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 ...
No doubt. And even bigger ones like God doesn’t exist or man is smarter than Him.
The belief that 'natural selection' created biological systems rather than being an artifact of those systems is not restricted to abiogenesis. That is why I didn't mention it and any assumption that it is restricted to abiogenesis is a critical-thinking error.
All biological systems are believed to have been generated by 'natural selection' from fault-tolerant DNA coding scheme design to DNA error-correction schemes to sexual reproduction when 'natural selection' is an artifact of the existence of these systems. Unless an evolutionist believes that life magically 'poofed' itself into existence with these systems intact, there is no basis for 'natural selection' to create them.
How do you start off preaching “moral absolutes”, and then go on to talking about one lie being “bigger” than another?
Who believes all biological systems were generated by natural selection? Only idiots who don't understand that natural selection has nothing to do with the origins of life; it seems that this is YOUR critical “thinking” error.
From the article:
Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong,"
This is also known as the 'fallacy of exclusion', where relevant evidence that would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
It appears that we have circular reasoning (natural selection) supported by the fallacy of exclusion (abiogenesis excluded) as the foundations of evolution.
Again, 'natural selection' is circular reasoning because it is an artifact of existent biological systems. Excluding abiogenesis is the fallacy of exclusion because 'living systems' don't just materialize out of the ether.
"Who believes all biological systems were generated by natural selection? Only idiots who don't understand that natural selection has nothing to do with the origins of life; it seems that this is YOUR critical “thinking” error."
OK, then who believes that certain biological systems were not generated by natural selection, what are those systems and what generated them?
That's why I asked, "OK, then who believes that certain biological systems were not generated by natural selection, what are those systems and what generated them?"
You are the one who said, "Who believes all biological systems were generated by natural selection? Only idiots who don't understand that natural selection has nothing to do with the origins of life; it seems that this is YOUR critical “thinking” error."
I'm waiting for you to tell me who doesn't believe that all biological systems were generated by natural selection, what systems were not so generated, and what generated them?
If you can't answer that, then you are committing the fallacy of exclusion.
"Logical fallacy, but I guess when it is all you have you have to pretend it means something."
That's the point. Evolution is a logical fallacy that is coupled with circular reasoning and based philosophical naturalism.
Gravitational attraction of mass has nothing to do with the origin of matter. Once in existence matter exerts gravitational attraction and is attracted by it.
I suppose you also think that the theory of Universal Gravitation of Mass is undergoing the “fallacy of exclusion”?
What a ridiculous notion.
Speaking of slime...
Just WHERE did all the BIO-MASS come from before all the slime?
That's why I asked, "OK, then who believes that certain biological systems were not generated by natural selection, what are those systems and what generated them?"
You are the one who said, "Who believes all biological systems were generated by natural selection? Only idiots who don't understand that natural selection has nothing to do with the origins of life; it seems that this is YOUR critical “thinking” error."
I'm waiting for you to tell me who doesn't believe that all biological systems were generated by natural selection, what systems were not so generated, and what generated them?
If you can't answer that, then you are committing the fallacy of exclusion.
Evolution is a logical fallacy that is coupled with circular reasoning and based philosophical naturalism.
Which evolved first: the VAGINA or the PENIS?
This just goes to show that the crucial evidence keeping Darwin’s ToE alive is the jackboot.
Well; I CLAIM that the Judge is lacking in EVIDENCE.
At least this ARTICLE presents NONE.
Living systems DEVELOPED by means of natural selection. They did not originate or generate themselves by means of natural selection; and as previously stated, it doesn't matter HOW living systems were generated, once here they began to develop and differentiate by means of natural selection.
Living systems were generated, hypothetically, by abiogenic processes. Please research the Abiogeneis hypothesis and auto-catalytic RNA and get back to me.
The first sexually reproducing organisms were hermaphroditic, so the penis and vagina obviously evolved in parallel.
In other words, the conclusions reached by evolution apologists, based on observations of the SAME EVIDENCE as evolution skeptics,
are reached by presupposing that evolution is the mechanism, and that the natural/material existance is all that there is.
Bingo. Best post on this thread.
==Natural selection of living organisms has nothing to do with the origin of those living organisms. Once in existence those organisms evolve by means of natural selection of genetic variation.
All the evidence suggests living organisms are devolving, not evolving. Natural selection is all about conservation of what exists, whereas random mutation has been shown to be an overwhelmingling destructive force, thus resulting in information loss. There is no observable principle in nature driving life ever upwards from the simple to the complex. The evidenced from the Bible, and confirmed by science, suggests all life forms were created fully formed and fully functional, have the capacity for variation within the confines of the created kinds, and have been slowly losing information/devolving ever since the fall.
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.