These are all interesting points and questions worthy of discussion, but let's refocus for now on the original issue before running down rabbit trails. The questions raised are addressing the matter of whether certain Bible-based beliefs are true.
However, there should be no need to support the truth of religious beliefs to recognize that they are protected against discrimination under the social contract formed by our Constitution and laws against religious and other discrimination. I'd hate to give the wrong impression at this point in the discussion that a strong case for TRUTH needs to me made in support of my point that fundamentalist colleges should not be discriminated against.
If two schools are ranked comparably in a discipline, their programs are similarly accredited, and two graduates have the same GPA, standardized test scores, and research accomplishments, why should the graduate from the fundamentalist school be treated differently in hiring processes and/or admissions to medical school, grad school, or other professional school (vet, pharm, etc)?
To emphasize that a case for truth of the fundamentalist school need not be made, please note that I believe equal consideration should be given regardless of whether the fundamentalism in question is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. Our social contract promises that we will not discriminate based on sincerely held religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are wrong.
What is the justification for unilaterally changing that part of the social contract (without amending the Constitution)? If science "disproves" other aspects of sincere religious beliefs, can we then discriminate against people and institutions that continue to hold them? The virgin birth? The resurrection? Miracles of Islam? That is a very dangerous precedent.
|