Someone recently sent me a copy of an August 11 blog by Ed Brayton, a journalist and speaker who generally focuses on scientific issues. Brayton had come across the course requirements for several courses taught by "Intelligent Design" (ID) advocate William Dembski, and got a real chuckle from several elements of the course descriptions, including a requirement that students post at least 10 comments totaling 2,000 words on "hostile" websites, i.e., websites that favor an evolutionary approach to understanding life on earth.
An unfortunate aspect of the post is that Brayton apparently misread the web page on which Dembski puffs his courses, several of which appear to be largely the same course under different names: the three courses Brayton panned were not taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS), where Dembski is "Research Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cultural Engagement," but courses offered at Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), an independent fundamentalist school in Charlotte that lists Dembski as an adjunct professor.
SES offers lots of online courses, some of which are apparently quite light on the requirements end. It's not accredited by the standard, rigorous agencies like the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges (SACS) or the Association of Theological Schools (ATS), but by the "Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools." A look at its list of member institutions reveals a number of small Christian schools and diploma mills, largely of the fundamentalist and online variety. So, one wouldn't expect the coursework there to be overly demanding.
Dembski's own description of the courses he teaches (if "teaches" is an appropriate term here) for SES don't mention any lectures or classwork. By his description, the undergraduate course requires only that students take a final exam, write a 3,000 word essay on Intelligent Design, and post the aforementioned defenses of ID on "hostile" websites. Students in the "Masters" level course must also write a 1,500-2,000 word review of Francis Collins' The Language of God. "Doctor of Ministry" students drop the blog post requirement and develop a lesson plan for teaching Dembski's book Understanding Intelligent Design.
Skimpy requirements, I know, but that's the way many online courses from non-traditional schools without standard accreditation are.
A similar course Dembski teaches in the undergraduate "College at Southwestern" (which is accredited by SACS) is more demanding: students are assigned five textbooks, they prepare precis statements for each class, they have a midterm and a final exam, their review of Collins' book must be 500 words longer, and their 10 posts to "hostile" websites must total 3,000 words, instead of 2,000. An interesting aspect of Demski's syllabus is that those requirements are called "positive," while class participation, pop quizzes, and a one-page "executive summary of YOU (with a clearly recognizable picture of yourself)" are described as "negative." Apparently some requirements add points, while others subtract: one hand giveth, the other taketh away.
Some may find it surprising that Dembski would make interacting with "hostile" websites an integral part of his course, but one has to remember the context. Both SES (which focuses aggressively on apologetics) and SWBTS (where Dembski leads the "Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement") are in the business of training up conservative Christian culture warriors. One doesn't do that by promoting objective learning and independent critical thinking, but by hammering home firm principles to be accepted in the heart and advocated in the public square.
That may sound more like indoctrination than education, but in Christian fundamentalist circles, including the revamped Southern Baptist schools, that's just the way it is. When a school believes it has a corner on the truth, there's no point in encouraging students think for themselves.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I know it may be a little off of the specific topic of the ID movement at SWBTS, et. al. but I'm thinking more in the context of indoctrination. I think it was a bad move for the SBC seminaries to start undergraduate programs. They are ill-equipped to prepare and provide a broader, well rounded education. This account seems to be another example not only of education by indoctrination but poor education at that.
Though this may seem hypocritical, encouraging students to express themselves chiefly through anonymous or psuedonymous comment sections seems dishonorable. There is little to no accountability in blog responses; the only accountability I have here is that Dr. Cartledge is one of my professors. One could argue that Dr. Dembski will hold his students accountable but he seems an unlikely source. Loosing the hounds of agression, especially in an antagonistic atmosphere (i.e. the "hostile" websites) is a recipe for disaster. I could understand an assignment for the students to write and post their own blog entries on the subject. Cultivating bellicosity however, has implications not only for civil and reasonable discourse (which is already endangered) but Kingdom ethics: Christ urges us to be peacemakers instead of instigators.
I find it more than a little ironic that you disparage uncritical thinkers in the academy. Based on what I've read the last couple of years in this blog (which is one of my favorites) and the Biblical Recorder years before that, your opinions are highly uncritical on a wide range of issues. From Baptist politics and polity to global warming to nearly every issue addressed in the Bush administration to your wholesale backing of the Obama administration to, most recently, the Democratic party's ramrod health care agenda, your opinions line up precisely with those of the Democratic party. In nearly every case where these issues have been addressed here, your comments could easily have been cut/pasted from The Huffington Post and no one would have known the difference. (I know, I know, the reverse could be said about me and any number of conservative commentators....)
More to the point, your identified students who've responded have all but parrotted your positions the last couple of years. (In fact, I've often wondered, "Why in the world are they discussing that particular issue in a divinity school classroom, and how in the world did they reach that conclusion?") Now, have these students been indoctrinated, or are we to believe that your opinions (theologically moderate and politically liberal) are so critical that there's really no reasonable alternative?
Case in point. It's my contention that the vast majority of Southern Baptist congregants are practical inerrantists. They may not understand the ins and outs of what that means vis-a-vis the original autographs, the nature of God, etc., but they treat the Bible as if it is inerrant (without using those words). What are the odds of any inerrantist graduating from Campbell? Based on the derision I've seen for inerrantists in this blog, my guess is pretty close to zero. Again, have these nearly 100% of Campbell grads been indoctinated to a specific position, or have they all miraculously reached the same conclusion after learning such extraordinary critical thinking skills under your tutelage?
(Whatever the answer, it's probably as much an issue of the types of students various seminaries attract rather than the product these seminaries produce, especially among the majority of students who have lots of life experience before entering seminary in their 30s. But that's another topic for another day.)
DC, I'm a Campbell Div. School (CUDS) grad...but I can only speak for myself. I started at a SBC seminary but transferred to CUDS for reasons completely separate from theology or church polity.
Most of my views were set before enter CUDS, especially theologically/doctrinally. If you read comments I've made on this particular blog (again, I can only speak for myself) you'll find that while I tend to agree in many doctrinal and theological areas, I equally tend to disagree politically. (You can also see my political disagreements by simply reading my own blog...which I haven't updated in a little while, btw.)
For the most part, I think you answered your own question in your last paragraph. I would point out though that only a small fraction of CUDS students comment on here on even a semi-regular basis.
DC, you'd be surprised how many of our students graduate with their belief in inerrancy unfazed by our teaching -- and unpenalized.
Actually, Tony, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Although I don't know you personally, I think I know your heart as a pastor and educator well enough to know there'd be no penalty for arriving at a reasonably thought-through conclusion, even if it's one with which you disagree. That's why your blog is one of my favorites, even when we disagree.
If I know nothing else about you, I'm firmly convinced of the truth of your tagline: "I wonder. I care. Therefore, I write." Like I said, your blog is one of my favorites. I keep reading because you keep making me think. If I remember correctly, that's what education's all about. So, as one of your extension students, keep it up. I'm a better man because of what you write.
Post a Comment