Between Sundays: At a Texas Intersection of Faith and Science

Want a perfect illustration of our culture’s confusion at the intersection of “faith” and “science”? Just follow the reactions to rumors that Waco’ Baylor University and Houston’s Baylor College of Medicine are merging.

Whether BU and BCM should form closer ties is the subject of another post; this post is on the reactions to merger talks--reactions that expose our culture’s misunderstanding of the faith-science relationship. (But let me add that, as a BU alum, I can’t see the upside to closer ties with the financially-troubled medical school. More at the end of this post.)

BU broke ties with BCM in the late 60s to make it easier for BCM to find federal and donor funding. The BU Board of Regents still appoints a quarter of the BCM board, and the BU board retains the rights for the medical school to use the Baylor name.

BCM sought a merger with Rice, but those talks broke down (for reasons BU needs to keep in mind, but, again, that’s not the subject of this post). When rumors began of a merger between BCM and BU, some students, faculty, staff and alumni of BCM created an online petition to register opposition. More than 500 people have signed the statement, which reads:

Our position is based on the grounds that the mission of BU is incongruous with that of BCM. As BU is a religion-affiliated institution that promotes values and teachings from religious beliefs throughout its ranks, we cannot overlook the restrictive influence that this potential merger would have on BCM, a leading biomedical research-oriented college. The religious ideologies that permeate throughout BU's academic policies may adversely affect both scientific progress and the culture at BCM, particularly in relation to issues such as evolution, embryonic stem cells, and sexual orientation. While we respect everyone's right to religion in his or her own life, we believe that science and medicine must be separate from religion, and urge you to reject any such merger.

After signing the petition, one commentator posted: “It would be the beginning of the end for the Baylor College of Medicine. It would really be a great loss for American science. The proud institution would lose the brightest minds, students and at the end reputation. Merging with the Baylor University is not the answer.” Hugo Bellen, a molecular geneticist, wrote on the petition that “an affiliation with BU will tarnish BCM's image, lower BCM's ranking nationwide and lead to the perception that BCM has ultra-conservative values.” The editors at the Houston Chronicle concur, writing in their editorial, “Although Baylor University has strong academic credentials, strengthening ties to a school with a fundamentalist reputation could challenge the latter goal.”

Many, including BU alums, wonder what school they’re referring to with descriptors like “ultra-conservative values” and “fundamentalist reputation.” Still, BCM interim president William Butler assured supporters that any new affiliation between BCM and BU will not impact BCM’s “scientific and academic freedom.”

So much for the “faith-threatens-science” side of this clash. How have those at the faith-based university responded? Mostly with reassurances that BU is harmless. The Lariat staff editorial, for example, (with a cringe-inducing cartoon of a friendly bearded cross shaking hands with a big brain) stressed that BCM had nothing to worry about because, well, BU is a really smart school despite their religious affiliation: “Although Baylor is a Christian university, it is also a nationally acclaimed teaching institution.”

Although? One could think of other words--better words--there. Try “Because” in place of “Although” in that sentence and see the difference.

Besides, these reassurances really don’t touch on the concerns of the petition, which have to do with various fronts of the culture war: “BU academic policies,” the petition states, “may adversely affect both scientific progress and the culture at BCM, particularly in relation to issues such as evolution, embryonic stem cells, and sexual orientation.”

One can understand how some scientists would find it a nuisance to have to engage with a faith-based university on the ethics of research into, say, embryo-destructive stem cell research. Still, the ethics conversation is necessary: an entirely value-free science is a horror to consider (Experiments on Chinese prisoners, anyone?). A faith-based university like BU could contribute careful thought on the ethics surrounding the very topics BCM raised. BCM might even be surprised at the stance thoughtful Christians—even “ultra-conservative” ones—would take on, say, evolution or the biological basis of sexual orientation.

And so we have a perfect illustration of the faith-science debate in this Texas story. Stay tuned.

________________

As I said, this post isn’t about the value of a BU-BCM merger, but as a BU alum I just can’t see the upside for BU. Interim BU president David Garland assures us that “such a strengthened affiliation could be helpful to the University's continued growth and advancement,” which “has encouraged us to think broadly about some exciting new opportunities for the faculty and students of Baylor University.” That tells us exactly zip about what BU would gain from this action. BU officials should look carefully at the reasons why Rice University turned down a tie-in with BCM.

_______________

Online Resources for this Post:

Baylor University, Baylor College of Medicine consider closer ties

Baptist Standard

Ken Camp, Managing Editor

Published: January 25, 2010

Baylor University: Let's separate fact from fiction

Houston Chronicle

Editorial By R. DARY STONE and DAVID E. GARLAND

Jan. 26, 2010, 11:51PM

Baylor Med's new partner talks greeted with petition

By TODD ACKERMAN