Liberty University scares me for many reasons. Any university which has a dress code (“ponytails for men are unacceptable”), dorm room checks to make sure beds are made, and rules forbidding any media displaying an “anti-Christian” message seriously disturbs me. And let’s not forget the code of conduct which disallows any physical contact between members of the opposite sex besides hand-holding (though I have to wonder how they’d feel about hand holding from members of the same sex).

But of course, no one is required to go to Liberty University. If someone really wants to attend a school which has the good graces to allow its students to attend the movie theater but not if the movie is rated R, then I guess that’s their prerogative. It’s the student’s education, their life, and their business. However, there is one aspect of Liberty University that I do consider my business: the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes.

“But wait,” you say. “Liberty is a private university; they can teach whatever they want.” True, but the problem is the graduates of this biology program, many of whom will go on to teach science in public schools. Liberty University is licensed by the State Council of Higher Education for the State of Virginia to award degrees. Those degrees are recognized as a primary qualification for a teaching job, including jobs teaching science.

Looking at the syllabus for an introductory biology course, it seems ludicrous that it can pass for a science course. There may be discussions of photosynthesis and DNA, but it is all meant “to reach the conclusion that life is derived from and dependent on a Creator.” The scientific community by no means uses biology to reach that conclusion. While I don’t think the purpose of a university is to churn out students brainwashed to regurgitate concepts without thinking critically on their own, I do think it’s a bad sign if one school or course dramatically differs from the consensus of an academic body.

Biology 101 at Liberty University also asks its students to “explain how truth in Scripture distinguishes the species Homo sapiens theologically and spiritually from all other species created by God.” They may feel they’ve tipped their hat to science by using human’s biological name, but the statement drips with such absurdity that it cannot be called science.

First of all, there is the God part. As I previously mentioned, the scientific community does not endorse the creation of life by a god of any kind. I’m sure many scientists haven’t ruled it out as a possibility, at least in their own spiritual life, but it is simply not a question which is being considered by science at this time. Will science someday be able to answer the question of God’s existence? Maybe. But to assume the existence of a god when there is no scientific evidence to support the claim makes the statement, well, not science.

Secondly, the differentiation of humans theologically and spiritually is not really a scientific matter. At least it seems the professor is aware of humans’ biological similarity to animals—after all, it is fairly obvious. And whether other animals have what seem to be uniquely human experiences (dreaming, killing of one’s own species, homosexuality, etc) is being researched by scientists in a variety of fields. But theological concerns are primarily (if not exclusively) being investigated by theologians. Again, not science.

But what is most intensely disturbing about this statement is the “truth of Scripture.” Again the assumption here is that the Bible is true, and the professor has built an entire course upon that assumption. Jerry Falwell founded an entire university based on it. Never has it been proved that the entire Bible is true. While there are some historically supported events and people, the vast majority of it is either proven false by science or history, or is unknown.

To fancy that the Bible is 100% factual is to dismiss not only biology but also geology and other areas of science. It has not stood up to the scrutiny that every single scientific theory has withstood. Teaching it alongside heavily researched and monumentally provable science would be funny if it wasn’t so scary.

Of course everyone should be able to believe whatever they like. I’ll respect your view that God created the Earth in seven days if you’ll respect mine that we’re actually situated on a ping pong ball that is careening out of control in a table tennis set in some alien's garage. Religion certainly has secured its place in society and culture, and I don’t have a problem with religion being taught at institutions of higher education (especially the private ones). But to award science degrees to students who base their thinking on legend rather than science is reprehensible. The scientific method is a discrete and resolute process for acquiring human knowledge. It cannot be matched by any amount of superstition, questionable religious “evidence,” or faith.

If Liberty University wants to teach its biology students that life was created by an all-knowing God, fine. But if they do not want to abide by the knowledge of the scientific community they should not be awarding science degrees. Period.