Welcome
Welcome to the Landmark Baptist Discussion Board.

You are currently viewing the board as a guest, which gives you limited forum access and reduced feature capabilities. Joining the community will permit you to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, create polls, upload content, and access many other special features.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free. So please, join our community today!

Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

The systematic defense of the Christian Faith.
Forum rules
:
: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." ~ Galatians 5:22-23
:
: Official Terms-of-Use, Terms-of-Membership, Rules, and Guidelines may be found here.

Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby studymore on 2009 Mar 28 Sat 4:55 pm

I have taught introductory biology for biology majors at Baylor University for 25 years. Being a faculty member at the largest Southern Baptist University and second largest Christian University in the country presents some unique challenges. Being evangelical Christians, it is assumed that we teach creationism. Many parents, when considering sending their children to Baylor, assume we do not teach evolution. If ever there was a place that ought to embrace so called "Christian alternatives" to evolution, it should be Baylor. As Biologists, we have examined those supernatural alternatives and found them to be unacceptable. Quite simply put, they are not science, and to teach them as science would be to lie to our students.

In Science we accumulate knowledge through the testing of naturalistic explanations of observable phenomena. For such tests to be scientific, the explanation must be capable of being disproven. Those explanations are tested through observation and experimentation. As we test those explanations, they gain empirical support. Some want to include the supernatural in the science curriculum. By its very definition, the supernatural lies outside of the realm of science. Supernatural explanations cannot be tested. Nor do they have the capacity of being disproven. Those explanations cannot be tested through observation and experimentation. As such, there is no empirical support for them.

Just as we do not include auto mechanics in the curriculum for teaching English, and we do not include discussions of baking principles in the curriculum for foreign languages, discussions of the supernatural have no place in the curriculum for science. Teaching about faith and religion belongs in Sunday Schools, not in public schools.


I was just shocked that a Southern Baptist University would keep someone on staff that denies the validity of the biblical record.
"And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath..." (Deuteronomy 28:13)
User avatar
studymore
Site Administrator
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 2007 Nov 22 Thu 10:26 am
Location: Lake Isabella, California
Highscores: 5

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby cbut1 on 2009 Mar 28 Sat 11:25 pm

I am not surprised much Bro Whitely. Many Colleges and Universities that had solid Godly people as their founders have subverted their heritage for money as such you get what you pay for. I just hope many Baptist families that intend to send their children off to college look realy hard at the place they are sending their children, and then decind it isn't worth it.
Change a mans mind against his will, he is of the same mind still. ----

Benjamin Franklin.
cbut1
 
Posts: 316
Joined: 2008 Mar 07 Fri 8:19 am
Location: California
Highscores: 1

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby studymore on 2009 Mar 30 Mon 10:36 am

As much as I hear Missionary Baptists warming up to the Convention system, I am just left wondering how any true Baptists can support a denomination that continues to allow this sort of atheistic heresy.
"And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath..." (Deuteronomy 28:13)
User avatar
studymore
Site Administrator
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 2007 Nov 22 Thu 10:26 am
Location: Lake Isabella, California
Highscores: 5

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Rlvaughn on 2009 Mar 30 Mon 11:44 am

Brother Chad, I think this case at Baylor is another evidence of the sorry state of religion in America, especially at a school that promotes itself as "a private Baptist university".

I have no interest in or use for the convention system, though I am pleased to see some revival of conservation and landmarkism among some of the folks. No matter how conservative or landmark or whatever they might be or become, I still do not approve of the system. All that to preface one statement regarding this Baylor issue. Most, if not all, of the SB Universities over the past several years have severed their connections with the convention, at least as far as the convention being able to elect their trustees. I think they still love to take their money, though! I don't understand how all this works within their bylaws, etc., but during the conservative resurgence the conservatives seemed to have gotten control of the 6 main seminaries while the universities made legal moves to keep the conservatives for getting in control of them.

Someone else may know more of how this works that I do.
Rlvaughn
 
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007 Dec 06 Thu 2:06 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Jon Smith on 2009 Mar 30 Mon 4:34 pm

I am not defending this brother because I do not know him nor do I know the full of extent of what he does teach and doesn't teach. However this quote is not near as damaging as I think some of you would like and desire it to be....This is what it basically says
1. Parents assume that they do not teach evolution at Baylor...probably true
2. Baylor should teach alternatives to evolution.....definitely true
3. By its very definition, the supernatural lies outside of the realm of science.....true...the carnal can not understand the spiritual
4. Supernatural explanations cannot be tested......true....not in an empirical fashion
5. Just like automechanics doesn't belong in the curriculum for english the study of science is not the same as studying the supernatural. true
6. Faith and Religion belong in Sunday Schools not Public Schools....Baylor is not a public school it is a private school so he wasn't talking about Baylor....up for genuine argument but mostly opinion.
Many Christians actually believe that Religion does not belong in the public schools for the very reason that if you allow one religion then by the very freedom of speech you have to allow all religions. I for one do not want Muslims teaching a class on the Bible just as much as I do not want an Evolutionist commenting on Creation.
This quote does not say that they teach evolution at Baylor!
It seems that you all wish it did say that?

Bro. Vaughn the churches of the SBC elect the trustees and then the trustees elect the presidents and then the presidents appoint the school trustees and hire and fire the faculty. The SBC trustees only serve for 3 years at a time and are a reflection of the people who elect them. The conservative movement within the SBC is a people movement. They have elected conservative trustees who have elected conservative presidents such as Paige Patterson. Could you give me a list of the SBC universities that have left the SBC like you said. I am not aware of "most" of them leaving to join the liberals that have been purged from them?
I believe that the Church is not the 4th Person of the Godhead, that there is no "Immaculate Translation", that every believer is authorized to share the gospel....Yes I'm still a Landmarker!
Jon Smith
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 2007 Nov 23 Fri 10:17 pm
Location: Arlington Texas

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Rlvaughn on 2009 Mar 31 Tue 6:21 am

Jon Smith wrote:Bro. Vaughn the churches of the SBC elect the trustees and then the trustees elect the presidents and then the presidents appoint the school trustees and hire and fire the faculty. The SBC trustees only serve for 3 years at a time and are a reflection of the people who elect them. The conservative movement within the SBC is a people movement. They have elected conservative trustees who have elected conservative presidents such as Paige Patterson. Could you give me a list of the SBC universities that have left the SBC like you said. I am not aware of "most" of them leaving to join the liberals that have been purged from them?

Here goes. I hope this will help make you more aware of the situation. These these are cut and pasted from the internet to address this generally. If you want more information you probably should research each entity specifically.

First, I ask readers to remember that I am not talking about the 6 seminaries (Southern, Southwestern, Southeastern, New Orleans, Golden Gate, Midwestern). These are, as far as I know, the only entities that are directly related to the Southern Baptist Convention. When I speak of SBC-related universities I mean generally. I think all of the major universities like Baylor were directly related to their state conventions and to the SBC through the state conventions. Most of them no longer are, or have made moves to limit their control. When I wrote "Most, if not all" concerning SB Universities severing these connections I did not clarify that I had in mind major universities (e.g. Baylor, Samford, Furman, Wake Forest, Mercer, Richmond, Ouachita). I'm sure there are hundreds of SB colleges & universities that I don't even know exist.

In most cases the university took the initiative to keep the conservatives from getting control of them during the conservative resurgence. In one case -- Mercer University -- it was the state convention conservatives who took the initiative to boot the University.

Mercer University and the Georgia Baptist Convention have agreed to terms that will end their 172-year-old relationship. The convention will end funding of the school after 2007, but Mercer will get control of trustee elections and all assets, including a $19.6 million endowment controlled by the convention...Under the agreement, Mercer will create a self-perpetuating board, rather than allowing the convention to elect a portion of trustees.
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=848&Itemid=118

SOUTHERN BAPTIST COLLEGES THAT HAVE LOOSENED TIES WITH THEIR CONVENTIONS

Baylor University changed its charter in 1990 so that one-quarter of its board is now elected by the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Before that, the convention elected all of the trustees.

Carson-Newman College in 1998 changed its charter to become self-perpetuating. In 2000, the institution and the Tennessee Baptist Convention agreed to choose trustees jointly.

Furman University's board became independent of the South Carolina Baptist Convention in 1992.

Grand Canyon University severed its ties with the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention in 2000.

Houston Baptist University chooses three-quarters of its board members, while the Baptist General Convention of Texas elects the rest, under a 2001 agreement.

Meredith College first broke from the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina in 1991. It later allowed the convention to elect nominees approved by the college, but in 1997 it became independent again.

Mississippi College came to an agreement with the state Baptist convention in 1994 that the convention would select trustees of the college only from a list compiled by the college.

Missouri Baptist College in 2001 changed its charter to make its board self-perpetuating -- a decision that has been challenged in court by the state convention.

Ouachita Baptist University's board became self-perpetuating in 1996. The Arkansas Baptist State Convention still ceremonially approves trustees.

Samford University's board became self-perpetuating in 1994. As a courtesy, Samford permits the Alabama Baptist State Convention to approve the nominees, but the approval has no legal standing.

Stetson University became independent of the Florida Baptist Convention in 1993.

University of Richmond began naming non-Baptists to its Board of Trustees in 1969. As of 1999, the university stopped receiving money from the Virginia state convention.

Wake Forest University's board became self-perpetuating in 1986.
-- MEGAN ROONEY
http://www.missouribaptists.org/content/ChronicleOfHigherEducation.htm

6. Several historically Baptist colleges broke away from the state Baptist conventions that supported them -- sometimes peacefully, often not -- in what may turn out to be the most dramatic year ever in Baptist education. In the Georgia Baptist Convention, Mercer University was kicked out over homosexuality and other issues, while Shorter College lost a long legal battle to elect its own trustees. Belmont and Georgetown universities distanced themselves from Baptists in Tennessee and Kentucky, respectively, while the debate over who should control and shape Christian education continued on other campuses.
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=850&Itemid=118


"The Baylor board of trustees on Sept. 21 [1990, rlv] revised its charter to establish a board of regents 'with sole responsibility for governance of Baylor' and elected 16 people to the new body. Previously, Baylor's charter provided for school governance by a 48-member board of trustees, elected by the BGCT."

"In his opening remarks to the BGCT executive board, Executive Director William M. Pinson Jr. noted that the board of trustees at Furman University, Greenville, S.C., on Oct. 15 took 'similar action in a similar way' to the Baylor board of trustees." -- Texas executive board studies relationship with Baylor by Ken Camp
http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7045,19-Oct-1990.pdf

More random quotes from the internet:
Samford University, as a private corporation, is wholly governed by an independent, self-perpetuating Board of Trustees. The Board appoints the President of the University, who serves as chief executive officer. The Board consists of its regular members and the President.-- Wikipedia

"Ever since 1979, when conservatives took control of the Southern Baptist Convention -- the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, with more than 16 million members -- and began purging moderate voices from the six seminaries under its control, Southern Baptist colleges have feared that something similar could happen between them and the state conventions with which they are affiliated. In many states, those conventions often must approve the colleges' trustees.

"To fend off the conservatives, more than a dozen colleges have either split entirely with their state conventions, by creating self-perpetuating boards of trustees, or significantly limited the convention's power over the trustee-election process. Conservatives have continued to make inroads on the state-convention level, however, ensuring that more battles within higher education are likely." -- Southern Baptist colleges are caught up in bitter conflicts plaguing the powerful denomination

The first colleges to remove themselves from the direct control of their state conventions were among the largest and best-known Southern Baptist institutions: Baylor University, Furman University, Stetson University, and the University of Richmond. While they all vowed to retain their Baptist character, these institutions have, since their separations, also attempted to broaden their appeal to students beyond state borders.
http://www.missouribaptists.org/content/ChronicleOfHigherEducation.htm


Furman severed its centuries-old relationship with the South Carolina Baptist Convention several years ago in an attempt to prevent conservatives from gaining a controlling majority of its Board of Trustees.


Notice also that some who tried to sever their connections with their conventions lost in legal battles and the connections still exist. Hope this helps.
Rlvaughn
 
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007 Dec 06 Thu 2:06 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Rlvaughn on 2009 Mar 31 Tue 6:35 am

Jon Smith wrote:This quote does not say that they teach evolution at Baylor!

The context of the quote is the debate with the Texas State Board of Education concerning the Science curriculum for public schools in the state of Texas (and the revision of TEKS standards). It can be found here:
http://www.texasscientists.org/contact.html

Richard Duhrkopf is a leader in the "21st-Century Science Coalition" which is not just committed to keeping faith teaching out of science classes, but fully committed that pure evolution will be taught. Notice the first two bullets of their "Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools":

Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum wrote:Scientifically sound curriculum standards must:
* acknowledge that instruction on evolution is vital to understanding all the biological sciences;
* make clear that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt;
http://www.texasscientists.org/sign.html#statement

Jon Smith wrote:It seems that you all wish it did say that?

Just why would you think that? Maybe you wish that we all wish it! :?

I don't wish it says Baylor teaches evolution. I wish (and hope) that they do not teach evolution. But it is quite naïve to think that a fully accredited university of Baylor's status does not (maybe they don't at Truett Seminary, but surely they do in the Science Dept). Duhrkopf is one of about 40 folks from Baylor University and Baylor College of Medicine who have signed "Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools" (according to a list of signers on the above web site). This would seem to speak to the attitude of the Science Dept. at Baylor, IMO.

I agree with some of your comments about the problems of teaching religion at public schools. I do not agree with the "21st-Century Science Coalition" effort to exclude "creation" -- or more specifically, questioning the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolutionary theories -- from the debate.
Rlvaughn
 
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007 Dec 06 Thu 2:06 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Jon Smith on 2009 Mar 31 Tue 12:03 pm

Thanks for the clarifications Bro. Vaughn....It does make a difference that it isn't most of them and it does make a difference that it isn't the seminaries and it does make a difference that of the ones that did leave it was before 1995 ish and it does make a difference what the context of the science teachers quote was in. These are things that clarify the matter and don't allow for mass judgements of millions of people.

Yes it is a demonstrable proof that evolution does exist within species....I believe that is the context of your further quotes.

I appreciate your efforts
I believe that the Church is not the 4th Person of the Godhead, that there is no "Immaculate Translation", that every believer is authorized to share the gospel....Yes I'm still a Landmarker!
Jon Smith
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 2007 Nov 23 Fri 10:17 pm
Location: Arlington Texas

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby studymore on 2009 Mar 31 Tue 4:45 pm

Jon,

I am not sure how much science you have taken, but there is no such thing as "evolution" within a species. Evolution demands that there are more complicated species coming from less complicated species, i.e., cow to whale. Within a species, it is called adaptation. In every observable case, adaptation is a simplification of the species and a loss of genetic data. With respect to Baylor, I am surprised at what lengths you have gone to lately to defend liberals and I am personally unsure of where exactly you stand.

I do not want any of America's youth spoonfed the garbage of atheism masked as evolution. The Bible clearly says that the handiwork of God is seen in creation. Ignorance of this reality makes fools of the academics who deny it (Romans 1). It is falsely called science, and I will hold my Bible against the scientific method any day. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, not the other way around.

This professor has repudiated the possibility of there even being intelligent design (which is an extreme position considering that the evolutionary process depends on an inherent intelligence.) I will stand against the school, and wil not fellowship with those that compromise on the Bible.
"And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath..." (Deuteronomy 28:13)
User avatar
studymore
Site Administrator
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 2007 Nov 22 Thu 10:26 am
Location: Lake Isabella, California
Highscores: 5

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Jon Smith on 2009 Apr 01 Wed 9:10 am

Bro. Studymore, I actually took several creation studies classes in college at Liberty University. I understand the limits to biological change. Evolution within species or adaptation as you like to call it is demonstrable and proven. Evolution or adaptation outside of species is impossible and goes against scripture.
I am not defending liberals I am just being honest about the quote you used and trying not to take it out of context and use it to make an unrelated case or argument against Southern Baptists.

I too am surprised at the lengths you have gone to lately to defend an implication you have made against millions of brethren based on pulling a few sentences out of a quote and twisting them to make an unrelated point. Are you on the side of truth or are you one of these that pass along e-mails after e-mail even though they are false because they seem to advance a conservative agenda.

Do me a little favor....go to snopes.com and key word Obama....look at the hundreds of stories that have been passed around by conservatives and for the large part conservative christians that are completely false. Do you think that the lost see that and have respect for conservatives or conservative christians?
They laugh at it!

I am not sure where you stand either my brother.... do you stand for the truth of a matter or for a conservative agenda?

If you will notice....from the very beginning I stated that I am not defending this man because I do not know him or his teachings....however Bro. Vaughn clearly showed how that it wasn't most of the SBC schools that had left the conservative movement of the SBC and none of the seminaries which was a switch from his original statement. He also verified that the context of the subject was public school education and not the education at Baylor. I appreciate him for his honesty.....Usually bro. vaughn stands on the truth of a matter and not a conservative agenda when it comes right down to it.

I am a 7 day creationist but I also believe in finding the truth of a matter and not prejudging a quote to fit my conservative agenda for applause or an atta boy from the religious club of the day. When the Dr. speaks of evolution is he speaking about "adaptation" within species or "outside" of species? You have not shown that one way or the other...I will do my own investigation.

btw...I too will stand against and not support or fellowship with those that compromise the Bible......but first I want to hear the conclusion of the matter and judge righteous judgment without jumping on a conservative anti-sbc agenda bandwagon for a couple of yippy yays and an amen brother.
I believe that the Church is not the 4th Person of the Godhead, that there is no "Immaculate Translation", that every believer is authorized to share the gospel....Yes I'm still a Landmarker!
Jon Smith
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 2007 Nov 23 Fri 10:17 pm
Location: Arlington Texas

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby studymore on 2009 Apr 01 Wed 10:01 am

Jon,

I am not exactly sure why you think I forward emails and I do not know why Obama was brought into this. I used this particular quote from the professor because it illustrates a rejection of the possibility of any intelligence in creation.

I am not trying to lump anyone specifically into this teaching in the SBC. I am already enrolled myself into Liberty's seminary. Thomas Road is an SBC affiliated church.

My problem is that dollars from SBC offering plates have and will support this school and others like it. Since the 19th century, there have been a great number of liberals in the SBC, and those Southern Baptists that expose this are often ignored. This is why I left the SBC.

Recently, some of my old friends in the SBC have told me I can go back. After all, they assure me that the new leaders are far more conservative. I can indeed have some fellowship with many in the SBC that are truly Baptists. My question, however, has not changed since 1996 when I left. How can true Baptists share their money with those that deny orthodoxy?
"And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath..." (Deuteronomy 28:13)
User avatar
studymore
Site Administrator
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 2007 Nov 22 Thu 10:26 am
Location: Lake Isabella, California
Highscores: 5

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Jon Smith on 2009 Apr 01 Wed 11:59 am

Bro. studymore,
you say that
"I used this particular quote from the professor because it illustrates a rejection of the possibility of any intelligence in creation"
at the same time the Dr. says
"If ever there was a place that ought to embrace so called "Christian alternatives" to evolution, it should be Baylor"

That does not sound like a rejection.....that is why I am not sure that you are correctly analyzing this professors position.
I would call him into question with associating with this group but I am not sure if he is doing it because he believes in seperating science from religion without believing in evolution outside the species or because he believes in evolution outside the species. I can not tell can you? Maybe you can find some more info. I have done some investigation and can not find anything much about what is actually stance.

There are many Christians today that have a very good argument for keeping religion out of public schools.....if you allow one you have to allow all. I grew up in Canada where they allowed all and we had everyone under the sun come to speak to us except Christians....that is how it will end up working so that is why many are taking this kind of stand.

just some thoughts
I believe that the Church is not the 4th Person of the Godhead, that there is no "Immaculate Translation", that every believer is authorized to share the gospel....Yes I'm still a Landmarker!
Jon Smith
 
Posts: 566
Joined: 2007 Nov 23 Fri 10:17 pm
Location: Arlington Texas

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby studymore on 2009 Apr 01 Wed 1:12 pm

I guess some context would be nice regarding Baylor. Baylor fired a professor because he believed in ID.

This is complete 180 from the stand that Baylor took in 1999 when they started the first institute for studying ID. Essentially, the professor is stating that a supernatural power has no place in a science classroom at Baylor. This is troubling to me.

Even among Southern Baptists, Baylor has been a mockery since I can remember. However, I just got off the phone with my friend in the SBC and he assures me that Baylor has no actual connection with CP dollars. I am going to have to review all of this before I say anymore.
"And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath..." (Deuteronomy 28:13)
User avatar
studymore
Site Administrator
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 2007 Nov 22 Thu 10:26 am
Location: Lake Isabella, California
Highscores: 5

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Rlvaughn on 2009 Apr 01 Wed 1:38 pm

Chad, I would think that your friend is probably right about the CP dollars, though I don't know that for sure. Baylor's creation of Truett Seminary is definitely an "answer" to Southwestern being in the hands of conservatives.

Jon Smith wrote:however Bro. Vaughn clearly showed how that it wasn't most of the SBC schools that had left the conservative movement of the SBC and none of the seminaries which was a switch from his original statement.

Just to clear up a little about my clarification. It may have appeared that I "switched", but I did not. The context-less use of "most" when I was thinking about a specific group of universities (the major ones) definitely gave the wrong impression. But I have not switched what I meant or think. I did do a poor job of saying it. And I never included the seminaries as having left the conservative movement in the SBC. Finally, I don't know where most of all the SBC-related small universities and colleges stand one way or the other.

Jon Smith wrote:...the Dr. says "If ever there was a place that ought to embrace so called "Christian alternatives" to evolution, it should be Baylor"

There isn't enough context to be sure, but I am guessing if the evidence can be found it will show that he means that this is what people would expect because it is a private Baptist institution, and is not addressing what they actually teach.

Below I am giving a quote and some links that might contain some further information.

Texas's State Board of Education voted Friday to alter the state's science curriculum and drop a standard that critics say undermined proper teaching of evolution in the classroom for the past 20 years, the Associated Press reports.

The standard, which mandated instruction about the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, indirectly allowed instructors to teach evolutionary theory alongside intelligent design, a belief that an intelligent being created life on Earth. The new standard approved by state educators encourages students to scrutinize "all sides" of scientific theories, a compromise that still disappoints some pro-evolution scholars. The board also adopted a series of slight curricular changes that critics say unnecessarily encourage debate about key pieces of evolutionary theory, like natural selection and common ancestry.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2009/03/30/texas-schools-face-the-evolution-debate.html


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-science_20tex.ART.State.Edition1.4aab58e.html
http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/03/28/texas_evolution_case/
http://www.texscience.org/releases/21st-century-news-articles.htm
http://www.theeagle.com/texas/Scientists-say-they-re-fighting-religious-teaching-in-schools
http://www.tamest.org/documents/Hillisetalarticleforwebsite.pdf

State Board of Education website:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/
The chairman of the SBOE might be willing to answer some questions on this.

Dr. Richard Duhrkopf page at Baylor:
http://www.baylor.edu/Biology/index.php?id=14993
Richard Duhrkopf might be willing to answer some questions on this, and his contact info is there.
Rlvaughn
 
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007 Dec 06 Thu 2:06 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Rlvaughn on 2009 Apr 01 Wed 1:52 pm

Something else I found:
With the exception of the five theological colleges associated with our SBC seminaries, the Southern Baptist Convention has no direct connection with any of these institutions. It provides no funding. It elects no trustees. Each institution is related to one of our partnering Baptist state conventions.
http://www.sbc.net/colleges.asp

I think the above quote would settle that no Cooperative Program dollars go to Baylor. But Southern Baptist dollars from the Texas Conventions could go there. I would guess BGCT does and SBTC does not. I don't know.

The above link provides a list of "Southern Baptist" Colleges and Universities. Baylor is listed because of its connection to the BGCT. I don't know that means much. Schools like Samford and Ouachita are also listed, whose state conventions have no legal control over what they do. Even the BMA Jacksonville College is listed because of the agreement made between the BMAT and the SBCT.
Rlvaughn
 
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007 Dec 06 Thu 2:06 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby studymore on 2009 Apr 01 Wed 2:21 pm

I always thought there were six theological schools in the SBC: Southern, Southeastern, Midwestern, New Orleans, Southwestern and Golden Gate.

I guess Southeastern went with the CBF.

I am telling you one thing.... the Convention system is very confusing. I understand how people can hide in its many wrinkles teaching heresy and not being caught.

Of course, that same thing happens in other fellowships, so I can not use that statement to deride the Convention.
"And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath..." (Deuteronomy 28:13)
User avatar
studymore
Site Administrator
 
Posts: 219
Joined: 2007 Nov 22 Thu 10:26 am
Location: Lake Isabella, California
Highscores: 5

Re: Statement by Dr. Richard Duhrkopf

Postby Rlvaughn on 2009 Apr 01 Wed 2:42 pm

Yes, it is all very confusing!!

You are right about the six seminaries. Southeastern is still in the SBC. The five mentioned in the quote are the five colleges that are connected to five of the six seminaries (Boyce College, Leavell College, Midwestern Baptist College, The College at Southwestern, and The College at Southeastern). There is not a college connected to Golden Gate.
Rlvaughn
 
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007 Dec 06 Thu 2:06 pm
Location: Texas


Return to Apologetics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron