Talk:Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Clarification
This article is poorly implemented. This entry should be about what the institute is, rather than a rehashing of the Dembski episode. Thus, article was edited to link to the Dembski page for clarity of topic and in order to funnel debate onto that particular page. Ngfrazier 13:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
This article has some very POV sections in it that should be changed or removed especially within the section why is it needed the title alone is POV and the quotes within it sound like they should be in a mission or goals section. If I get time I may well edit this article myself. There may also be a problem with self publishedsources being used.--Goatan 10:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The "History" section simply had nothing to do with the history of IFL and was removed and merged into the "controversy" section. The "controversy" section was revised to separate the Dembski episode from the Institute (which was not controversial within the Baylor
[edit] Self published Material
First of please sign your comments like this Goatan 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC) as it shows good faith on your part Secondly please do not edit other editors contributions to the talk page, you removed the header that I had placed my comments on, this is very rude as it misrepresents me and shakes my good faith in you also people can check the history and see that you have removed my header, I have replaced it now. However the change of the “history” section to it’s current state was well done.
I have removed some sections as [self published] sources are used.they are explained below.
Although the secularization of the academy and the specialization of knowledge creates an air wherein "religious commitments are either irrelevant to, or an obstacle for, the primary tasks of the university," the Institute views the "present situation of discord and disaffection ... not as a natural consequence, but rather as an anomalous one ... since religion and education have for nearly one thousand years acted in concert, if not always in harmony." [1]
This section has been removed due to being a self published source that doesn’t met Wiki policy
In short, "Christian scholars have intellectually respectable reasons for rethinking the current academic orthodoxy that separates faith and learning into two separate and autonomous spheres. At this crucial juncture in contemporary intellectual and social culture, a retrieval of forgotten connections between faith and learning or the development of new connections and models between legitimate academic endeavors and various religious insights and practices can be encouraged. This kind of intellectual work is surely at the heart of the university, especially a Christian university. Activity of this sort is a significant part of the promise of a Christian university." [2]
This section has been removed due to being a published source that doesn’t met Wiki policy
Moreover, the "disciplinary approach to knowledge, combined with the presumption that all methods of inquiry must be methodologically neutral (thus not contaminated by religious commitments)" has fallen under attack from a number other groups. Educators are realizing the value of "interdisciplinary perspectives and activities, in both research and teaching." For example, "both multicultural and gender studies programs assume that not all inquiry need be value or perspective neutral."
This section has been removed due to being a self published source that doesn’t met Wiki policy
These removed sections were POV and self published material.
I have placed a direct link to the removed sections at the bottom of the article but I don’t think they can be placed on a Wiki article. If you can find other non-self published sources feel free to add them as they will most likely be acceptable.--Goatan 14:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
