Splintering our Education System based on FAITH

Whatever the merits or demerits of the views in the Sayers essay, there is an excerpt that seems very to the point: I doubt an education based solely on the ideas of medieval scholasticism is sufficient for the 21st century. But the tendency of some posters here to fling "medieval" as a pejorative bespeaks a lack of wanting to engage some of the merits of at least incorporating some features of it. After all , the Enlightenment natural law tradition does owe something to Aquinas. While recognizing the merits of other venerable cultures such as China and India, there is no real value in seeing the Western cultural heritage as solely something to trash.Remember, the postmodernists see science as something socially constructed and lacking real epistemic value.On the other hand, as someone who accepts evolution, I think the fortress mentality of those who don't, and who see nothing in modern society except things to be dismayed about, seems to lead to overromanticizing an imagined "better time" that never really was.
I see the deisre to homeschool as a retreat from serious engagement with a complex and sometimes intimidating world. But hsitorically, such obscurantism only results in further marginalization.

Well, there are state medical licensing boards, CPA examinations, bar examinations, the Professional Engineer registration, accreditation boards like ABET for this very reason - that the quality of education in these fields from various universities already varies widely. Of course, the quality of the exams and accreditation standards could be altered...I'm not aware that acceptance, or lack thereof, of evolution is, or should be , part of the criteria for passing these exams.I personally don't care whether my CPA is an atheist or a Pentecostal if they do my taxes properly and follow the law.Now I would be a bit bothered by a YEC medical doctor, but that's just me.

I couldn't disagree more. Good science is about using multiple corroborating lines of evidence, from many fields if necessary, to develop a testable model that best explains the evidence and can be used as the basis for both further scientific understanding and practical applications.The old universe model satisfies this. The young universe model does not. At best the young universe model relies on question begging and ad hoc hypotheses to explain away the more likely inferences from the evidence, but these fall apart when the comprehensive scrutiny is done from all angles.I'm sure you've heard this before but it sounds like you don't understand how science works or is done. It is not about gathering a body of unrelated measurements and factoids.

I understand your concerns, but isn't this true to some degree already? Institutions like Bob Jones U. already exist. Even state universities vary in quality from near-Ivy level to Podunk State.Hence external corroborations of standards are set by each profession. Licensing boards, examinations of various types, probationary entry level positions, preliminary exams for new graduate students, qualifying exams, etc.Is your concern one of professional competence or a more general concern ? Is the concern wheter Bob Jones should be allowed to call itself a university, or over the competence of its graduates ? It's possible their bio major is worthless, but their CPA major produces competent tax accountants.

Well, your scenario presupposes that the religious right has enough power to enact their agenda in toto. I'm not sure that's the case.Yes, in politics conservatives hold the majority at present, but are they as monolithic as your scenario would seem to require ?Are the executives of major oil companies - generally politically conservative - prepared to mandate a belief in YEC geology in their exploration technical staff ? Would the financial markets react negatively to this ? What about the biotech and pharmaceutical industry ?I can only speak for myself, as you know, I have what are considered conservative views on several issues, but I also oppose Lysenkoization of science by either the left or the right, because historically it's a terrible idea that doesn't work.

Well, ID is a broad term, many IDists accept an old universe and even some descent with modification, however they argue that there are limits to this...of course I think these ideas are unfounded...we've been through this before and will again.No, I don't think an education solely based on medieval scholasticism is suffiecient for the 21st century. There is a trend toward "great books" based core curricula at some Catholic universities (e.g Gonzaga) but they are supplemented with more professionally focused studies for a major. And the bio department teaches evolution.