DallasNews Religion

The story says Marks seeks "to help Baylor realize its ambitious aim—namely, to achieve the status of a top-tier research institution without compromising its distinctly Christian worldview."

It sounds like Marks has already decided that science has to compromise, not his ancient religious beliefs. Not the kind of open-minded approach at the center of the scientific method. Baylor won't become a top-tier research institution with such an attitude.

So, its OK to compromise religion, but not science? Sounds like a double standard to me. There are a lot of things science cannot explain or take credit for, but the evolutionists are too vain to admit it. Satan epitomizes the fate for proud and defiant atheists.

No double standard. It is not OK to compromise science in a science lab. And it is not OK to compromise religion in a church.

Marks' decision to compromise science to religion in a science setting will not help Baylor advance science. Whether it helps Baylor with their perceived religious mission is something else.

Interesting - my experience is that scientists are much more open to admitting the limitations of scientific knowledge than some faithful are open to admiting the limitations of divine revelaion.
As for "evolutionists," Relic, you're painting with too broad of a brush. Wouldn't it be prudent here to view evolutionists the way you view priests, more on an individual basis. Some priests abused -- most did not. Some evolutionists are vain or athiests -- many are neither.
And even if some evolutionists ARE vain, we certainly can't blame science - that would be like blaming the church instead of blaming the abuser.
There's no double standard here. Nobody in science fields care if Baylor compromises their religion of not. It is somebody (maybe somebodies?) at Baylor wanting science to compromise its worldview so Baylor can become a top-tier institution -- BTW, this is where the "vain" comment really fits.

Intelligent Design by its nature compromises both religion AND science by improperly mingling the two -- offering religious explanations for scientific findings, scientific explanations for religious truths. Those who promote ID understand neither science nor religion.

You are right, Jack. Perhaps I should have restricted my word use to atheistic Darwinists who seem to be the most adamant about denying that they don't have all the answers.
You are wrong Bill, the ID people are the only ones that really understand that both science and religion are required to provide a complete knowledge of creation.