Designed for hillarity
Baron Scarpia has found William Dembski’s teaching website, and it certainly provides some enthralling reading.
There are, for example, the course requirements for studying intelligent design, which include a 3000-word essay on “the theological significance of intelligent design” and at least 10 posts on “hostile” websites defending ID. The doctorate-level course doesn’t require defending ID on hostile websites, instead, students are to develop a Sunday school lesson plan. And in the exam, in a single essay, students should show that evolution is not as well supported as Richard Dawkins claims, and that (Christian) religious belief is much better supported.
“Christian Apologetics” asks students to imagine that a relative is studying theology at a liberal seminary, and to write a letter to them warning against “professors intent on eroding any real faith” and on how to “protect their faith from eroding”.
And from the “Critical Thinking” unit’s exam:
13. You are the head of a large public relations firm in New York. A consortium of Christian businessmen and foundations is fed up with the godlessness of our society and approaches you to run a “rhetorical campaign” to make Christianity and its moral values credible again to the wider culture. You have $100,000,000 a year for five years to make the campaign work (i.e., half a billion dollars total over five years). What programs are you going to institute and how are you going to allocate that money to restore Christianity as a credible world view? What objectives could you realistically hope to accomplish? [Example of a zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]
Well, granted, I can see how giving the money to the ACLU or UN would fail to achieve those objectives, but that’s really the least of the problems in that question.
This is only a sample, you can read the rest.