This is fascinating - this university president wanted to eliminate struggling freshmen students out of his university after one month of classes, before the deadline to report them as 'enrolled' - in this way, he planned to increase the "retention" rate of his university.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/09/the-controversy-at-mount-st-marys-goes-national-after-professors-are-fired/

It was a 'clever' plan, though perhaps not very compassionate. Perhaps this approach stems from a Darwinist 'survival-of-the-fittest' view?  Wouldn't a better way be to provide help for the struggling students?  That's what we seek to do at the university where I teach...

The students were planned to be "helped out the door" based on their survey responses to questions like this: "How often were each of the following things true in the last week?:  I felt depressed.  I felt that I could not shake the blues, even with the help of family and friends.  I thought my life had been a failure.  I felt that people disliked me."

It seems to me that students like this need a friend... someone to come alongside them and tell them about Jesus... about the fact that God loves them... that they are valuable in His sight... that they are precious, and worthwhile, and that God cares so much about them that "every hair on [their] head is numbered".

"Leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention chose not to support a Resolution that would have formulated a strategy to encourage their families to educate their children other than at government schools. Among other reasons, Resolution supporters were concernced about how homosexuality was addressed in the classroom. Instead, the Convention decided to "engage the culture of our public school systems" and apply "godly influence.""   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199440,00.html

What do you all think about this?  Which is better for Christian parents and children - going into public schools to "apply godly influence", even if it means "imposing" Christian standards on other non-Christian children,  or "withdrawing" to educate one's children at home or in a religious school?

Here's an interesting article about the woman scientist who discovered soft extant dinosaur tissue in "68-million-year-old" dinosaur bones.

Here's an excerpt of the part that especially caught my eye:

"...Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”"

First, it's interesting to note her a priori philosophical bias, which is certainly "methodological naturalism" and probably steps over the boundary of "philosophical naturalism" too...  Her view is that God absolutely CANNOT work in time and space in scientifically detectable ways... in other words, God could be good, and loving, and kind, and powerful, and whatever else, but He most certainly CANNOT interact with the world He has created in ways that could be detected by humans - God absolutely CANNOT do miracles.   If He could (so reasons the phobia), then people might actually believe in God based on evidence rather than blind faith. (Oh!  Horrors!)

According to Schweitzer, "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science."

Oh, well excuse me.  Forgive me for asking, but who makes up these "rules" again?  Shame on Newton, Kepler, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell, Stokes, Pasteur, and Kelvin for indulging in such flagrant scientific naughtiness.

Schweitzer is not alone in her complaint, of course.  Michael Ruse writes: "Even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a 'scientific' explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law." (Darwinism Defended, p. 182).

Similarly Richard Lewontin writes: "Either the world of phenomena is a consequence of the regular operation of repeatable causes and their repeatable effects, operating roughly along the lines of known physical law, or else at every instant all physical regularities may be ruptured and a totally unforeseeable set of events may occur.... We can not live simultaneously in a world of natural causation and of miracles, for if one miracle can occur, there is no limit." (Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: Norton, 1983, p. 26)
...and also...
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

Unnerving indeed, in all honesty.  It is non-trivial and (potentially life-altering) to find (paraphrasing C.S.Lewis) "a real, live God in our midst".

Now granted, methodological naturalism can be useful, in finding out "the way things usually work" (also called "nomological" investigation - the study of how things generally proceed, based on the "laws" (Greek 'nomos') that govern the universe).   But as soon as it morphs into an 'Absolute Principle', the openminded curiosity which is the chief treasure of the scientific endeavor is discarded.  As soon as I state that "I've never observed a miracle in my laboratory, therefore God has never done (and can never do) a miracle" or even worse, "I refuse to believe in miracles because that might allow [Lewontin's proverbial] Divine foot in the door", I have unjustifiably closed and locked my mind.   In agreement with William James, and contra W.K.Clifford, "unlimited skepticism" can sometimes be a hindrance to finding the truth...

Schweitzer is almost technically correct when she disparages "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena", in the sense of invoking the "miraculous" hand of God in suspending the laws that He has ordained that generally govern the physical world.  But she neglects to mention that the whole controversy is about exactly that point - what phenomena are natural and what are not?  ...and is it possible that some phenomena truly CANNOT be explained naturalistically?  (the origin of matter, the origin of DNA, Christ walking on water, Christ's Resurrection)?

When I throw a basketball up in the air and it falls back to the ground, there is no need to infer a "miracle" - there is not necessarily any suspension of the normal processes of gravity that God has established.   But must we assume that God is bound by these laws that He created?  That He can never suspend them if He so chooses?

In my humble opinion, we ought not to make such "metaphysically gratuitous" assumptions.  As Steven Meyer writes (with my insertion), "Of course intelligent design [and creationism] is not wholly naturalistic, but why does that make it unscientific? What noncircular reason can be given for this assertion? What independent criterion of method demonstrates the inferior scientific status of a nonnaturalistic explanation?" 

By contrast, the Kansas folks got it right:

Older 2001 Definition: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world
around us."

Revised 2005 Definition: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses
observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument
and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural
phenomena."
"More adequate", "more accurate", "closer to the truth about the way the world works"... This is the true and noble goal of science... the aim of that worthy perennial nomological enterprise... that "glory of kings."

Incredible quote... from the famous John Scopes... (80th anniversary of his trial coming up this September...)

“If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought. … I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory.”

( from http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/240#more-240 )

Yes, today there will be multiple posts, because there's just so much to write about... 

Here's a fascinating excerpt from http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=86656 , with my comments below...

The debate as to whether a science-led campaign involving condoms use or moral calls for abstinence and fidelity is the key to the effective HIV/AIDS control continues to take centre stage as experts say this unresolved issue is hampering prevention strategies within the communities.

The battle lines have been drawn between these two groups with religious leaders and scientists taking very entrenched positions on condom use.

The reason why there is such "entrenched" animosity between the two positions is quite simple - they have different sources-of-authority / different starting beliefs.  Those who call themselves "scientists" (what they really mean is "methodological naturalists" or "secularists") have no transcendent basis for their morality - they are merely pushing (hard) for whatever seems most practical in their man-centered and science-informed pragmatism.  On the other hand, many of those who consider themselves Christians in this debate are basing their efforts on the Bible, which (1) does provide a transcendent basis for their position, and (2) which has evidence supporting its claim to supernatural authority.

There will be no 'peace' until Shiloh returns.

"According to Miller, the Brown University biologist, academia is opposed to explanations that rely on God as a causal agent because they go against the very definition of science: seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon."

Interesting rhetoric.  Notice especially the word "very" - which instantly attempts to set up a rhetorical/moral/sociocultural gradient by an appeal to an external body of commonly held truth.

What they're saying is the following:

1. If science is defined as strictly "natural" explanation, then by definition creationism (and practically also Intelligent Design) is "non-scientific."  If science is defined more broadly, as in its original meaning (from Latin 'scientia', "to know") of knowledge or general explanation, then of course creationism and ID would be included in "scientific" explanation.

2. If an explanation is not "scientific" by the first definition ("strictly naturalistic"), then it is puerile, weak, reprehensible, unjustifiable, etc.  People are to be disdained and despised if they adopt any explanations that fall outside the realm of naturalistic science.
It should be pretty obvious that #1 is correct (by definition).  However, #2 is actually very weak, and in my opinion, self-defeating.  #2 is actually very similar to logical positivism, which employs the so-called verifiability criterion in an attempt to say that the only sentences that have any meaning are the ones that state facts about things we can see, feel, taste, etc.  The problem is that the verifiability criterion is not itself something that we can see, feel, or taste, so it defeats itself... 

Similarly, the point #2 above is not something that can be proved experimentally, so the statement itself is not scientific, and by its own thesis ought not to be adopted by reasonable people.

The basic problem here is that science cannot reach outside of itself.  Science can certainly say, "This is the best explanation available without appealing to God," but it cannot say, "There is no God" or "This naturalistic explanation is the best one available, period."

It basically comes down to an individual (or societal   choice to say, "I will not believe in anything that I cannot see."

Then the question arises, of course... Why?

Why would one rule out the possibility of intelligent design or special creation by God?  Is there any evidence for the supernatural?  Especially, is there any evidence that makes much better sense if we admit the possibility of the supernatural rather than denying it?

Such as, for example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...

Incredible.  Here's an amazing quote from the link, quoted from the Nature article.

"Indeed, it is not the job of a science teacher to meddle with the way their students are brought up or to attack their core personal beliefs. Rather, the goal should be to point to options other than intelligent design for reconciling science and belief."

!!!!!!

As Dilbert would say, "That was just wrong on so many levels."

I hate falsehood (such as, but not limited to, that statement) so much that I can't even think of any word to describe how terrible it is.  Note that I do not hate the people who say such, but the substance of their lies.

It seems these folks are either willfully ignorant (unlikely) or else knowingly and deceitfully trying to hide the fact that "pointing to options other than intelligent design" IS in fact "meddling with the way students are brought up."

Paraphrasing what these folks are saying in a slightly clearer fashion, "We science teachers shouldn't present evolution in a 'dogmatic' and 'confrontational' way... instead we should 'gently', 'gradually', 'subtly' try to brainwash the students toward our naturalistic beliefs."

Note the distinction attempted in the quote between "core personal beliefs" and other beliefs which are presumed to be 'public' or perhaps 'peripheral' - beliefs such as... the origin of life, the meaning of life (or not), the factuality and historicity of those "personal" beliefs...  ! !

HOW DARE a "personal" belief come out of the closet and present itself as actually, historically, scientifically, unilaterally, "TRUE"!  That would constitute narrowminded fundamentalist intolerance in the extreme. . .

(and this too, by Jay Richards, on a lighter note...  There's nothing quite like a good hard dose of satire once in a while...

Here's an interesting article about "church"

...with this interesting quote:

"Children mature morally by resisting evil, but if it comes at them too fast, too often, and from influential peers, they will become desensitized and sin will begin to appear less evil to them."

What do you all think?  Is he right?  Wrong?  In what ways?

Some of you might think that this is irrelevant, but in a few short years this will be extremely relevant for most of us...

Hilarious, but in a sad sort of way...

Not so hilarious...

This was an interesting event earlier this year... there are lots of articles describing it and its 'fallout'... 

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire?mode=PF

http://slate.msn.com/id/2112570/

I'm not going to give my opinion of his comments... yet... 
Here was one of my favorite excerpts from one of the articles (read them in their entirety first...)

"In his talk, according to several participants, Summers also used as an example one of his daughters, who as a child was given two trucks in an effort at gender-neutral parenting. Yet she treated them almost like dolls, naming one of them ''daddy truck," and one ''baby truck." "