What do you think of Bob Jones University?

[Sneezyone]

Ok, you can't just leave us hanging here! What's the "correct" answer, from the Medical Ethics point of view? Seems like there's a conflict between patient confidentiality (HIPPA?) and public health concerns, especially if the wife isn't the dr.'s patient. I know what _I_ think is right, but I'm not sure that is what the profession thinks.

 

It doesn't violate patient confidentiality at all for a Dr. to tell a patient what he/she has and how it's transmitted. I think most monogamous adults could figure out the source of the illness on their own without any coaching or naming of names. There was no conflict and there shouldn't have been any ethical conundrum. The applicant was given a softball and swung at air!

It doesn't violate patient confidentiality at all for a Dr. to tell a patient what he/she has and how it's transmitted.

 

Presumably the wife isn't the dr.'s patient, though.

[kalanamak]

Ok, you can't just leave us hanging here! What's the "correct" answer, from the Medical Ethics point of view? Seems like there's a conflict between patient confidentiality (HIPPA?) and public health concerns, especially if the wife isn't the dr.'s patient. I know what _I_ think is right, but I'm not sure that is what the profession thinks.

 

STDs are still to be reported to public health. You can have the public health department contact all contacts and inform them that "someone they may have come in contact with" has turned up with an STD. Such approaches aren't very kind if it is a monogamous spouse getting the call.

 

AIDS is afoot, and is a terrible disease. Perhaps in the 1950s it was okay in some circles to protect the little lady from news which would break up the family, but not any more.

 

The wife should come in and the doc should speak to her. If she refused, the doc should call personally and assure the patient the visit is very important. S/he should take swabs, etc, inform about the disease and treatment, and encourage the patient to seek counseling with the husband rather than making a sudden decision. Kindly reassurance that many couples have gone down this path and recovered from it may have some sway. And then the doc should listen.

 

If she still would not come in and talk, I would notify the health department to tell her. I would warn hubby that would happen if he didn't tell her. But you cannot leave a person in the dark about a disease which might scar their tubes (infertility), or lead to chronic pelvic pain from scarred tubes. And may be associated with other, more fatal, STDs.

 

Thinking back on it, some of the most challenging and interesting conversations I've had with patients has been over STDs, and a calm, concerned, but unflapped demeanor is helpful. One of my personal favorites is the woman who turned up with trich on a Pap smear. I promised her she and her spouse could have been passing it back and forth for years, and it didn't mean anyone was untrue. I treated both of them, and the woman remarked her lower back pain of 12 years disappeared. I looked it up, and yes, trich can cause lower back pain. When did she marry? 12 years ago (they were both at least 40 at the time). She had quite a giggle over this "proof" her beloved husband came to the marriage with it, and hadn't picked it up along the way.

 

Those moments of being allowed into the most personal of situations, and to be of help, those are the most rewarding things in medicine.

[Karenciavo]

This board never disappoints. :lol:

[JenC3]

Given the experience of others, it still is.

 

Well trust me, I'm about as far away from BJU material as you can get and although I've toned down some since having kids, I can't imagine my friends are secret BJ robots. Maybe I'm just friends with all the rebels:)

[kalanamak]

The applicant was given a softball and swung at air!

 

Being willing to lie to a patient because you are opposed to divorce isn't as "fluffy" as swing at air. Also, to think that a typical patient in our day and age "just takes" an antibiotic because the doctor tells them they have, say, a throat infection (without any symptoms), argues for a lack of experience in our culture. My point was that this applicant was probably brighter, and certainly more educated than me, but it takes more than that to be an asset to a profession.

 

Occasionally patients ask me to lie for them (has to do with money, like benefits). I look at them gently and ask them if they really want a doctor who they know is willing to tell lies. I don't know if this dissuades them from seeking another doctor, but it does stop them asking me to lie.:)

[Sneezyone]

Being willing to lie to a patient because you are opposed to divorce isn't as "fluffy" as swing at air. Also, to think that a typical patient in our day and age "just takes" an antibiotic because the doctor tells them they have, say, a throat infection (without any symptoms), argues for a lack of experience in our culture. My point was that this applicant was probably brighter, and certainly more educated than me, but it takes more than that to be an asset to a profession.

 

I meant that the applicant was given a big target to hit (lots of things could have been said to demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of her obligations) and still missed by a mile, not that the issue was light weight. :lol: I agree completely.

[DianeW88]

Hmmm, I'm a Mormon. Pretty sure BJU would toss my application right into the round file...which I guess would be considered discriminatory. LOL Not that I'd ever want to go there in a million years anyhow. :lol:

 

I'm a graduate of BYU....one change of a letter makes all the difference. ;)

[creekland]

And if you think the top medical schools (or ANY post graduate school) DON'T take into consideration where their students did their undergrad work, then I have a bridge to sell you. It spans a lovely body of water and you can see Mackinac Island from it and I'll sell it to you for $1500, cash only. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Once again, might I suggest you spend time on the pre-med forum of college confidential? Here's a link to their FAQ thread:

 

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/pre-med-topics/377780-premed-forum-faqs-read-first.html

 

No offense, but I've just finished spending a LOT of time researching this topic for middle son - who's heading off to college for pre-med and/or medical research this fall. There's a LOT more to it than you think. ;)

 

That said, I can still see where BJU grads would have a nick in that they aren't regionally accredited (nationally doesn't mean as much). I would never choose any non-regionally accredited school to attend if pre-med were my plan, but if BJU is getting students in, that's a personal call to make for future students and their parents.

 

In general, 56.3% of ALL students who apply to med school don't make it in anywhere as of the last stats.

 

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/

 

No school (Ivies included) have 100% acceptance rate, esp if you include the fact that many weed out students they feel won't be competitive (meaning they won't support their application - a kiss of death). Yet at the same time, med schools want diversity, so students from smaller schools - sometimes unknown schools outside their geographic region - who do well on their MCAT and GPA tend to do quite well. For cost reasons, many of them will apply to state med schools instead of top 10 med schools, but not all. The biggest factors as to whether one gets into med school or not are their MCAT score and GPA - NOT undergrad institution. It's considered an advantage (by many, but not all) to go to a "lesser" school, esp if one has scholarship $$ - save money - and get a better GPA than if one went to a "top" school competing with all "top" students. (No merit aid at Ivies.)

 

It doesn't matter where one goes to med school (in the US) if one wants to practice medicine. It can matter if one wants a top research hospital or top specialty, but in general, with the need of doctors out there, even the med school at the bottom of the rankings doesn't "suck" and those 56% rejected would likely love to have been accepted there. Remember, you're only talking about the top of the top college students who apply in the first place and then only the top 44% who get in anywhere. Anyone who couldn't cut it to this point has already chosen another field.

 

For us personally, there are still schools who are too low academically for my standards, but I just researched one of those "very low" schools by my standards (not BJU) for a student at school and lo and behold - they had reasonably decent med school admissions rates (about average). Students who go there DO have a shot at med school if they do well. And these students weren't all accepted to "bottom 10" med schools. ;)

Edited April 7, 2012 by creekland
update numbers to reflect 2011 data

[creekland]

To add to the above, check out USC's (University of South Carolina - med school) numbers:

 

2902 applied for 92 spots making a 3.17% matriculation rate. If they took BJU grads, it certainly wasn't because they were hard up for applicants.

 

I love this board, but sometimes I wonder about some of what is written... hence, in this case, I feel the need to correct info I've seen in case others are soon to be on the same track I was in looking for pre-med for middle son. ;)

Edited April 7, 2012 by creekland

[creekland]

And adding one more time because I took the time to look up Pre-med at BJU. Here's that link if anyone is interested:

 

http://www.bju.edu/academics/majors/premed-predent/

 

It appears they have a decent acceptance rate which matches those who said their doctors did their undergrad there. Evidently, not being regionally accredited is not the kiss of death. ;)

 

While "I" would never choose BJU for my kids (whether pre-med or not), I wouldn't let erroneous info on here about med school acceptance be part of my decision. If the school is a fit for your student, go for it. It's not a fit for mine - not even for my "wanted a Christian college" oldest son.

[Rivka]

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

I still disagree completely. Biology is the study of life and living things. How those living things got here is completely debatable.

 

Only people who reject evolution compartmentalize it this way, as a narrow question about origins. Evolution is the fundamental organizing principle of modern biology. It has direct predictive application; it's not just stories biologists tell about the past, it guides their understanding of what is happening now and what will happen in the future. I am at a loss for how a person could seriously study biology while denying that organisms are related to each other through descent. Microbiology, genetics, and embryology are all heavily dependent on an understanding of evolution.

 

Additionally, YEC is a rejection of scientific naturalism itself. It depends on the existence of forces outside of nature which cannot be measured or observed, and rests on nonmaterial forms of evidence. To be YEC you have to be willing to reject vast amounts of converging evidence from multiple disciplines - astronomy, geology, biology - in favor of evidence based on a text and on faith.

 

I think the blood boiling may have to do with the number of posters who are painting all Christian higher education with a very broad brush and saying that they ALL are anti-scientific and can't possibly produce doctors or biologists because they don't teach evolution as THE answer.

 

I haven't seen anyone painting "all Christian higher education" the same way. People have spoken highly of a number of Christian colleges and universities. Certainly universities like Baylor, Georgetown, and Notre Dame have national reputations. People have also spoken very highly of Wheaton. Only a few colleges are being singled out for having a poor academic reputation: BJU, Pensacola, and a couple of others.

[Haiku]

And that's ok. Not every school is Harvard or Dartmouth or whatever. But USC doesn't take BJU undergrads because they are open-minded. They take them because the people who graduated from Harvard or Princeton or Stanford or the University of Michigan didn't go to USC's medical school - they went on to Harvard or Yale or John Hopkins or whatever.

 

That's true. My BIL graduated from an Ivy League school. He applied to the top four or five medical schools in the country (I know there is some sort of matching/ranking program by which schools and students choose each other) and got into all of them. He did not bother applying to any school that wasn't among the most highly regarded in the nation.

 

Tara

[Alessandra]

Only people who reject evolution compartmentalize it this way, as a narrow question about origins. Evolution is the fundamental organizing principle of modern biology. It has direct predictive application; it's not just stories biologists tell about the past, it guides their understanding of what is happening now and what will happen in the future. I am at a loss for how a person could seriously study biology while denying that organisms are related to each other through descent. Microbiology, genetics, and embryology are all heavily dependent on an understanding of evolution.

 

Additionally, YEC is a rejection of scientific naturalism itself. It depends on the existence of forces outside of nature which cannot be measured or observed, and rests on nonmaterial forms of evidence. To be YEC you have to be willing to reject vast amounts of converging evidence from multiple disciplines - astronomy, geology, biology - in favor of evidence based on a text and on faith.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Very nicely said. Thank you.

[Haiku]

My SIL is a Cedarville grad, went on to the Peace Corps (Northern Africa) for 3 years, earned her MBA from Johns Hopkins and is presently working in Haiti. Freaky narrow minded weirdo...

 

Once again ... I'm not calling anyone a weirdo. I'm simply reporting the reputation that Cedarville has around here. Apparently they are not as conservative as they used to be, but that news hasn't reached the general public in these parts, because many people still think they are. The OP asked about a school's reputation, not about what I personally believe about it. I don't know enough to form an opinion, but I do hear what other people have to say on the matter.

 

FWIW, my husband went to a religious school. I am not against religious schools. We have urged our oldest child to consider attending said religious school. It's not an anti-religious-school issue. This thread is a question of public perception. If public perception didn't matter, the OP wouldn't have asked.

 

Tara

[mommaduck]

Well trust me, I'm about as far away from BJU material as you can get and although I've toned down some since having kids, I can't imagine my friends are secret BJ robots. Maybe I'm just friends with all the rebels:)

You might be LOL!

[momma2three]

Only people who reject evolution compartmentalize it this way, as a narrow question about origins. Evolution is the fundamental organizing principle of modern biology. It has direct predictive application; it's not just stories biologists tell about the past, it guides their understanding of what is happening now and what will happen in the future. I am at a loss for how a person could seriously study biology while denying that organisms are related to each other through descent. Microbiology, genetics, and embryology are all heavily dependent on an understanding of evolution.

 

Additionally, YEC is a rejection of scientific naturalism itself. It depends on the existence of forces outside of nature which cannot be measured or observed, and rests on nonmaterial forms of evidence. To be YEC you have to be willing to reject vast amounts of converging evidence from multiple disciplines - astronomy, geology, biology - in favor of evidence based on a text and on faith.

 

 

 

I haven't seen anyone painting "all Christian higher education" the same way. People have spoken highly of a number of Christian colleges and universities. Certainly universities like Baylor, Georgetown, and Notre Dame have national reputations. People have also spoken very highly of Wheaton. Only a few colleges are being singled out for having a poor academic reputation: BJU, Pensacola, and a couple of others.

 

:iagree:

[Kathryn]

Only people who reject evolution compartmentalize it this way, as a narrow question about origins. Evolution is the fundamental organizing principle of modern biology. It has direct predictive application; it's not just stories biologists tell about the past, it guides their understanding of what is happening now and what will happen in the future. I am at a loss for how a person could seriously study biology while denying that organisms are related to each other through descent. Microbiology, genetics, and embryology are all heavily dependent on an understanding of evolution.

 

Additionally, YEC is a rejection of scientific naturalism itself. It depends on the existence of forces outside of nature which cannot be measured or observed, and rests on nonmaterial forms of evidence. To be YEC you have to be willing to reject vast amounts of converging evidence from multiple disciplines - astronomy, geology, biology - in favor of evidence based on a text and on faith.

 

I haven't seen anyone painting "all Christian higher education" the same way. People have spoken highly of a number of Christian colleges and universities. Certainly universities like Baylor, Georgetown, and Notre Dame have national reputations. People have also spoken very highly of Wheaton. Only a few colleges are being singled out for having a poor academic reputation: BJU, Pensacola, and a couple of others.

 

This is a great post. While OEC, I wasn't really getting the big deal. This sums it up well.

[creekland]

That's true. My BIL graduated from an Ivy League school. He applied to the top four or five medical schools in the country (I know there is some sort of matching/ranking program by which schools and students choose each other) and got into all of them. He did not bother applying to any school that wasn't among the most highly regarded in the nation.

 

Tara

 

And is this recently - when med school admissions has become so tough? Or was this >15 years ago when it wasn't nearly as difficult?

 

We were at WUSTL's Doctor Days and were listening to the head of their med school admissions (they're currently #6, but were #4 at the time for research). He told us that back when he applied it wasn't nearly as difficult as it is today. He feels that he wouldn't have been admitted at all by today's standards - much less now be a teaching doctor and on an admissions committee. Of course, he also said MCAT and GPA counts the most... but many refuse to believe that since they know better. :tongue_smilie:

 

On a different note, it is true that Ivy grads tend to do well at top medical schools with regards to admission. The generally accepted reasons for this are because to get IN to an Ivy already puts one in the top stats AND, for many, cost isn't an issue (no merit aid at Ivies). Top med schools cost oodles compared to their state counterparts. If one is choosing a merit aid or state school to start with to save money in undergrad, chances are, one will do the same for med school. All lead to an MD. ;)

 

Here's a link to "Who Chooses Wash U" - currently ranked #6 for med research: (Hover over the undergrad institutions part.)

 

http://medadmissions.wustl.edu/HowtoApply/selectionprocess/Pages/WhoChoosesWU.aspx

 

Top schools dominate, but aren't the only option. Any school with less than 3 students there doesn't make the list, but on cc, some have mentioned they're there. Ivy grads are learning right along with state school grads and even some Christian schools (Bob Jones not making the list). Chances are there were more applicants from each Ivy than from each "lesser" school, but who knows actual acceptance rates based upon applications. I don't think that data exists. Many schools don't even list undergrad institutions of applicants. On cc a Harvard alum said their list would be similar to WUSTL's - many Ivies, but also many "others."

 

But, I suppose we're getting way off topic. ;)

 

Suffice it to say, if one wants to become a doctor, going to BJU won't stop your aspirations. If one wants top medical research (totally different than primary care), I'd probably pick a different undergrad institution - just in case. But there are a lot of secular colleges I'd give the same advice about.

Edited April 7, 2012 by creekland

[Parrothead]

Only people who reject evolution compartmentalize it this way, as a narrow question about origins. Evolution is the fundamental organizing principle of modern biology. It has direct predictive application; it's not just stories biologists tell about the past, it guides their understanding of what is happening now and what will happen in the future. I am at a loss for how a person could seriously study biology while denying that organisms are related to each other through descent. Microbiology, genetics, and embryology are all heavily dependent on an understanding of evolution.

 

Additionally, YEC is a rejection of scientific naturalism itself. It depends on the existence of forces outside of nature which cannot be measured or observed, and rests on nonmaterial forms of evidence. To be YEC you have to be willing to reject vast amounts of converging evidence from multiple disciplines - astronomy, geology, biology - in favor of evidence based on a text and on faith.

 

 

 

I haven't seen anyone painting "all Christian higher education" the same way. People have spoken highly of a number of Christian colleges and universities. Certainly universities like Baylor, Georgetown, and Notre Dame have national reputations. People have also spoken very highly of Wheaton. Only a few colleges are being singled out for having a poor academic reputation: BJU, Pensacola, and a couple of others.

:iagree: Well said.

[Charles Wallace]

I know people who have gone there. I know people who have been kicked out of there!

 

It isn't only in the Catholic direction that their venom flies.....anyone who is "too liberal" which is just about EVERYONE else, is vilified. Southern Baptists, Methodists, you name it. And Billy Graham? Well, he is just about the anti-Christ with his heathen ways! :glare:

 

The Independent Fundamental Baptists scare the helck out of me, and not in a good way.

 

Yep, Billy Graham...the Charlie Sheen of ...well, nothing.:D

[ciyates]

Okay I have been lurking for a few days now...but finally decided to weigh in.

 

As some of you know I have entered the workforce again. ( I love my new HR position :)) I took advantage of my work resources and network to ask this questions. I have yet to hear anyone say anything negative about BJU. I work for a globally known company and am on a committee with HR reps from several other large companies. I asked their opinions etc... No one admitted to having a bias against them. I asked our hiring manager and she did a quick search and we have 10 grads of BJU in our company (I am sure that is a small percentage). So far it hasn't hurt them. I don't know anything about BJU's politics but I think their negative reputation maybe exaggerated.

 

 

FYI I am the assistant hiring manager for all of our executive level employees.

[Jennifer3141]

That's true. My BIL graduated from an Ivy League school. He applied to the top four or five medical schools in the country (I know there is some sort of matching/ranking program by which schools and students choose each other) and got into all of them. He did not bother applying to any school that wasn't among the most highly regarded in the nation.

 

Tara

 

I'm not saying that this is the ONLY way to think for everyone but DH had his pick of the top four medical schools. For him (and most of his friends) had they not gotten into a top 10 or top 15 or maybe even 20 medical schools... they would have considered other careers. So for DH and our friends, USC sucks. And anyone who would attend BJU and want to be a doctor in this society right now would be laughed at by everyone I know. This is going to shock some of you but doctors ARE scientists.

 

I get that not everyone gets to be at the top of the list for brains. And the rural areas and the desolate inner city areas obviously deserve medical treatment too. But there are a lot of people within the medical community who are worried about the disparate level of care that the bottom medical schools are producing, just as many lawyers are worried about their bottom schools too.

 

Couple that with the doctor shortage and no one really knows what the solution is yet but I am very grateful that I don't live in an area where my only choice for physicians is a bunch of people with marginal educations.

[Cassy]

Only people who reject evolution compartmentalize it this way, as a narrow question about origins. Evolution is the fundamental organizing principle of modern biology. It has direct predictive application; it's not just stories biologists tell about the past, it guides their understanding of what is happening now and what will happen in the future. I am at a loss for how a person could seriously study biology while denying that organisms are related to each other through descent. Microbiology, genetics, and embryology are all heavily dependent on an understanding of evolution.

 

Additionally, YEC is a rejection of scientific naturalism itself. It depends on the existence of forces outside of nature which cannot be measured or observed, and rests on nonmaterial forms of evidence. To be YEC you have to be willing to reject vast amounts of converging evidence from multiple disciplines - astronomy, geology, biology - in favor of evidence based on a text and on faith.

 

 

 

I haven't seen anyone painting "all Christian higher education" the same way. People have spoken highly of a number of Christian colleges and universities. Certainly universities like Baylor, Georgetown, and Notre Dame have national reputations. People have also spoken very highly of Wheaton. Only a few colleges are being singled out for having a poor academic reputation: BJU, Pensacola, and a couple of others.

 

 

I know of people (one a Chemistry teacher), who reject 'evolution', but accept 'adaptation'. A subtle distinction, but interesting.

 

Cassy

[Ellesmere]

Once again ... I'm not calling anyone a weirdo. I'm simply reporting the reputation that Cedarville has around here. Apparently they are not as conservative as they used to be, but that news hasn't reached the general public in these parts, because many people still think they are. The OP asked about a school's reputation, not about what I personally believe about it. I don't know enough to form an opinion, but I do hear what other people have to say on the matter.

 

FWIW, my husband went to a religious school. I am not against religious schools. We have urged our oldest child to consider attending said religious school. It's not an anti-religious-school issue. This thread is a question of public perception. If public perception didn't matter, the OP wouldn't have asked.

 

Tara

Tara, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are applied differently amongst people considering those schools. I know of people who consider Cedarville to be liberal and BJU to be conservative. Several institutions with very similar worldviews/theology views will be viewed as very different because of their atmosphere. Do they ban all alcohol, all the time? Do they approve only certain types of music? What about the dress code? Can they go to the movie theater? (I don't know where Cedarville is on these issues, but historically BJU followers abstain from all alcohol, ban a lot of music, and prohibit all sorts of things on the basis that participating is sin.)

 

Cedarville and BJU have such similar doctrinal stances that I wouldn't consider either of them. But among the fundamentalist/evangelicals that I know, they are worlds apart. (And some people chose Cedarville purposely to be away from the BJU-mentality and vice-versa.)

[Ellesmere]

Only people who reject evolution compartmentalize it this way, as a narrow question about origins. Evolution is the fundamental organizing principle of modern biology. It has direct predictive application; it's not just stories biologists tell about the past, it guides their understanding of what is happening now and what will happen in the future. I am at a loss for how a person could seriously study biology while denying that organisms are related to each other through descent. Microbiology, genetics, and embryology are all heavily dependent on an understanding of evolution.

 

Additionally, YEC is a rejection of scientific naturalism itself. It depends on the existence of forces outside of nature which cannot be measured or observed, and rests on nonmaterial forms of evidence. To be YEC you have to be willing to reject vast amounts of converging evidence from multiple disciplines - astronomy, geology, biology - in favor of evidence based on a text and on faith.

 

I haven't seen anyone painting "all Christian higher education" the same way. People have spoken highly of a number of Christian colleges and universities. Certainly universities like Baylor, Georgetown, and Notre Dame have national reputations. People have also spoken very highly of Wheaton. Only a few colleges are being singled out for having a poor academic reputation: BJU, Pensacola, and a couple of others.

:iagree:

[KirstenH]

I'm not saying that this is the ONLY way to think for everyone but DH had his pick of the top four medical schools. For him (and most of his friends) had they not gotten into a top 10 or top 15 or maybe even 20 medical schools... they would have considered other careers. So for DH and our friends, USC sucks. And anyone who would attend BJU and want to be a doctor in this society right now would be laughed at by everyone I know.

 

Are you terribly unhappy being surrounded by that many mean-spirited snobs?

 

(I say this as someone who cannot stand BJU as an institution.)

[AvasMom]

- they went on to Harvard or Yale or John Hopkins or whatever.

 

That's not being open-minded. That's catering to the student population you can attract.

 

JohnSSSSSS Hopkins. Sorry, former Hopkins person here and that's a huge pet peeve. *twitch twitch* :lol: Carry on. ;)

[Aelwydd]

Okay I have been lurking for a few days now...but finally decided to weigh in.

 

As some of you know I have entered the workforce again. ( I love my new HR position :)) I took advantage of my work resources and network to ask this questions. I have yet to hear anyone say anything negative about BJU. I work for a globally known company and am on a committee with HR reps from several other large companies. I asked their opinions etc... No one admitted to having a bias against them. I asked our hiring manager and she did a quick search and we have 10 grads of BJU in our company (I am sure that is a small percentage). So far it hasn't hurt them. I don't know anything about BJU's politics but I think their negative reputation maybe exaggerated.

 

ciyates, trying to put this diplomatically, but...you're HR. In my experience working for different companies and corporations, the sentiment was always the same. You don't tell HR what you really think. :lol:

 

You especially do not admit a general bias. About anything or anyone. Unless it's a stated bias against bias.

 

 

FYI I am the assistant hiring manager for all of our executive level employees.

Right. And for all they know, you may have a good friend, colleague, or family member who is an alumnus of BJU. You are not someone, not even an executive, wants to accidentally offend. :)

 

Safest course of action: "Hmmm...don't really have an opinion on that school. Oh, look! Fred brought Cinnabon!"

 

I'm not saying those folks are having issues after all. I'm saying that some folks may not feel a liberty to share their honest feelings about it, if they think it might be considered offensive.

[creekland]

I'm not saying that this is the ONLY way to think for everyone but DH had his pick of the top four medical schools. For him (and most of his friends) had they not gotten into a top 10 or top 15 or maybe even 20 medical schools... they would have considered other careers. So for DH and our friends, USC sucks.

 

And this makes me feel a ton better about our decision NOT to include Ivies in middle son's college apps even though he had Ivy stats.

 

I really, really detest elitism. I know NOT all who go to Ivies are elitists, but far too many are for my comfort level.

 

I wonder if those at the top medical schools form cliques excluding those who went to "lesser" schools and still made it in - akin to the Sneetches by Dr Seuss. Obviously, they CAN'T be as good as or well prepared or whatever - regardless of the admissions decision. ;)

Edited April 7, 2012 by creekland

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I don't approve of BJU and I'd never even use BJUP homeschool materials. If my son goes to school for anything science-related, and he is considering becoming a physician, he will go to a local secular university so he can live at home for the first few years.

 

That said, I've had it up to the eyeballs with atheists' and evolutionists' belief that they own science.

 

It isn't true.

 

Millions of people believe in a Creator God. Millions of people want a physician who acknowledges the Creator of Life and doesn't bow down to the gods of the age.

 

Doctors and scientists who believe in the God of the Christian Bible and deny the theory of evolution will certainly have to accommodate their instructors in college. They'll have to learn all of the theories and beliefs and perform on tests and exams as if they believe it all.

 

Doctors and scientists who believe in the God of the Christian Bible but find their beliefs allow for theistic evolution will also have to do a fair amount of people-pleasing to get through college. Even though they believe that God could have used evolution in some respects as part of the creation of the world, they'll be castigated and persecuted because they believe it all started with GOD.

 

The mockers will make life miserable for Christians who dare to think that they can enter the Holy Realm of Science. The Christians will have to somewhat comply, hide their beliefs, change schools...whatever it takes to endure the atheists' barbs for the time required to become physicians. The atheists, as evidenced in this thread, won't be satisfied to see all the scientists exposed and indoctrinated into their beliefs, able to give all the answers and explain all the theories. No. They want something more. They want all the scientists to BELIEVE as they do. Why? Because it is the faith of the atheist that there is no God. They want that belief to spread until it is believed everywhere.

 

But no one can make Christians believe that God is dead or never existed.

 

The Christians who pass the test will go on to become doctors and scientists and use their lives as doctors and scientists to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ Who was present at Creation and Who owns all of science.

 

No one can stop them if the LORD is on their side.

 

Millions of godless people shouting, "There is no GOD!" "Science belongs to us!" are nothing more than voices on the wind to those who do have faith. Their noise proves nothing. It does not erase faith. Millions of atheists are a lot, but One + God = A Majority. And there are many more than one who have not declared God dead and set up Man in His place.

 

We believe that science belongs to the One who made it all. His name is Jesus Christ, and he is our LORD. Therefore we have the right to study what He has made. The Creation does not belong to men. It belongs to Christ, and was made for His glory, that man might see Him in the world He has made.

 

I have a list of WTM posters here beside me who will soon be fomenting with rage at what I've posted. They'll be here within hours, with their mocking and derision. I don't care. I posted this for the Christian mothers whose children are being called by God to explore the world He made, who might be feeling intimidated by the atheists that inevitably post here to make Christians feel like nothing. I want them to know that there is no need to cower before strangers on the internet. There is no need to believe the lie that Christianity and Science are mutually exclusive.

 

He that is in us is stronger than he that is in the world.

[Aelwydd]

Are you terribly unhappy being surrounded by that many mean-spirited snobs?

 

(I say this as someone who cannot stand BJU as an institution.)

 

Maybe they are not being mean-spirited, but simply expressing incredulity that a school that so thoroughly rejects the scientific underpinning of evolution, could adequately prepare undergrads for something as science-based as medicine.

 

I laugh at ludicrous things, too. Sometimes it's the only safe response to a rejection of reason available to me.

[AvasMom]

So...my question is, at this point, should we be counting the minutes until thread deletion, thread locking, or kilts showing up?

[creekland]

So...my question is, at this point, should we be counting the minutes until thread deletion, thread locking, or kilts showing up?

 

Actually, the original question is a good one. BJU grads will have to deal with negative aspects of their undergrad name among many in the secular and religious world. That part is true for many places. It's probably also true that if they meet another alum it would be an asset.

 

The misinformation about med school admissions I'm trying to combat is kind of annoying, but, rather common for any who haven't researched it. I'd have probably agreed with them prior to my VERY recent research. ;)

[AvasMom]

Actually, the original question is a good one. BJU grads will have to deal with negative aspects of their undergrad name among many in the secular and religious world. That part is true for many places. It's probably also true that if they meet another alum it would be an asset.

 

The misinformation about med school admissions I'm trying to combat is kind of annoying, but, rather common for any who haven't researched it. I'd have probably agreed with them prior to my VERY recent research. ;)

 

I was actually refering to Tibbie gleefully tossing a lit match into an otherwise useful discussion.

[AFwife Claire]

Just so you know, many of those rules have changed and been modified to reflect a less legalistic viewpoint in the past 10 years or so. The rules have been adjusted to reflect an individuals convictions as they grow in their relationship with God rather than stark right/wrong rules that they had in the past. I was just at a Cedarville wedding (two staff members) in November and they were dancing at their wedding :) I'm not sure exactly what specific rules exist now but will be finding out soon as I'm sending two kidlets off to start their college journeys there in the fall.

 

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts.

 

I'm a Cedarville grad as well ('95), and rules have definitely been loosened from when I was there. I have friends whose kids are now students, plus my parents still live in Dayton, so I have visited the campus recently. I'm so glad that the university has finally realized thaat just having a framework of very restrictive, legalistic rules does not reflect the hearts of students, and does not prepare them for living a Christian life without those rules around them actively being enforced!

 

I got an excellent education at Cedarville, and I wouldn't hesitate to send my kids there. I don't think a degree from Cedarville is a huge hinderance in the big wide outside world. And frankly, there are people who are weird from every institution. If people want to make judgements on all graduates of an institution based solely on rules from the 80s--well, I'd have to question how open-minded they really were or wanted to be!

[Tammyla]

I've enjoyed reading your recent first hand account. Thank you:001_smile:.

 

Actually, the original question is a good one. BJU grads will have to deal with negative aspects of their undergrad name among many in the secular and religious world. That part is true for many places. It's probably also true that if they meet another alum it would be an asset.

 

The misinformation about med school admissions I'm trying to combat is kind of annoying, but, rather common for any who haven't researched it. I'd have probably agreed with them prior to my VERY recent research. ;)

[Aelwydd]

I don't approve of BJU and I'd never even use BJUP homeschool materials. If my son goes to school for anything science-related, and he is considering becoming a physician, he will go to a local secular university so he can live at home for the first few years.

 

That said, I've had it up to the eyeballs with atheists' and evolutionists' belief that they own science.

 

It isn't true.

 

Millions of people believe in a Creator God. Millions of people want a physician who acknowledges the Creator of Life and doesn't bow down to the gods of the age.

 

Doctors and scientists who believe in the God of the Christian Bible and deny the theory of evolution will certainly have to accommodate their instructors in college. They'll have to learn all of the theories and beliefs and perform on tests and exams as if they believe it all.

 

Doctors and scientists who believe in the God of the Christian Bible but find their beliefs allow for theistic evolution will also have to do a fair amount of people-pleasing to get through college. Even though they believe that God could have used evolution in some respects as part of the creation of the world, they'll be castigated and persecuted because they believe it all started with GOD.

 

The mockers will make life miserable for Christians who dare to think that they can enter the Holy Realm of Science. The Christians will have to somewhat comply, hide their beliefs, change schools...whatever it takes to endure the atheists' barbs for the time required to become physicians. The atheists, as evidenced in this thread, won't be satisfied to see all the scientists exposed and indoctrinated into their beliefs, able to give all the answers and explain all the theories. No. They want something more. They want all the scientists to BELIEVE as they do. Why? Because it is the faith of the atheist that there is no God. They want that belief to spread until it is believed everywhere.

 

But no one can make Christians believe that God is dead or never existed.

 

The Christians who pass the test will go on to become doctors and scientists and use their lives as doctors and scientists to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ Who was present at Creation and Who owns all of science.

 

No one can stop them if the LORD is on their side.

 

Millions of godless people shouting, "There is no GOD!" "Science belongs to us!" are nothing more than voices on the wind to those who do have faith. Their noise proves nothing. It does not erase faith. Millions of atheists are a lot, but One + God = A Majority. And there are many more than one who have not declared God dead and set up Man in His place.

 

We believe that science belongs to the One who made it all. His name is Jesus Christ, and he is our LORD. Therefore we have the right to study what He has made. The Creation does not belong to men. It belongs to Christ, and was made for His glory, that man might see Him in the world He has made.

 

I have a list of WTM posters here beside me who will soon be fomenting with rage at what I've posted. They'll be here within hours, with their mocking and derision. I don't care. I posted this for the Christian mothers whose children are being called by God to explore the world He made, who might be feeling intimidated by the atheists that inevitably post here to make Christians feel like nothing. I want them to know that there is no need to cower before strangers on the internet. There is no need to believe the lie that Christianity and Science are mutually exclusive.

 

He that is in us is stronger than he that is in the world.

 

 

With all due respect, Tinnie, people may believe what ever they wish regarding how the world got here, and everything in it. I'm a Christian, myself, so I believe in a divine Creator.

 

However, I believe that as God established the laws that run the universe, these laws are observable through our empirical senses. This is something that has been tested again, and again, and again, and again. This is the most elemental of understandings concerning science.

 

Therefore, if it is to be called scientific, it needs to be tested by the same rigorous model, the scientific method. If it is "proved" (although I hate that word--it's actually not one most scientists like) through various methods of gathering data and testing, and the results consistently bear similar results, then we have what's called a body of evidence. Not that you won't have the occasional outlier, a study or experiment that gives conflicting results. But that is why scientists plan and execute so many studies, from many different perspectives, in order to find the bell curve, so to speak, and establish what the big picture is telling us.

 

EVERYTHING that is predicated upon science, be it medicine to engineering to space flight to even the soft sciences, like social science relies upon this time tested method.

 

The Theory of Evolution is no different.

 

It hasn't been subjected to a different standard of science. It hasn't been rushed through a year's testing with the FDA and approved. :D

 

It's been studied by countless scientists, from every scientific discipline known: chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, oceanography, zoology, and on and on. Every major branch agrees, because each one has yielded results that corroborate, build up, or give more detailed information on evolution. It's not just Darwin looked at birds on a remote island one day and wrote a book, and viola! It's all proved. No. It's been over a century's worth of scientific evidence building and building on it.

 

 

So, as far as science being God's thing? Yes, it is. That's why I don't choose to ignore the concrete evidence established over and over, through study of His laws, using the senses He gave us, to observe the cosmos.

 

That's why, if I have a choice, I'd rather have the surgeon work on me that is operating (pun totally intended) according to evidence-based medicine, rather than an understanding that is predicated upon rejecting such evidence, when it goes against his own personal, subjective, unprovable beliefs.

 

Same thing goes for linguists, engineers, etc. They may believe what they wish, but their work had better be founded in science--not what they read in Genesis. If they did, linguists would never attempt to deconstruct languages to common roots, or learn new ones--God scrambled languages after all, so we're not supposed to communicate.

 

Engineers better stop building newer or taller buildings, because that's a sign of hubris.

 

Military science might want to back off from scientific analysis and strategy, and just invest in horns, or depend on someone raising their arms to keep the sun in place.

 

If that sounds absurd, it should. And it's why I don't understand how many people can take exception to Christians like myself pointing out that the same underlying principles of observation, hypothesis, testing, conclusion, and so forth are what made these things possible, and what made a modern society possible.

 

If people trust science for all of that, and find no conflict with their religious beliefs therein, why does it suddenly become different with evolution?

 

It's not because the science is different.

[wapiti]

I haven't seen anyone painting "all Christian higher education" the same way. People have spoken highly of a number of Christian colleges and universities. Certainly universities like Baylor, Georgetown, and Notre Dame have national reputations. People have also spoken very highly of Wheaton. Only a few colleges are being singled out for having a poor academic reputation: BJU, Pensacola, and a couple of others.

 

This. I attended a Catholic university with an excellent academic reputation. One of my college roommates went on to Harvard Medical School.

[AvasMom]

With all due respect, Tinnie, people may believe what ever they wish regarding how the world got here, and everything in it. I'm a Christian, myself, so I believe in a divine Creator.

 

However, I believe that as God established the laws that run the universe, these laws are observable through our empirical senses. This is something that has been tested again, and again, and again, and again. This is the most elemental of understandings concerning science.

 

Therefore, if it is to be called scientific, it needs to be tested by the same rigorous model, the scientific method. If it is "proved" (although I hate that word--it's actually not one most scientists like) through various methods of gathering data and testing, and the results consistently bear similar results, then we have what's called a body of evidence. Not that you won't have the occasional outlier, a study or experiment that gives conflicting results. But that is why scientists plan and execute so many studies, from many different perspectives, in order to find the bell curve, so to speak, and establish what the big picture is telling us.

 

EVERYTHING that is predicated upon science, be it medicine to engineering to space flight to even the soft sciences, like social science relies upon this time tested method.

 

The Theory of Evolution is no different.

 

It hasn't been subjected to a different standard of science. It hasn't been rushed through a year's testing with the FDA and approved. :D

 

It's been studied by countless scientists, from every scientific discipline known: chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, oceanography, zoology, and on and on. Every major branch agrees, because each one has yielded results that corroborate, build up, or give more detailed information on evolution. It's not just Darwin looked at birds on a remote island one day and wrote a book, and viola! It's all proved. No. It's been over a century's worth of scientific evidence building and building on it.

 

 

So, as far as science being God's thing? Yes, it is. That's why I don't choose to ignore the concrete evidence established over and over, through study of His laws, using the senses He gave us, to observe the cosmos.

 

That's why, if I have a choice, I'd rather have the surgeon work on me that is operating (pun totally intended) according to evidence-based medicine, rather than an understanding that is predicated upon rejecting such evidence, when it goes against his own personal, subjective, unprovable beliefs.

 

Same thing goes for linguists, engineers, etc. They may believe what they wish, but their work had better be founded in science--not what they read in Genesis. If they did, linguists would never attempt to deconstruct languages to common roots, or learn new ones--God scrambled languages after all, so we're not supposed to communicate.

 

Engineers better stop building newer or taller buildings, because that's a sign of hubris.

 

Military science might want to back off from scientific analysis and strategy, and just invest in horns, or depend on someone raising their arms to keep the sun in place.

 

If that sounds absurd, it should. And it's why I don't understand how many people can take exception to Christians like myself pointing out that the same underlying principles of observation, hypothesis, testing, conclusion, and so forth are what made these things possible, and what made a modern society possible.

 

If people trust science for all of that, and find no conflict with their religious beliefs therein, why does it suddenly become different with evolution?

 

It's not because the science is different.

 

:iagree: Excellent post.

[nmoira]

never mind

[Wabi Sabi]

 

Couple that with the doctor shortage and no one really knows what the solution is yet but I am very grateful that I don't live in an area where my only choice for physicians is a bunch of people with marginal educations.

 

First, let it be clear that I'm a rather liberal secular homeschooler who wouldn't dream of supporting any institution such as BJU nor am I physician, I don't have any physicians in the family and my children are too young to even worry about high school yet much less college or med school so I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak.

 

But really? Geez. I live in a Big 10 town and almost every single doctor I've seen in the last 20 years is a graduate of the Big 10 state med school. The vast majority of doctors around graduated from the state university. I had no idea that we were all recieving such sub-par care from doctors who have questionably educations. :001_rolleyes:

 

Anything under the top 4 clearly "sucks?" That is probably one of the most elitist and snobbish statements that I've heard in a while.

[creekland]

 

I got an excellent education at Cedarville, and I wouldn't hesitate to send my kids there.

 

FWIW, Cedarville is known as a good academic school and one of the best to go to if one is looking for a YEC only school. Their incoming freshman stats are higher than many Christian (YEC only or not) colleges.

 

I can't speak of their med school acceptance rates because I haven't looked at them, but I suspect they'll get students in, esp if BJU does.

 

I've enjoyed reading your recent first hand account. Thank you:001_smile:.

 

I've tried to share a ton because I've spent hours (literally) figuring things out - as have others before me. Med school admissions now is more competitive than in recent years (slightly less this year than last due to one or two new medical schools opening). For those of us who have students who aspire to get their MD or PhD/MD, sharing knowledge sure helps. I appreciate those I've gleaned info from, mainly those in the process now and those in admissions. We did talk to physicians too, but most graduated in earlier years where their experience just isn't the same as today.

 

Would I send my student to BJU? No, but it's not because they couldn't get to med school from there. It's because it's not a good fit for us as Christians and it's a bit academically low overall for my preferences in academics. Obviously their med school successes are high enough academically to be competitive, but I care about overall peer academic strength too. That's just a personal issue - as is the Christian fit.

[creekland]

Anything under the top 4 clearly "sucks?" That is probably one of the most elitist and snobbish statements that I've heard in a while.

 

I found it rather sad to know there are people out there who feel this way... but after having been on college confidential for a few years, it's not surprising. It's just sad. Elitism sucks IMO.

 

It does make one wonder how the elite Ivy students at WUSTL can cope with themselves after having gone from #4 to #6. One can't transfer from med school and now they are "stuck." Their futures are over! On the flip side, the students at the school that moved into the #4 spot are the lucky winners. Their education is so much better now! ;)

 

And what ranking are we talking about anyway? The schools at the top of research are different from those in primary care, pediatrics, etc... :tongue_smilie:

[southcarolinamom]

Our son is attending BJU for nursing. Out of all the South Carolina nursing programs, Christian schools, state schools, tech schools, etc., BJU's pass rate on their graduate nursing exams is 100%. No other SC school has that distinction. That's why he picked BJU. Their graduates have the best reputation in the state.

[Aelwydd]

First, let it be clear that I'm a rather liberal secular homeschooler who wouldn't dream of supporting any institution such as BJU nor am I physician, I don't have any physicians in the family and my children are too young to even worry about high school yet much less college or med school so I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak.

 

But really? Geez. I live in a Big 10 town and almost every single doctor I've seen in the last 20 years is a graduate of the Big 10 state med school. The vast majority of doctors around graduated from the state university. I had no idea that we were all recieving such sub-par care from doctors who have questionably educations. :001_rolleyes:

 

Anything under the top 4 clearly "sucks?" That is probably one of the most elitist and snobbish statements that I've heard in a while.

 

Well, I'm not of the mind that all state schools are terrible places to get an M.D., but the way I read Jennifer's post was: her dh applied to the top four, but their friends had a list of about 30 top medical schools. Those outside this group were considered substandard, but one school in particular "sucked." I didn't read it as all schools except four sucked.

 

To be honest, my undergrad is in public health, and my a field I consider myself somewhat an "expert" in. And I'll tell you, in my experience, there are a lot of physicians--a lot--that I seriously wonder how they ever got their undergrad, much less their M.D., they are so clueless.

 

So, I actually think Jennifer's opinion of the majority of medical schools in this country has more truth to it than most people are comfortable with.

 

The problems I come across are over-reliance upon individual experience (and sub-par training, it would seem), and subjective, anecdotal practice. Some fields are rife with it, such as obstetrics. Finding physicians that a, actually read and keep up with current medical studies and data, b, then base their practice on the evidence, and c, train and teach other medical professionals to adopt the same mentality, is...really quite difficult.

 

 

But that's why I do think there is a distinct difference between physicians coming out of more exacting medical schools than those coming from less stringent schools.

[Parrothead]

With all due respect, Tinnie, people may believe what ever they wish regarding how the world got here, and everything in it. I'm a Christian, myself, so I believe in a divine Creator.

 

However, I believe that as God established the laws that run the universe, these laws are observable through our empirical senses. This is something that has been tested again, and again, and again, and again. This is the most elemental of understandings concerning science.

 

Therefore, if it is to be called scientific, it needs to be tested by the same rigorous model, the scientific method. If it is "proved" (although I hate that word--it's actually not one most scientists like) through various methods of gathering data and testing, and the results consistently bear similar results, then we have what's called a body of evidence. Not that you won't have the occasional outlier, a study or experiment that gives conflicting results. But that is why scientists plan and execute so many studies, from many different perspectives, in order to find the bell curve, so to speak, and establish what the big picture is telling us.

 

EVERYTHING that is predicated upon science, be it medicine to engineering to space flight to even the soft sciences, like social science relies upon this time tested method.

 

The Theory of Evolution is no different.

 

It hasn't been subjected to a different standard of science. It hasn't been rushed through a year's testing with the FDA and approved. :D

 

It's been studied by countless scientists, from every scientific discipline known: chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, oceanography, zoology, and on and on. Every major branch agrees, because each one has yielded results that corroborate, build up, or give more detailed information on evolution. It's not just Darwin looked at birds on a remote island one day and wrote a book, and viola! It's all proved. No. It's been over a century's worth of scientific evidence building and building on it.

 

 

So, as far as science being God's thing? Yes, it is. That's why I don't choose to ignore the concrete evidence established over and over, through study of His laws, using the senses He gave us, to observe the cosmos.

 

That's why, if I have a choice, I'd rather have the surgeon work on me that is operating (pun totally intended) according to evidence-based medicine, rather than an understanding that is predicated upon rejecting such evidence, when it goes against his own personal, subjective, unprovable beliefs.

 

Same thing goes for linguists, engineers, etc. They may believe what they wish, but their work had better be founded in science--not what they read in Genesis. If they did, linguists would never attempt to deconstruct languages to common roots, or learn new ones--God scrambled languages after all, so we're not supposed to communicate.

 

Engineers better stop building newer or taller buildings, because that's a sign of hubris.

 

Military science might want to back off from scientific analysis and strategy, and just invest in horns, or depend on someone raising their arms to keep the sun in place.

 

If that sounds absurd, it should. And it's why I don't understand how many people can take exception to Christians like myself pointing out that the same underlying principles of observation, hypothesis, testing, conclusion, and so forth are what made these things possible, and what made a modern society possible.

 

If people trust science for all of that, and find no conflict with their religious beliefs therein, why does it suddenly become different with evolution?

 

It's not because the science is different.

:iagree:This is how I think of things, but could never say so clearly.

[Parrothead]

First, let it be clear that I'm a rather liberal secular homeschooler who wouldn't dream of supporting any institution such as BJU nor am I physician, I don't have any physicians in the family and my children are too young to even worry about high school yet much less college or med school so I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak.

 

But really? Geez. I live in a Big 10 town and almost every single doctor I've seen in the last 20 years is a graduate of the Big 10 state med school. The vast majority of doctors around graduated from the state university. I had no idea that we were all recieving such sub-par care from doctors who have questionably educations. :001_rolleyes:

 

Anything under the top 4 clearly "sucks?" That is probably one of the most elitist and snobbish statements that I've heard in a while.

:iagree:The best doctor I've ever been to went to a state university med school.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Parrothead

[Zebra]

When someone finds out you attended ANY Christian school they are going to have an immediate bias one way or the other.

 

My DH went to Messiah, from the name it's obvious that this is a Christian school. So, even though maybe Messiah hasn't gotten the press that BJU has, people automatically have a bias against or for it. It sounds so conservative, and Christian-y.

 

Meanwhile, the school I went to was actually more conservative, but has a bland name. It doesn't have a name like "Messiah" and it doesn't have a rep like BJU. BUT, the minute I tell someone it's a Christian college, it's all over. It doesn't matter at that point anymore if it was BJU, or Messiah or whatever other Christian college.

 

If someone didn't want to hire me because I went to BJU, I guess I would be better off not working there. I have a hard time believing the majority of employers are THAT biased.

[Mergath]

I don't approve of BJU and I'd never even use BJUP homeschool materials. If my son goes to school for anything science-related, and he is considering becoming a physician, he will go to a local secular university so he can live at home for the first few years.

 

That said, I've had it up to the eyeballs with atheists' and evolutionists' belief that they own science.

 

It isn't true.

 

Millions of people believe in a Creator God. Millions of people want a physician who acknowledges the Creator of Life and doesn't bow down to the gods of the age.

 

Doctors and scientists who believe in the God of the Christian Bible and deny the theory of evolution will certainly have to accommodate their instructors in college. They'll have to learn all of the theories and beliefs and perform on tests and exams as if they believe it all.

 

Doctors and scientists who believe in the God of the Christian Bible but find their beliefs allow for theistic evolution will also have to do a fair amount of people-pleasing to get through college. Even though they believe that God could have used evolution in some respects as part of the creation of the world, they'll be castigated and persecuted because they believe it all started with GOD.

 

The mockers will make life miserable for Christians who dare to think that they can enter the Holy Realm of Science. The Christians will have to somewhat comply, hide their beliefs, change schools...whatever it takes to endure the atheists' barbs for the time required to become physicians. The atheists, as evidenced in this thread, won't be satisfied to see all the scientists exposed and indoctrinated into their beliefs, able to give all the answers and explain all the theories. No. They want something more. They want all the scientists to BELIEVE as they do. Why? Because it is the faith of the atheist that there is no God. They want that belief to spread until it is believed everywhere.

 

But no one can make Christians believe that God is dead or never existed.

 

The Christians who pass the test will go on to become doctors and scientists and use their lives as doctors and scientists to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ Who was present at Creation and Who owns all of science.

 

No one can stop them if the LORD is on their side.

 

Millions of godless people shouting, "There is no GOD!" "Science belongs to us!" are nothing more than voices on the wind to those who do have faith. Their noise proves nothing. It does not erase faith. Millions of atheists are a lot, but One + God = A Majority. And there are many more than one who have not declared God dead and set up Man in His place.

 

We believe that science belongs to the One who made it all. His name is Jesus Christ, and he is our LORD. Therefore we have the right to study what He has made. The Creation does not belong to men. It belongs to Christ, and was made for His glory, that man might see Him in the world He has made.

 

I have a list of WTM posters here beside me who will soon be fomenting with rage at what I've posted. They'll be here within hours, with their mocking and derision. I don't care. I posted this for the Christian mothers whose children are being called by God to explore the world He made, who might be feeling intimidated by the atheists that inevitably post here to make Christians feel like nothing. I want them to know that there is no need to cower before strangers on the internet. There is no need to believe the lie that Christianity and Science are mutually exclusive.

 

He that is in us is stronger than he that is in the world.

 

 

I think you're mixing up evolution, abiogenesis, and religion. How the universe came about and evolution are two completely separate subjects.