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 ...
It takes an equal if not much greater incredible leap of dogmatic driven ignorance to believe that all those perfections poofed instantly.
All creation does show his handiwork, but it doesn’t say all that handiworked happened instantaneously.
All change is proof of God, by the first mover theory, the theory of evolution does not disprove God, and only the incredibly ignorant and closed minded on both sides of the argument think it does.
They're not hypotheses for me to accept or reject. It's like if I find my son's bike in the driveway and tell him to move it, and he says he didn't leave it there, and I say "I don't care if the Easter Bunny left it there, go move it!" I'm not proposing the hypothesis that the Easter Bunny left it there. I'm illustrating the the fact that how the bike got there is not my concern: no matter what the explanation, it's there and has to be moved. Similarly, how life got here does not affect the theory of evolution: life is here and behaves in certain ways that the theory of evolution can describe.
Yes, apparently.
In fact, I’m leaning towards argumentum ad ignoratum ad infinatum in your case. ;)
If you're sure you want to get personal.
Life today behaves in a way that can be explained by
each organism having the genetic information necessary to produce varying offspring that can adapt to environmental pressures.
Observation of life today does not show that additional information must be added to the organisms’ genome in order to adapt. Nor does this observation prove that additional information is occurring.
This addition of information, a lot of information, is required for the single cell to develop into a being that can concoct such a theory.
um hmmmm...ad infinatum.
Tried a popup blocker?
Sure have. In asking the question about where origins leaves off and 'evolution' begins, I highlight the evolutionists refusal to answer the question. They refuse because they know that once an answer is given, there is no logical, intermediate defensible position that would distinguish it from biblical creation.
The ToE commits the fallacy of exclusion by avoiding origins. Origins should be included in evolution because by claiming that origins is off-limits, science gets to avoid saying where the 'poof-zap' magic of space aliens/time-warping humans ended and 'evolution' began.
Evolutionists avoid that distinction like the plague because, once admitted, there is no logical, intermediate defensible position that would distinguish it from biblical creation.
Unfortunately, that would expose the fact that 'evolution' is nothing more than adaptation, the starting point for life is way down the imaginary path and 'evolution' is falsified as a model.
The ToE commits the fallacy of exclusion by avoiding origins.
***Interesting argument. Can you please expand a little bit here? What is the fallacy of exclusion? Is it considered a fallacy to lump origins (abiogenesis) and Evolution into the same theory?
Do meteorological theories commit the fallacy of exclusion by avoiding the origin of water molecules?
So? All science operates by strictly defining the scope of its investigation. I still don't see any reason the science of evolution should expand its scope to include origins except to satisfy your insistence that it do so.
My answer (and I am not a scientist) would be that evolution begins once there are self-replicating life forms. My answer to what there was before that, and how it got to the point of self-replicating life forms, would be "we don't know." It seems like you won't allow science to answer "we don't know." But that's your problem, not science's.
It's like we're watching a ball rolling down a hill, and you keep saying "how'd the ball get to the top of the hill in the first place?" It's a good question, but not knowing the answer to that isn't an obstacle to studying the path of the ball as it rolls.
I think the citrate-eating bacteria disprove that assertion. You start with bacteria that can't eat citrate. After many generations, you get some who can, while most still can't. The simplest explanation is that those who can evolved that ability--acquired new information, if you insist. If you want to claim that the information was already there, it's up to you to find it in the original population and explain why it only started working in one group and not the others.
“the theory of evolution does not disprove God,”
but it does deny Scripture, which was written by God, making God a liar.
Of course it takes a leap of faith to believe all these perfections poofed instantly (or within 6 days).
It takes a leap of faith to say they didn’t, as well, and that things stumbled along with partially evolved this and that for milennia.
I am happy to admit to having faith in God and the Bible He wrote.
Can't be controlled for, huh? So then you can't ever know and your position moves into unfalsifiability and argument from ignorance.
Close enough. I'd say rather you proposed an experiment that cannot be done. Whether there is a non-material aspect of the mind is a matter of faith.
It's a faith I happen to have -- I do believe there is a non-material aspect of the human mind. And I'm secure enough in my faith that I don't have to propose undoable experiments to "prove" them.
Nice retreat into yet another logical fallacy.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Evolution includes all of those sciences with which creationists disagree. (That's one of the contributions of creation "science.")
No, its not faith, but lunacy to believe alogory is literality. God could no more deliver the description of creation of the Universe to mankind in a manner they could understand than you could explain your understanding of your world to an ant. Let alone have done it thousands of years ago.
Why did He record it in Genesis, then, and refer to it regularly throughout the Bible? Merely as an allegory?
It was not written as an allegory. It follows a strict historical narrative style. It is the same historical narrative style that gives the genealogies, lists the battles and kings, tells the history of the exodus, and details the lives and adventures of the patriarchs.
Thanks, that'll save me a lot of time. One can learn so much on these threads.
Show me the genome map showing the increase in information necessary to develop this ability. Show me that the information did not exist in the original organism.
Then, you can show me where a bacteria evolved into something OTHER than a bacteria.
I know this is difficult to understand, but we aren't talking about the origin of water molecules. Nobody has asked an evolutionist to account for the origin of water molecules in living systems.
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.