My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.
Posted on 08/13/2008 9:44:45 AM PDT by Sopater
A federal judge has ruled the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.
Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, told the Chronicle that the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Sorry, but I find your choice of the word “dogmatic” in reference to this whole topic amusing.
There is no doubt that things change over time, in fact change itself by the first mover theory is the proof of God’s existance.
I would say the notion that God created everything static would be a far far more “dogmatic” stand than the theory of evolution.
After reading much of what passes for “creation science”, I for one have concluded that the science part of that term is insanely lacking.
I do believe in God and he is the creator of all, however the “science” put forth as “creation science” that I have read wouldn’t pass any sort of peer review.
Evolution says things change over time, based on a host of variables. It does not say God doesn’t exist. In fact by first mover theory, all change is proof of God’s existence.
Certainly there are athiests who have latched onto evolution as an attempt to claim their is no God, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution at all. Just as there are those who completely deny it in defense of God. I find both of these groups fools myself.
My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.
Can't be controlled for, huh? So then you can't ever know and your position moves into unfalsifiability and argument from ignorance.
Nice retreat into yet another logical fallacy.
You want to explain how you get from “moral absolutes” to talking about one lie being “bigger” than another, or are you just here for comic relief?
your mind can’t comprehend how a lie can’t be “bigger” than others, or you just can’t understand how human understanding isn’t the end all tell all?
I don’t understand how you start out saying everything is black and white, and then start talking about shades of grey. You want to argue in absolutes, then disregard your own arguments as soon as it’s convenient to do so.
Has someone claimed that selection was a factor in the appearance of the first life forms?
Someone is conspicuously avoiding that issue.
Do you agree with coyoteman’s five hypotheses for life on post #650? More specifically, do you agree that those ideas have a scientific basis?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061218/posts?page=650#650
Some things are black and white and some things aren’t so simple. How come you see the world as incapable of being experienced in this way?
Perhaps it’s in the understanding that Satan is the father of all lies. Lies began somewhere, and it wasn’t with God.
So perhaps the “bigger” or “larger” lie Satan told, i.e.:
there is no God
I am God
you don’t need God
could be the “first” or “ultimate” “most important” lie just as well as the “larger” or “bigger” lie.
I'm quite aware that it is possible to experience the world in this way. Everyone does in varying degrees. Not everyone demanads that everyone else do it to suit them.
Who’s demanding...and this talk of convenience...
are you so sure you’re not projecting here?
(and to whom?)
It’s a common mistake, alot of people mistake Bush for being demanding, arrogant etc. when he’s merely confident.
Quite sure.
OK, that leaves the last option. As I said it happens.
It also happens that arrogant people think they're just "confident".
But you have not demonstrated the relevance of that issue.
I don't know what you mean by "agree with" or "have a scientific basis." Are you asking if I think one of them is correct? I don't think Coyoteman was presenting them as the complete range of choices, one of which has to be correct. But it's hard to argue with "Any method other than the four described above."
It sounds almost like you're asking if I believe there's such a thing as "the first life forms."
When you say creation science wouldn’t pass a “peer review,” I find myself asking, what peers? It would depend, wouldn’t it.
We either take God at His word or we don’t. That’s how I see it.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.” Psalm 19:1-2.
The Bible reminds us frequently that God made the world and everything in it, and his very creation reveals it constantly.
It takes an incredible leap of atheistic faith to look at the human eyeball, the continually burning and perfectly suspended sun, or the water cycle, and deny their perfect design by a perfect Designer.
So then do you reject the other 4 hypotheses?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.