Texas Decision on Creation College's Science Degree Delayed
ByChristian Post Reporter
Wed, Jan. 16 2008 04:01 PM ET
Texas education officials have agreed to grant a creation college more time to prepare recently requested information about its graduate science degree programs.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board said Tuesday that it will have to wait until April to decide whether Institute for Creation Research can offer its online master's degree in Science Education. The board was scheduled to decide on the group's application for approval next week following an advisory committee's recommendation, but objections arose from pro-evolution outlets.
The Christian school became the target of an "intensely negative campaign" by the press and the secular academic community, the group reported in an e-mail update.
Dr. Raymund Paredes, the state's higher education commissioner, called a meeting with the Institute for Creation Research last Thursday and requested that the group supply additional information to verify that the master's degree program was taught at a graduate level.
The creation institute said it was "glad" to.
Eddy Miller, dean of the institute’s graduate school, sent an e-mail to the board on Monday, requesting more time on behalf of the school “to do justice to the concerns you raised,” according to a news release issued by the coordinating board.
"ICR is pleased to respond to any effort to demonstrate its compliance and its competency in the fields that we teach," said Dr. Henry Morris, who founded the Institute for Creation Research in 1970.
"Our plans now are to prepare the extra material and provide the requested documentation in time for the April 2008 meeting of the THECB."
According to Inside Higher Ed, an online news source for higher education, Paredes has raised three concerns in the questions he asked the institute to address.
First, the commissioner asked how the institute would provide its students "proper exposure to the experimental side of science" since they would be learning online. He noted that it was a question he would ask of any online science program and wasn't related specifically with creationism. He also wanted the institute to either revise their curriculum or explain why it differed from those offered in conventional masters of science programs in Texas. The third request was for the institute to present material that show research activities underway and show them to be “based on solid scientific research."
Paredes said it was “not unusual” for him to raise questions after an initial review and approval, noting that people should not assume that the proposal is dead just because of the questions and the request for a delay.
“Because this is an issue that’s controversial to a lot of people, we want to make sure we look at this matter thoroughly and fairly,” he said, as reported by Inside Higher Ed.
The institute's proposal comes amid a fierce debate on how evolution should be taught in public schools.
Although the school has been offering science degrees in California since 1981, it had to reapply when it moved its headquarters to Dallas last year.
In the e-mail alert, ICR asked supporters to pray for the commissioner and their efforts in preparing its response material.
Comments 
Most recent comments
agentorange- Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:17 am
: 0
: 0- Flag
“A guiding hand does not intend to refer to the idea that God’s hand is literally helping each and every single step of every fertilization and formation”
Sure it does, in fact that’s ID principle claim. It asserts that certain complex systems couldn’t have evolved via natural cumulative progressive steps and thus they assert that god/ID designer created the system in an instant. To assert that the designed created something instantly is in principle the same argument as saying ‘god did it’ as even it’s not god the designer has the same skill set. This is also was Behe and other ID folk ignore paleontology fossils as evidence and only deal with biological systems.
“It is the scientific progressives that maintain they don’t know how life began or why it works the way it does.”
This has NOTHING to do with organisms evolving and you know, this ONLY pertains to how life initially got here and not evolution.
“I would very much like to see a scientist build a machine that can reproduce another machine that can reproduce’
Where have you been? Scientists are nearly done in creating a new synthetic species of bacteria from scratch.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080125-artificial-life.html
www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402203.html?hpid=sec-health
“that you should presume to be the one who gets to decide who is right and who is dead.’
Again, you’re a tosser. I am NOT talking about ANYONE being put to death, I am saying in democratic consensus we should determine what we are to believe in and question even wishful propositions in afterlife that we have NO EVIDENCE OF.
“As I said embryonic stem cell research has developed zilch, zero, nada.”
Well it can’t exactly contribute a whole lot if it’s continually denied any ability to do research and funding by our govt. now can’t it? You’re complaining that it hasn’t accomplished anything, but that’s not it’s fault, it’s b/c of the govt that’s in way preventing progress again.
“There is no way on God’s green earth that you can justify despising your neighbors because they go to church on Sundays to honor their creator.”
Well to me it’s akin to a delusion as an adult believing in santa, so in that regard I can justify looking down on them for their beliefs in things that lack empirical backing is something to be questioned.
Sure it does, in fact that’s ID principle claim. It asserts that certain complex systems couldn’t have evolved via natural cumulative progressive steps and thus they assert that god/ID designer created the system in an instant. To assert that the designed created something instantly is in principle the same argument as saying ‘god did it’ as even it’s not god the designer has the same skill set. This is also was Behe and other ID folk ignore paleontology fossils as evidence and only deal with biological systems.
“It is the scientific progressives that maintain they don’t know how life began or why it works the way it does.”
This has NOTHING to do with organisms evolving and you know, this ONLY pertains to how life initially got here and not evolution.
“I would very much like to see a scientist build a machine that can reproduce another machine that can reproduce’
Where have you been? Scientists are nearly done in creating a new synthetic species of bacteria from scratch.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080125-artificial-life.html
www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012402203.html?hpid=sec-health
“that you should presume to be the one who gets to decide who is right and who is dead.’
Again, you’re a tosser. I am NOT talking about ANYONE being put to death, I am saying in democratic consensus we should determine what we are to believe in and question even wishful propositions in afterlife that we have NO EVIDENCE OF.
“As I said embryonic stem cell research has developed zilch, zero, nada.”
Well it can’t exactly contribute a whole lot if it’s continually denied any ability to do research and funding by our govt. now can’t it? You’re complaining that it hasn’t accomplished anything, but that’s not it’s fault, it’s b/c of the govt that’s in way preventing progress again.
“There is no way on God’s green earth that you can justify despising your neighbors because they go to church on Sundays to honor their creator.”
Well to me it’s akin to a delusion as an adult believing in santa, so in that regard I can justify looking down on them for their beliefs in things that lack empirical backing is something to be questioned.
agentorange- Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:49 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
“It is interesting that you admit that we have a spiritual nature. Shall I presume you think it is only useful for getting high with LSD? I’m being facetious, but some of your posts make me wonder.”
Not necessarily a spiritual nature, but we perceive our world differently based on the random chemicals going on in our brains in given instances. IE, this is why people use such drugs to experience altered states of reality and so they can view the world from a different view. This is the same reason people engage in meditation and why they isolate themselves in a cave or fast without food for long periods. All of which give rise to a deeper appreciation and greater opening of the minds eye. It doesn’t’ mean one is one a 1 way conversation with god, but that the chemicals in the brain reflect reality differently.
“I couldn’t agree and disagree more, I say it is like a man who looks at a design and dismisses it as not having a designer.”
Oh, you mean like all the designed systems Behe used in his arguments in Dover? All of which were shown that natural evolution could clearly resolve. The concept of what is and isn’t ‘designed’ is largely subjective and stems directly to ones ignorance. In Behe’s case the many instances he used HE couldn’t figure it out in a natural way so he asserted it must be instantly designed. This is an argument from credulity as it assumes that not only will any current people ever figure something out, but neither will anyone in the future.
“I think that the biggest point of contention between evolution and creationists is when adhoc terms are used such as ‘unguided’ are used in public”
Look up natural selection and all the natural processes involved, there is no guiding hand there. Organic systems evolve as they respond to their habitat and the selective pressures.
Not necessarily a spiritual nature, but we perceive our world differently based on the random chemicals going on in our brains in given instances. IE, this is why people use such drugs to experience altered states of reality and so they can view the world from a different view. This is the same reason people engage in meditation and why they isolate themselves in a cave or fast without food for long periods. All of which give rise to a deeper appreciation and greater opening of the minds eye. It doesn’t’ mean one is one a 1 way conversation with god, but that the chemicals in the brain reflect reality differently.
“I couldn’t agree and disagree more, I say it is like a man who looks at a design and dismisses it as not having a designer.”
Oh, you mean like all the designed systems Behe used in his arguments in Dover? All of which were shown that natural evolution could clearly resolve. The concept of what is and isn’t ‘designed’ is largely subjective and stems directly to ones ignorance. In Behe’s case the many instances he used HE couldn’t figure it out in a natural way so he asserted it must be instantly designed. This is an argument from credulity as it assumes that not only will any current people ever figure something out, but neither will anyone in the future.
“I think that the biggest point of contention between evolution and creationists is when adhoc terms are used such as ‘unguided’ are used in public”
Look up natural selection and all the natural processes involved, there is no guiding hand there. Organic systems evolve as they respond to their habitat and the selective pressures.
agentorange- Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:39 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
“Again, this is a moral judgment and prescription that presumes you know what the best belief for individuals and society is as well as assuming authority as to deciding what is worth keeping”
It’s as much a logical judgment as a moral one. We shouldn’t be compelled to keep beliefs in things that don’t hold any evidence for their proposition, to do otherwise is delusion. it might fun to believe in such wishfull things as they make us feel more important and warm and fuzzy on t the inside, but this type of delussion in beliving in things for which their is non crebile evidence is like an adult believing in santa.
“so far as I have indicated through the numerous researches and studies that have been done Christianity gives far more benefit in the evolutionary social context than atheism ever has or could ever hope to.”
It’s pretty easy to feel overly sappy when you sincerely consider that death on earth doesn’t matter as you’ll have another chance to see loved ones later. But is there evidence for this? Nada. Same goes for miracles. Yet, these parts of a belief system are critical to keeping it going for it one realizes miracles and after life are unsubstantiated then it’s a process of self delusion and we’re wishfully making manifestations not based on reality that run our lives and decisions and this is wrong.
“Atheism is still a belief involving many things that stem directly from denying the existence God. I think your argument from ignorance is eclipsed by the evidence for design”
Fine, show me the great omnibenevolent design that all theists think the universe was expressly made for us and I’ll smash them 1 by 1.
It’s as much a logical judgment as a moral one. We shouldn’t be compelled to keep beliefs in things that don’t hold any evidence for their proposition, to do otherwise is delusion. it might fun to believe in such wishfull things as they make us feel more important and warm and fuzzy on t the inside, but this type of delussion in beliving in things for which their is non crebile evidence is like an adult believing in santa.
“so far as I have indicated through the numerous researches and studies that have been done Christianity gives far more benefit in the evolutionary social context than atheism ever has or could ever hope to.”
It’s pretty easy to feel overly sappy when you sincerely consider that death on earth doesn’t matter as you’ll have another chance to see loved ones later. But is there evidence for this? Nada. Same goes for miracles. Yet, these parts of a belief system are critical to keeping it going for it one realizes miracles and after life are unsubstantiated then it’s a process of self delusion and we’re wishfully making manifestations not based on reality that run our lives and decisions and this is wrong.
“Atheism is still a belief involving many things that stem directly from denying the existence God. I think your argument from ignorance is eclipsed by the evidence for design”
Fine, show me the great omnibenevolent design that all theists think the universe was expressly made for us and I’ll smash them 1 by 1.
Slacker- Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:57 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
This article didn't mention what the curriculum is, it might be necessary to find out what the curriculum is, how it will be taught and what the outcomes are before commenting... This shouldn't be a dicussion between evolution and creation but rather a discussion about the class, how, what and why it is being taught.
seedplanter- Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:57 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
AO: “Show me how ID is Science, how it's falsifiable, what geniune evidence it has, what predictions it has or can make. Also show how Evolution isn't falsifiable.”
Hugh Ross has developed a creation model that is falsifiable.
You have yet to deal with the issue that I initially brought to the table. Explain what basis you have in the scheme of natural evolution to eliminate Christianity? You are on Christian Post after all, and not for the news. My challenge is and has been that if theism is a matter of biological materialism, than it is a product of evolution. These beliefs are in fact genetically determined. Why should you think that Christian theism is worth going against evolution to destroy? It seems rather counter-intuitive and not very altruistic coming from a so-called naturalist. Not only does it reveal your own doubts about the ability of Mother Nature to take care of herself, but it also implies a rigid contradiction of your allegiance to her super-natural selection. Why bother? What is it exactly that is eating you? If you think that methodological evolution is the way to go, then why not argue for it? Why become so disoriented that it affects your nervous system and creates animosity and hard feelings? If your car broke down on a dark street in town, and you saw five big guys coming toward you, wouldn’t it ease your mind for you to know that they were just leaving a Bible study? I mean, with all this bitterness of soul, what is it that Christians have done to you?
You may find it interesting to know, a study was conducted in 2004 by Bradford University that found that of the 32 wars in the 21st century only three were caused by religion. Just when you were about to say…
Hugh Ross has developed a creation model that is falsifiable.
You have yet to deal with the issue that I initially brought to the table. Explain what basis you have in the scheme of natural evolution to eliminate Christianity? You are on Christian Post after all, and not for the news. My challenge is and has been that if theism is a matter of biological materialism, than it is a product of evolution. These beliefs are in fact genetically determined. Why should you think that Christian theism is worth going against evolution to destroy? It seems rather counter-intuitive and not very altruistic coming from a so-called naturalist. Not only does it reveal your own doubts about the ability of Mother Nature to take care of herself, but it also implies a rigid contradiction of your allegiance to her super-natural selection. Why bother? What is it exactly that is eating you? If you think that methodological evolution is the way to go, then why not argue for it? Why become so disoriented that it affects your nervous system and creates animosity and hard feelings? If your car broke down on a dark street in town, and you saw five big guys coming toward you, wouldn’t it ease your mind for you to know that they were just leaving a Bible study? I mean, with all this bitterness of soul, what is it that Christians have done to you?
You may find it interesting to know, a study was conducted in 2004 by Bradford University that found that of the 32 wars in the 21st century only three were caused by religion. Just when you were about to say…
seedplanter- Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:56 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
“Many evolutionists recognize the complexity of reproduction alone and deduce that there must be at least a guiding hand”
AO: “A guiding hand, are you kidding me?”
No I am not. A guiding hand does not intend to refer to the idea that God’s hand is literally helping each and every single step of every fertilization and formation, but of course why on earth should I think that you had that much common sense? It is the scientific progressives that maintain they don’t know how life began or why it works the way it does. Allow me to take you by the hand and guide you, just because we (theists) recognize the purposeful arrangements of the parts and the fine tuning of the heart of the universe does not mean that we know how it works, other than to se the majesty of God. I would very much like to see a scientist build a machine that can reproduce another machine that can reproduce. It is also an interesting consideration to think about the idea of the most intelligent materialists in the world spending their whole lifetime trying to prove that no intelligence made us in the first place.
AO: “What a tosser you are. I have nothing against Christians per say, but more so with religion all together. And I have just as much reason to despise all the other religions as yours, get over yourself.”
I would say that it is atheism has attributed much to the world’s anguish and turmoil. But in any case, you still have yet to show why you think that you should presume to be the one who gets to decide who is right and who is dead. After all if religious people have a virus, the only way to get rid of it is to kill them. Of course your hatred doesn’t go that deep. You just like to antagonize people because it makes you feel superior in your unbelief. There is no way on God’s green earth that you can justify despising your neighbors because they go to church on Sundays to honor their creator.
“It is adult stem cells that are expediently advancing medical treatments, embryonic research has done nothing.’
AO: “Geee, I wonder why? Oh I know, only B/c GW has deemed it unethical, maybe that’s why embryonic research hasn’t yielded much. Ya think?”
As I said embryonic stem cell research has developed zilch, zero, nada. As I stated humanistic naturalism does not leave much in the way of moral standards. Hitler dehumanized the Jews before he could utilize them in his experiments.
AO: “A guiding hand, are you kidding me?”
No I am not. A guiding hand does not intend to refer to the idea that God’s hand is literally helping each and every single step of every fertilization and formation, but of course why on earth should I think that you had that much common sense? It is the scientific progressives that maintain they don’t know how life began or why it works the way it does. Allow me to take you by the hand and guide you, just because we (theists) recognize the purposeful arrangements of the parts and the fine tuning of the heart of the universe does not mean that we know how it works, other than to se the majesty of God. I would very much like to see a scientist build a machine that can reproduce another machine that can reproduce. It is also an interesting consideration to think about the idea of the most intelligent materialists in the world spending their whole lifetime trying to prove that no intelligence made us in the first place.
AO: “What a tosser you are. I have nothing against Christians per say, but more so with religion all together. And I have just as much reason to despise all the other religions as yours, get over yourself.”
I would say that it is atheism has attributed much to the world’s anguish and turmoil. But in any case, you still have yet to show why you think that you should presume to be the one who gets to decide who is right and who is dead. After all if religious people have a virus, the only way to get rid of it is to kill them. Of course your hatred doesn’t go that deep. You just like to antagonize people because it makes you feel superior in your unbelief. There is no way on God’s green earth that you can justify despising your neighbors because they go to church on Sundays to honor their creator.
“It is adult stem cells that are expediently advancing medical treatments, embryonic research has done nothing.’
AO: “Geee, I wonder why? Oh I know, only B/c GW has deemed it unethical, maybe that’s why embryonic research hasn’t yielded much. Ya think?”
As I said embryonic stem cell research has developed zilch, zero, nada. As I stated humanistic naturalism does not leave much in the way of moral standards. Hitler dehumanized the Jews before he could utilize them in his experiments.
seedplanter- Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:56 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
AO: “I never said or implied that drugs or therapy would replace the spiritual nature that we all seek.”
It is interesting that you admit that we have a spiritual nature. Shall I presume you think it is only useful for getting high with LSD? I’m being facetious, but some of your posts make me wonder.
AO: “To intentionally lie to yourself in sake of facing reality is bordering on self delusion. It’s akin to a wife finding evidence that her husband is cheating on her and dismisses it b/c it isn’t what she want to believe.”
I couldn’t agree and disagree more, I say it is like a man who looks at a design and dismisses it as not having a designer. Or someone who
AO: “Science isn’t about disproving god, it’s about following evidence, drawing conclusions, making testable predictions and following it wherever it leads.”
I agree wholeheartedly, my quarrel is not against science, it is with those who presume to speak in the name of science as to the existence of Father God, in favor of Mother Nature. I think that the biggest point of contention between evolution and creationists is when adhoc terms are used such as ‘unguided’ are used in public funded class rooms. This is directly connected to philosophy and is unwarranted.
It is interesting that you admit that we have a spiritual nature. Shall I presume you think it is only useful for getting high with LSD? I’m being facetious, but some of your posts make me wonder.
AO: “To intentionally lie to yourself in sake of facing reality is bordering on self delusion. It’s akin to a wife finding evidence that her husband is cheating on her and dismisses it b/c it isn’t what she want to believe.”
I couldn’t agree and disagree more, I say it is like a man who looks at a design and dismisses it as not having a designer. Or someone who
AO: “Science isn’t about disproving god, it’s about following evidence, drawing conclusions, making testable predictions and following it wherever it leads.”
I agree wholeheartedly, my quarrel is not against science, it is with those who presume to speak in the name of science as to the existence of Father God, in favor of Mother Nature. I think that the biggest point of contention between evolution and creationists is when adhoc terms are used such as ‘unguided’ are used in public funded class rooms. This is directly connected to philosophy and is unwarranted.
seedplanter- Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:49 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
AO: “Atheism isn’t some label in which the user up and becomes more akin to animal behavior. All it refers to is if the person has a belief in god. It’s a stance that is based on evidence against theism, mostly in that religion is a man architected manifestation that was crafted from a period of ignorance of nature. In the past primitive people couldn’t possibly know certain aspects related to weather, the sun, and other elements and in their primal ignorance attributed them to the work of god(s). This evolutionary progression in the beginning had humanity bewildered as to why the rains came and went and other trivial things we know aren’t controlled by gods.”
Atheism is still a belief involving many things that stem directly from denying the existence God. I think your argument from ignorance is eclipsed by the evidence for design. Agnosticism would be your more tenable option. It is interesting to me how the prophets of old explain many scientific things beyond the knowledge of their day.
SP: 3. Theistic belief helps cure self-destructive characteristics such as addictions.
AO: 3. “So does some medicines, but yes inner strength and will are important and some people need a crutch it seems.”
Now let’s put it in context: You pointed out how numerous things may be able to replace humanity’s need for religion such as drugs, psychology, etc, etc. My assertion was that while atheists would need to turn to these things (may I point out that for some it may be just because of their meaningless existence in a materialistic universe without God), Christians find fulfillment and liberation in knowing God.
Atheism is still a belief involving many things that stem directly from denying the existence God. I think your argument from ignorance is eclipsed by the evidence for design. Agnosticism would be your more tenable option. It is interesting to me how the prophets of old explain many scientific things beyond the knowledge of their day.
SP: 3. Theistic belief helps cure self-destructive characteristics such as addictions.
AO: 3. “So does some medicines, but yes inner strength and will are important and some people need a crutch it seems.”
Now let’s put it in context: You pointed out how numerous things may be able to replace humanity’s need for religion such as drugs, psychology, etc, etc. My assertion was that while atheists would need to turn to these things (may I point out that for some it may be just because of their meaningless existence in a materialistic universe without God), Christians find fulfillment and liberation in knowing God.
seedplanter- Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:49 am
- : 0
- : 0
- Flag
AO: “I don’t think religion is all bad, however the dogmatic irrational views that invariable follow generally retard progress and cause enough harm to make it less desirable or even worthy of keeping around at all.”
Again, this is a moral judgment and prescription that presumes you know what the best belief for individuals and society is as well as assuming authority as to deciding what is worth keeping. If you are a materialist as you seem to be, the only way you and Dawkins can eliminate faith in God, is to eliminate the actual believers themselves. In the end when it comes to who decides what to do and what moral standards to adhere to, it is done by the one with the most power and this is what I meant when I said, without a moral law giver, “might makes right.” Yes, there does seem to be a logical harmony in survival of the fittest, but this is not what I was referring to.
AO: “Well, if my appendix was more harm that it was worth (appendicitis), also like Wisdom teeth, then indeed in would be only logical to seek to remove it.”
I agree! That is not the point, so far as I have indicated through the numerous researches and studies that have been done Christianity gives far more benefit in the evolutionary social context than atheism ever has or could ever hope to. I believe it was Dawkins who actually deemed Mother Teresa as mentally ill. But then again, I guess he thinks all Christians are mentally ill. His indictment of Mother Teresa is however in accordance to how much she was willing to give, without taking back. While I am not so familiar with her that I can say what her motives were, I think I do know enough about Christian compassion to say that if there is a natural explanation as to religious belief; I maintain that atheism would not be on top of the beliefs on the ladder of progressive sociology.
Again, this is a moral judgment and prescription that presumes you know what the best belief for individuals and society is as well as assuming authority as to deciding what is worth keeping. If you are a materialist as you seem to be, the only way you and Dawkins can eliminate faith in God, is to eliminate the actual believers themselves. In the end when it comes to who decides what to do and what moral standards to adhere to, it is done by the one with the most power and this is what I meant when I said, without a moral law giver, “might makes right.” Yes, there does seem to be a logical harmony in survival of the fittest, but this is not what I was referring to.
AO: “Well, if my appendix was more harm that it was worth (appendicitis), also like Wisdom teeth, then indeed in would be only logical to seek to remove it.”
I agree! That is not the point, so far as I have indicated through the numerous researches and studies that have been done Christianity gives far more benefit in the evolutionary social context than atheism ever has or could ever hope to. I believe it was Dawkins who actually deemed Mother Teresa as mentally ill. But then again, I guess he thinks all Christians are mentally ill. His indictment of Mother Teresa is however in accordance to how much she was willing to give, without taking back. While I am not so familiar with her that I can say what her motives were, I think I do know enough about Christian compassion to say that if there is a natural explanation as to religious belief; I maintain that atheism would not be on top of the beliefs on the ladder of progressive sociology.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.
Most Commented Articles
- 'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States
- Evolution Challenged in Maine School District
- Vatican: It's OK to Believe in Aliens
- Chuck Norris Tells Liberty Univ. Grads to Let God Direct Steps
- UC Berkeley Staff Face Lawsuit Over Pro-Evolution Bias
- Research Explores 'Evangelical Intelligentsia'
Most Popular
The CP Daily e-Newsletter
Enter your e-mail address to get the latest in Christian news delivered to your inbox every day!
- Calif. Court Says 'Yes' to Gay 'Marriage'
- Research Explores 'Evangelical Intelligentsia'
- UC Berkeley Staff Face Lawsuit Over Pro-Evolution Bias
- Green Evangelical Applauds McCain's Environment Speech
- Muslim 'Numbers Game' Proving Deadly for Christian Converts, Says Expert
- Obama Supports Campaign for N. Korean Refugees
- Deadly China Quake Triggers Rapid Responses, Calls for Prayer
- New Effort Gives Hope to Abortion Victims
Today's Headlines
- Research Explores 'Evangelical Intelligentsia'
- UC Berkeley Staff Face Lawsuit Over Pro-Evolution Bias
- Chuck Norris Tells Liberty Univ. Grads to Let God Direct Steps
- Vatican: It's OK to Believe in Aliens
- Evolution Challenged in Maine School District
Other education News
Featured Advertiser Links
- 1031 Exchange Attorney
- Digital Praise - Completely Redesigned Dance Game with All Christian Music!
- Online Degrees from Accredited Colleges and Seminaries.
- Life Changes.. So Should your Life Insurance
- Christian Car-Boat-House Donations
- Deographics:Best Website Design
Custom Web Development, Get Your Free Quote Now.
- Christian Internet Broadcasting Network - Sermons, Ministry Resources,Movie,Worship,UCC video.
- Apostolos Campus Ministry
- Financial Freedom Change Your Financial State in 2008 100% Automated
- Christian Tshirt Printing
- Partners:
-
Oh please, do tell!
“Explain what basis you have in the scheme of natural evolution to eliminate Christianity?”
Christianity isn’t my beef, it’s religion and it’s fantasy beliefs which are largely unproven, unprovable, unsubstantiated, and otherwise non credible. I have nothing with any particular religion, my beef is with ignorance of science and how much religion happens to influence people to believe in unsubstantiated things.
“My challenge is and has been that if theism is a matter of biological materialism, than it is a product of evolution.”
Yes, and as I eluded to earlier not all things that stem from evolution are eternally beneficial. Some things that occur via evolution served a purpose but now in the context in which the animal lives serves no purpose at all.
“These beliefs are in fact genetically determined.”
I don’t know about that, I think it has more to do with memes and how they are passed down generation to generation with no one bothering to even question their very purpose. We might be genetically predisposed to make up and manifest beliefs that have no evidence at all simply to explain away otherwise confounding things, but this isn’t a logical or rationale process, it’s a process stemming from recognizing patterns attributing some agent/god behind the scenes and attributed such actions to a god. In other words, sheer ignorance.
After all, why do we have every cultural that have believed in elemental gods that controlled the weather and other confounding things. It all stems from ignorance of how nature really works.
“If you think that methodological evolution is the way to go, then why not argue for it?’
I am arguing for it, read my posts and you’d realize this. I am one of the few on here that seems to even understand evolution at any length and I am trying to stem the tide of ignorance that is rampant