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 ...
That's not enough to make something a religion. The word "belief" has many shades of meaning, and your statement ignores those differences. For example, I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, even though it hasn't happened yet. (And even the sun rising yesterday cannot be reproduced in a lab.) I do have evidence of the sun rising before, though, and confidence that it will again--that's one form of belief. But I don't have a "religion" about the sun rising.
I also believe that Scott Peterson killed his wife. Nobody saw it happen and it has not been reproduced in a lab, but the preponderance of evidence convinces me that's what happened. That's the kind of "belief" most people have in evolution: all the evidence, taken together, makes it the most likely explanation.
But again, that's not the same thing as religious belief. My belief in God doesn't depend on the accumulation of evidence. I bet yours doesn't either. To lump together (a) confidence in the repeatability of a pattern, (b) a conclusion based on the weight of evidence, and (c) religious faith, just because the word "belief" can apply to all of them, is really just a rhetorical trick.
If the students do not like it they can go to some other college that will accept science based on Creationism.
I think most, if not all of what you mentioned is dealt with here:
How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?: A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims, by Dave E. Matson
Good questions
Tony is a well known hoaxer who visits sites like this to make religious people look stupid. It’s a goood act, but he give himself away by looking stupider than Jack Chick.
Us? Just how many people do you speak for?
Fullbright Fellowship
National Science Foundation Senior Postdoctoral Fellow
Membership of the National Academy of Sciences (later resigned)
Sewall Wright Award from the American Society of Naturalists
Let's examine the statements Lewontin made that you disagree with.
So what part of that statement do you disagree with?
You have made a mistake common among evolutionists.
You have invoked the fallacy of exclusion.
Now, clearly you do that because the origin of life is an intractable problem that you want to separate from your belief in evolution.
It is invoking a fallacy in support of your position nonetheless.
You have invoked the fallacy of exclusion.
Now, clearly you do that because the origin of life is an intractable problem that you want to separate from your belief in evolution.
It is invoking a fallacy in support of your position nonetheless.
False.
The theory of evolution stands independent of the origins question.
Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
It is only creationists who try to dishonestly link the theory of evolution with the fledgling field researching origins.
So this statement of yours is your scientific assessment?
Think about it, and maybe its best for you not to answer.
No, true.
"The theory of evolution stands independent of the origins question."
Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion.
"Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms."
"a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms."
Unobserved self-replicating processes possible for generating life are not observed. Despite years of work and millions of dollars. You are invoking the 'god of the gaps' argument in naturalistic zap-poof form. Strike one.
"b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms."
Same mistake Dawkins made in his interview with Ben Stein. Begging the question by assuming that the impossible occurred zap-poof somewhere unobservable. Strike two.
"c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop."
Same zap-poof error as the 'God of the gaps' in naturalistic form again. Strike three.
"d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence."
The zap-poof 'god of the gaps' argument. Strike four.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
Invoking the 'god of the gaps' argument in naturalistic zap-poof form. Strike five.
"The theory of evolution works just fine with any of those. It is only creationists who try to dishonestly link the theory of evolution with the fledgling field researching origins.
The theory of evolution is only excluded from the supernatural origins scenario. It is assumed in all the other zap-poof scenarios, none of which has anything to offer anyone but the credulists. It is only evolutionists who try to dishonestly separate the 'theory of evolution' from abiogenesis who commit the fallacy of exclusion.
Coyoteman is so arrogant that he actually believes that some of his opinions are 'scientific' and has said so. It's been a few years, but I've never seen him retract it.
"Think about it, and maybe its best for you not to answer."
Perhaps he would like to deny it so that I can bust him.
They get pretty far out there don’t they.
If he does not abandon the thread he wont answer with anything of substance.
The definitions of "fallacy of exclusion" I find contain this statement:
Note that it is not sufficient simply to show that not all of the evidence was included; it must be shown that the missing evidence is relevant to the conclusion.You have not shown that information about where the first life forms came from is relevant to what happened after that. (Insisting is not showing.)
That's why I said that your argument is akin to saying that since the molecular configuration of the universe can never be identical, that it can't rain.
Whether it's raining or not is the output. That has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make, which has to do with the input.
You're saying, if I'm understanding correctly, that the proof that the mind has a non-material component is that the same input to two minds can have different outputs.
What I'm saying is that the experience that a person has is also part of the set of input. Experiences differs from person to person and cannot be controlled for. Therefore the differences in the output may be attributable to the uncontrollable part of the input, whether or not there is a non-material component to the mind.
Thanks for the ping. The judge is obviously an open antichristian bigot. I’ll need to read this later.
Do you think that's why I said, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion.", hmmm?
It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies.
You really thought that through before you responded, didn't you?
Just your posts. If you don't like it, don't post to me.
LOL!
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.