These items are accepted and dogmatically promoted to one extent or another by most professors (and often high school teachers) despite the fact that these items have little or no confirmation from logic, history, or the Bible:

The Academic Dogma asserts that the Bible is undisprovable; and, as a result, that it is therefore not verifiable.

My response: The existence of a creator being is of course not disprovable in and of itself, but the existence of a personal creator being who has actively interacted with humans over the centuries is disprovable/provable.  There is evidence showing that this happened among large numbers of witnesses not just individuals, and that events of this degree continue to happen in some parts of the world.  The evidence of his interaction with humans can then of course show that he exists. (more)

...asserts that String Theory and Multiple Universes are acceptable for an intellectual to believe, even though those theories are regarded as unprovable/undisprovable; but not acceptable to believe that the Bible, the types of events in it, or its interpretation of those events are literally true, regardless of any amount of evidence currently available.

My response: This shows that academia is, in fact, the party that is more narrow-minded.  Sure, many Christians are narrow-minded and believe the Bible is true because their parents told them so, but this doesn't mean that all Christians have that basis nor does it prevent it from being accurate information.  Still, the fact that academia ignores the vast array of human experience that points to a spirit world shows a lack of open-mindedness.  The fact that spiritual experiences are a common occurrence eliminate the need for multiple universes, because we already have a great deal of evidence as to what exists in the extradimensional realm, which Christians, other religions, and more generic spiritualists happen to call the spirit world.  Furthermore, I tend to agree with Einstein's reactions to quantum physics--that probability doesn't determine reality; that 100% probability only suggests an accurate measurement of a situation (particularly, it would be easier for one arrive at a 100% probability when an event has already occurred); and that a higher-than-100% likelihood only shows that there are other undiscovered factors not taken into account (not a varied duplicate of the event in another universe).

...asserts that judging Christians through the lens of those who are public figures, who are of mainstream denominations, history, and the media, is accurate.

My response: When you watch TV, you can be almost certain of one thing: that you won't get a fair and balanced picture of reality.  As for history, the winners write history, so only the mainstream denominations of Christianity will be given their time in the spotlight in mainstream education.  Here is one example: until watching a documentary that was specifically about the Christian house church movement in Europe, the only thing I knew about European Christianity from the media is that it is a "post-Christian" area of the world where many church buildings are being closed down.  This goes to show that there are many sincere believers who follow Jesus outside of the traditional (post-Biblical) church structure.  Now that large-sized meetings have become the mainstream tradition (which was a less frequent type of gathering in the Bible), it is unfortunately easier for people to be phony.

The Academic Dogma asserts that the Bible was rewritten or contrived later than it itself claims, by Nehemiah during the Babylonian captivity of Israel, by unknown authors or redactors, or by early Christians who doctored past prophecies to match current events of the time; this goes hand-in-hand with the assertion that the Bible has been continually changed over the centuries and that there is not enough documentation to determine what the writers originally said.

My response: Actually, even the New Testament, which has a high degree of historical manuscript evidence to it's accuracy, shows that the apostles at the time of Jesus were already well aware of the Messianic prophecies, quoting them heavily in their writings.  The fact that the Old Testament was well-known by the Jewish leaders of the day would have allowed them to counter those claims, were that possible--the religious leaders instead attacked Christianity based on it being blasphemy and not true to Judaism, avoiding the Biblical (Old Testament) prophecy issues entirely and instead focusing on maintaining a status quo and political situation.

On the issue of accuracy in general, there are many times more manuscripts for the Bible than for the Greek plays and Shakespeare, but we can determine what those works originally said by comparing even a small number of copies that those pieces of literature have.  In addition, the Jewish scribes had a "checksum" system even many thousand years before computers did, writing the sum of the values of the letters at the end of each line and breaking the lines in the same place for each copy, so that even if one letter was off, it would be clear; of course, there would be no need to waste their time doing this if they weren't interested in preserving the original in the first place.  This tradition is what produced what is called the Masoretic Text.  Another interesting fact is that the available books of the Dead Sea Scrolls corroborated the Masoretic text 100% except for spelling!  Since, of course, the correct spelling normally changes over time in Hebrew in most languages.  The New Testament is of course more recent, and has the bulk of the level of documentation described above.

...asserts that the Jewish people before Christ were untrustworthy purveyors of information, or intellectually backward.

My response:  This is blatantly racist, showing that mainstream universities can be ignorant and backward when it suits them.  My previous response above should help show that this assertion of Academic Dogma is inaccurate since the Jewish Scribes were unique among other religions, being very meticulous in their storytelling and hard copying methods.  I would say this is one reason why God chose them to be the purveyors of his words, especially before the printing press and other other printing technologies.

The Academic Dogma asserts that the Bible contains the false scientific information and destructive social practices that early Catholic church claimed it did (such as would support the early dogma of a flat earth, religious war after the advent of Christ [the crusades], an intercessory priest-laity model, celibacy of the priesthood, explicit personal rules in matters the Bible leaves up to individual liberty, and other information and practices).

My response: On the contrary, mainstream denominations of all the major religions have used their religious documents to wield power over people, regardless of how poor the interpretation of the source material.  An example of misinterpretation to suit political goals, and fear of science, is that the scripture used to support a flat earth is a poor English translation of Jesus telling his Apostles he will be with them "even unto the end of the earth"--which can be more accurately (less ambiguously and more true to the original language) rendered as "even to the end of the age".  As for the priesthood, Peter being married either has to negate his status as a priest or negate celebacy for the priesthood--it is impossible for both to be true.  In reality, all believers in Christ are considered as priests by the Bible, and Christ is considered the high priest and sole intercessor (more).  The other misinterpretations of the Bible that bolstered political goals are from misinterpretations that are equally as clear, and the examples given here are very typical.

...asserts that a self-defined reality is acceptable regardless of how inaccurate.

My response: This is one example of hypocrisy in academia, since science and academic inquiry are supposedly designed to give people a more accurate picture of reality.  Sorry, but I am in the "2+2=4" crowd, not the "2+2 equals 3 to 5" crowd--telling students that they are right when they are wrong is just dishonest, and doesn't help them learn.  I'm sure there are better ways to bolster their confidence without leading them toward failure in the overriding reality in which we all have to live together.

...asserts that certain parts of the Bible that have incomplete information about events due to limited human perspective can be considered as contradictions and be used to rule out the possibility of divine intervention in the writing of the books of the Bible.

My response: On the contrary, this assertion contains circular reasoning, like much of Academic Dogma.  The argument assumes that divine intervention did not occur.  For in fact, if an infinitely powerful being wanted to communicate with us, he would have no problem communicating perfectly through imperfect people; much like how, to a lesser degree, even a skilled human craftsman can use a worn tool to create a piece of art that is highly detailed and intentional.  And, regardless of time or culture, human experience shows that higher beings, including the creator being, are interested in communicating with humans.

The Academic Dogma asserts that interfering with tribal societies, no matter what level of spiritual or physical benefit Christian missions can bring, and regardless of the social decisions of the people of those societies, is destructive and exploitative.  This is a necessary result of the additional assertion that humans are animals without a spirit, and that therefore humans with less information are ultimately not responsible for the information given to them by humans with more information.

My response: This is an example of hypocrisy in the Academic world.  For, this statement itself undermines the dignity of tribal cultures by not giving them the opportunity to be part of the dialog, by assuming that they are not intelligent enough to deal with the information, assuming they are animals even though they themselves know better, and by making the decision for them out of intellectual arrogance, and it seems, personal dislike for the mainstream form Christianity that the professors themselves have experienced.  If you want to see this particular issue in painful detail and from all parties involved (even very helpful points of view of certain natives), this is one of the topics discussed in one of the books Sean and I like to recommend, Spirit of the Rainforest by Mark Andrew Ritchie.  The movie End of the Spear, released in theaters in 2006 and now on video, communicates some of the issues in another tribal culture, but to a lesser extent.  Some reviewers even saw the true events (some of the specifics were condensed for the movie) in this movie as exploitative, despite the great good and reduction of violence that occurred by bringing Yahweh, whom tribal spiritualists can often identify by conscience or miraculous visions as a better spirit, to the culture.
 

I challenge you to not accept the assertions of Academic Dogma, and to be fair with the data.  Being fair with the data entails thinking for yourself and studying the Bible as a whole, and interpreting history and current events for yourself instead of taking textbook/academic interpretations.  If you refuse to do so, but continue to blindly accept the teachings of modern academia, you are only showing that you are willing to accept dogma instead of interpreting reality and the Bible for yourself.