Take THAT religious nutters!

[Ben Kenobi]

Intellectual assent to creationism = inability to perform science

God directed evolution!=Creationism.

[Whaleboy]

God directed evolution!=Creationism.

God directed evolution = God in the gaps

God directed evolution = desperate rear-guard action

[rah]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then the burden is on the school to show that students who use 3 only fare poorly at the university level.

No the burden is on the student to prove that they can still do well in school despite being made to read books like that. And the university provides them this by offering a test. Which if they do well on it, they are qualified to attend. Where is the unfairness here?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then there should be a study done to show that students who use 3 fare poorly at the university prior to stripping accreditation.

As it is they lack any evidence for their position beyond distaste for Christian principles. Just because they don't like Christian teachings doesn't justify them dropping accreditation.

No.

We don't allow lawyers to practice without getting the correct education (despite no study I know to the opposite). Same with doctors, same with vets, same even with massage people.

The default is with education, if you disagree, than you need to show evidence that your disagreement is validated.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Even the 3rd isn't quite true. However, it is true that a lack of knowledge about science and the scientific process (which is in this 3. set of books) precludes one from understanding scientific principles and using them.

Since you have extensive knowledge and experience with 3, what exactly does the textbook lack?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Since you have extensive knowledge and experience with 3, what exactly does the textbook lack?

It is a science book sthat doesn't teach scientific principles. It could be that they took a statement out of context, but I am going with the point of view that their comments are valid.

Read the article.

God in the gaps hasn't been the reason that reasoning people have beleived in God for a long time.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

God directed evolution = God in the gaps

God directed evolution = desperate rear-guard action

It's not creationism, and you've failed to prove such a position is inconsistant with science.

You might think it's a desperate rear guard action, I think random directed evolution just means we don't understand the fundamental principles behind evolution, as random is just another word for "we don't have a clue how it actually works so we just call it random".

[rah]

Ben doesn't read obviously.

[Krill]

[Ben Kenobi]

No the burden is on the student to prove that they can still do well in school despite being made to read books like that.

Up until now, the students have been receiving credit. I'd agree with you if the program had never been accredited, that it would be up to the school to do standardised testing in order to prove that their students understood the material necessary.

In order to strip accreditation, they need to have some evidence that either the students are not learning what they need, and to do that you need to either show they struggle with university level biology, or show that they fail on standardised testing. Neither has been shown, or given as a rational for stripping them of accreditation.

And the university provides them this by offering a test. Which if they do well on it, they are qualified to attend. Where is the unfairness here?

They are stripping accreditation based on political reasons, not actual evidence that the course material is faulty.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

You might think it's a desperate rear guard action, I think random directed evolution just means we don't understand the fundamental principles behind evolution, as random is just another word for "we don't have a clue how it actually works so we just call it random".

A mechanism does not need to be directed or have any sort of plan. Randomness is quite a good "fundamental principle."

[Whaleboy]

It's not creationism, and you've failed to prove such a position is inconsistant with science.

It's inconsistent with science because you have provided no evidence to support the proposition. You can't go around saying "here's my argument, prove me wrong." You know full well that the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Show me that it's not a god in the gaps argument.

You might think it's a desperate rear guard action, I think random directed evolution just means we don't understand the fundamental principles behind evolution, as random is just another word for "we don't have a clue how it actually works so we just call it random".

As I've said previously, evolution =| random.

You would be better served by thinking not in terms of randomness, but in terms of variation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Up until now, the students have been receiving credit.

No they haven't. That was the point of the lawsuit.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've read the article the reporter is quoting.

It is a science book sthat doesn't teach scientific principles.

Which principles do they fail to teach? The article mentions two things, neither of which has jack-**** to do with science, and everything to do with politics.

[Whaleboy]

A mechanism does not need to be directed or have any sort of plan. Randomness is quite a good "fundamental principle."

I think BK speaks of randomness in the same terms of "fully formed humans didn't just walk out of a primeval ooze". Randomness as you or I would understand exists as genetically determined variation which can respond to different selection pressures. That is a highly deterministic process.