Posted on 08/02/2008 5:57:18 PM PDT by Kevmo
Lots of people get college credit in high school. My daughter got nearly two years worth of credits. Colleges, however, have absolute limits on the number of such credits they will accept toward a degree. I suspect for political or financial reasons.
You didn't when I was in High School.
I had to repeat US History, World History, American Government, Biology, Physical Science, American literature, English literature, Composition and speech.
The only difference was that when I took these courses in College, I got, for the most part, a socialist spin on these subjects. These days you get the socialist spin in High School, so why do they require you to take it again in College?
I suspect for political or financial reasons.
Ya think?
The first half of many of those courses were “review”, they did go deeper into detail and covered more. My school had a process to “test out” of introductory courses but I am glad I didn’t do it, the first part of it being review is a good place to start and I made an “easy” A. ;)
And my High School was no ‘dream school’ by any stretch. I went to school for a semester at Washington and Lee High School in Virginia. The class president was graduating with his that semester GPA at a 5.0 (5 points on a 4 point scale for “Honors” courses) so he was getting all “A’s” in all Honors courses. My High School in California only offered two honors courses and they were AT THE SAME TIME (English and Government). I took the English honors.
I think the problem is that the past cannot be replicated, so the issue simply cannot be proven. The scientific method can be “used in studies of the past”, but by your own words in post #26, “The theory of evolution is a theory. The problem is not the theory itself, but the implications.” So why should such un-replicatable theories be taught to school children when the implications of the theory are evil?
1. No scientific theory can be proved. Not one!
2. In science, the highest level you can reach is that of a theory. You and other creationists seek to degrade the theory of evolution by referring to it as a theory, as if there were some higher level it could reach. There is not.
3. Replication is not necessary in science. It is nice to have in those fields where it is possible, but the fields that can't do replication make do with what they have. Predictions are one way they do so. This works as follows: If this aspect of the theory is correct, we should see this fossil in that stratum in that location. They then go and look. If the fossil is found, the theory is supported.
4. The implications of a theory have no bearing on the accuracy of a theory. That fundamentalists see the theory of evolution as opposing their religious viewpoints has nothing to do with either science in general or the theory of evolution in particular. There are many other religious believers who have no problem with the theory of evolution or its implications; Catholics, for example. Science simply can't be held hostage to religious beliefs. We settled that with the Enlightenment.
5. The implications of the theory of evolution are not evil. That is silly. You, and those who believe as you do, simply disagree with them for religious reasons. That man descended from apes is pretty much an established fact, and facts are neither good nor evil. They just are.
As an aside, I like the format you are trying here. I haven't even been called a Nazi yet (but the day is still young).
You wasted my time, but I hope you get an education.
Next complaint goes to Mr. Robinson.
Stress philosophy courses here! Indeed, why do so many insist that ONLY evolution be taught? This insistence is both anti-rational and a violation of the tradition of academic freedom, a/k/a freedom of thought and conscience.
One surmises that such folks are devotees of a quasi-religious doctrine trying to pass itself off as "science." From my perspective, based on my experience, I don't know how else to think of it.
Thank you so much for your kind words about Alamo-Girl's and my book, Timothy. Truly, we were going for the wider perspective, for the "big picture," if you will.
And thank you for your excellent reply to Coyoteman!
And creationists should know all about "quasi-religious doctrine trying to pass itself off as 'science'" as that is the game they have been playing for decades now. And there is nothing "quasi-religious" about it.
First it was creationism, then creation "science," then ID and its spinoffs "critical analysis" and "teach the controversy."
They can't get creationism into schools if they are honest about it, so they pretend it is science. It is not.
As part of the same effort they are trying to equate the evolutionary sciences with religion. They are not.
But what the heck. If you're going to fib about one thing, why not fib about a bunch of things?
You mean like your fibs?
Wake up Coyote. As long as you are still breathing, it’s not to late.
I, for one — a self-confessed Christian — do not equate creationism with science.
Moreover I am not interested in putting creationism into science class, for it clearly belongs in philosophy class. Still, I am forbidden by the (doctrinaire) "powers that be" from doing even this in the public schools. Why???
Creationism is ontological in its focus (ontology = the study of being and existence and their relations), science is empirical (having to do with measurement of events taking place in the observable, physical world). There are very clear distinctions between these two branches of intellectual inquiry. It is only when science becomes "ontological" and metaphysical in its utterances that we need to worry. For such statements are beyond the scope and purview of the scientific method.
And yet Darwinist evolution theory clearly gives us a metaphysical account of the rise and progress of man. It actually gives us a human ontology that has a profound bearing on the human moral order, and thus social organization; and which poses a direct challenge to the traditional idea of the Good, not to mention it puts the justification of human free will in dire jeopardy.
As such, it actually does have the form of an ersatz religious doctrine — one that kinda reminds me of Wahabbist Islamic doctrine. Especially the part about human free will.
So-called scientists when they infer human bodies came from monkeys which came from something else, which came from something else.. eventually from some kind of organic soup of chemicals(inferred of course).. Get all pissy faced when accused of offering a metaphysical and/or ontological offering..
Could be because academia has been "Bogarded" (about 95%) by left wing political extremists.. and mostly democrats.. Democrats can never get anything correctly.. anything.. They could screw up a wet dream..
Little wonder speaking of the spirit/Spirit that drives mans flesh is beyond them.. Biological Science to leftists is like the animated movie "CARS".. Cars that speak with feelings and personalitys.. yet are still mechanisms.. basically a cartoon..
To leftists and other socialists the human flesh is all humans are.. just like the animated cartoon.. Ideas/intelligence comes from the "brain" and NOT from the spirit.. like the cartoon.. Politically in AMerica today democrat politics is exactly like a cartoon.. Fleshly governance.. as academia is fleshly facts.. Could be thats the difference between the voters too.. they elect the flesh and not the spirit..
LOL dearest brother in Christ, but this observation/criticism is, to me, just "spot-on!" (Infer is the operative word here....)
Plus the rest of your analysis is, too. JMHO FWIW. Thank you so much for your excellent essay/post!
The reason I had asked is because the gentleman in question had previously stated that evolution did not quite come up to the level of a [scientific] theory, and I just wanted clarification.
It’s this kind of observation that drives Darwinists right off the edge. Their outrage stems not from its supposed error, but rather, I think, from how devastatingly dead-on accurate it is (they will never admit that). I’ve not seen, nor heard of, any valid surveys reporting numbers on how many scientists actually do deny the existence of free will (nevertheless a goodly number, I think). But any who do, have instantly eviscerated any claim they have to ontological validity in any judgments they make, even purely scientific ones. However multiple reasons they have to offer for conclusions they make, having eschewed free will, they must face the ultimate fact that they have no rational reason for their conclusions and beliefs other than that they are helpless to conclude or believe anything other than what they do, in fact, think. Now, that goes right by blind faith to . . . what? I don’t know. I imagine philosophy has a name for it (surely something better than Nihilism) and I suspect, dear betty, that you know what that is. {8^)
”I, for one — a self-confessed Christian — do not equate creationism with science.
Of course not. Creationism is so much more than that. Science is simply one way we keep in touch with the Lord. And the fact that Science also betters our condition in so many ways is, I think, no mere coincidence. Creationists make a fundamental error when they seek to argue science with Scientists in MHO (you Creationists who want to continue banging your heads against a brick wall – go ahead, don’t let me stop you). Scientists are so much more interesting (and entertaining) when they attempt to translate their science theories and science facts into cultural or political values. Ask the right question and all one usually gets in return is the forum equivalent of a blank stare, or the sudden need to be somewhere else.
Thanks so much for the HiHo, boop. I really appreciate your kindness and consideration.
Hi hose. You unfailingly have such interesting and penetrating observations to make, that I’m always to glad to see one of your missiles flying over the transom. Colorful too.
Perhaps because creationism is often taught as religious belief by zealous preacher/teachers, rather than being taught as one element commonly found in worldwide religions, and as such as something to be studied in a comparative religion class?
(That's what got the school board in trouble in Dover, isn't it?)
But then the whole point of this effort is to teach religion in the schools. None of the folks pushing creationism/creation "science"/ID in the schools is interested in scientific analyses of religion. They only want students exposed to their particular religious belief. That is what this whole sordid affair is all about, isn't it?
I’d like to know why it must be taught when it’s falling on deaf ears. The only kids who will get it are those who are interested and will take it much more in depth in college.
The rest will either not get it, not care, not believe it, or sleep through that section of Bio.
Considering the number of people who still don’t believe in it after decades of forced indoctrination with evo having the monopoly, it seems like a tremendous waste of time and taxpayer money.
There are more than enough aspects of Biology that have an relevant impact on real life that they could deal with and still not have enough time in the school year to cover it all.
There’s either God or no God.
The *no God* position is not neutral.
You can’t be neutral when there’s only two sides to an issue.
As you know, my scientific bent leads me to seek "root causes". And that includes seeking the root cause of why otherwise intelligent believers insist that the creative work and persona of our eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator must be constrained (almost said, "belittled", but, that wouldn't be prudent) to fit within their human measures of time, space, and process.
As such, I am dealing with the motives of believers -- and I perceive such to be "off limits" in this "ecumenical" format. So, I will try to observe -- silently. (Can you imagine how very difficult that is for me?) <LOL!>
You could post it on the parallel non-ecumenical thread, if it were important to you. I just like having civil discussion.
There are more than enough aspects of Biology that have an relevant impact on real life that they could deal with and still not have enough time in the school year to cover it all.
***I agree. The evo stuff belongs in a philosophy class anyways.
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.