These courses teach how to blindly follow only what has been told and not how to test or question so as to learn newly discovered god's laws. Good luck tryng to change evangelicals. How do you un-brainwash someone when they never learned how to think for themselves?

Is the concept that people go to Bible college to learn about the Bible so foreign to you?

Apparently 'learning to think' (a purpose of college) and the bible are mutually exclusive - a classic oxymoron. No wonder they capitalize 'Bible' and lower case 'college'.

You guys spend an awful lot of time worrying about shit...I for one got tired of listening to the BS about evolution and how evolution was the only thing that brought us here. 'Cause hell, I believe that a big gas explosion caused our hearts to beat and our bodies to be able to house babies...it's just so easy to believe that right? Yeah. Maybe for it's hard for those of you to believe that there is a God and he designed us, because it's harder to prove? Evolution hasn't been proven, not the evolution of man from a tiny organism that got triggered by an explosion, at least not in my eyes. I see how things can evolve, but the evolution of man from an ape? Seriously? Regardless of all that, I don't think I should have to sit in a science class and be taught my teachers view of the world and religion and evolution and be told that if I don't agree with him I will flunk the class. It's ok for him to have his opinion and shove it down my throat (believe it or else), but it's not ok to have my own? Why can't kids be taught both sides, and pick their own? In my opinion it (evolution and intelligent design) shouldn't be taught at all, at least not in school...it should be left at home, like a lot of other issues.