— College Won’t Accept Graduate Because School Is Not Accredited
“A teen from southwest Miami-Dade County just graduated from high school a few weeks ago, but she has discovered her diploma isn’t valid. […] The 18-year-old spent the past two years taking classes at Il Savior Academy. But when she applied to Miami-Dade College, she discovered her diploma wasn’t valid.”
— PEACE camp offers students lots of summer fun and learning
“This is the best way for kids to learn science — getting them out of the book and into the world,” said Chris Nehr, PEACE program instructor and Bayonet Point Middle English teacher.
— University to allow students to rent drones from library
“These are not by any stretch of the imagination intended for just anybody to walk up and check out,” Garrison says. “They’re not for filming parties on campus and things like that.”
— Ruse, FSU’s ‘public intellectual,’ refuses to slow down
“The issue that put Ruse on the map, as it were, is his unwavering defense of Darwinism and his opposition to teaching creationism in public schools. He was one of the star witnesses (along with Stephen Jay Gould) in the 1981 landmark test case McLean v. Arkansas, which resulted in that state’s creation science curriculum being declared unconstitutional.”
Michael Ruse’s “unwavering defense of Darwinism” has taken some funny turns.
At Panda’s Thumb, the late Mark Perakh described Ruse as
.
Not to mention how Ruse has at times (see above link) described science as a form of religion – a creationist perspective endorsed by the FCS blog’s resident troll. With “unwavering” defenders like this, who needs accommodationists?
NB: I’m not saying Ruse hasn’t done some very valuable work – just quibbling with a poorly chosen adjective.
Funny how Ruse defends evolution, but calls it a religion. And then opposes creationism or id in public schools because it’s considered religion.
Gee Chris, have you read anything about Michael Ruse but what’s in this post?
Hint: he opposes teaching creationism as science because it’s not science.
Look at this interviw guys http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/does-evolution-explain-religious-beliefs/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Not sure what happened with my other post, it should have read. Look at this interview guys. ??
Pierce,
Why sure, Michael Ruse has been quite vocal and brilliant in the past.
Setting aside Ruse’s Darwinist bias he has had sparks of reality in his commentary such as, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint…the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
With today’s mixture of bogus science and radical religions, it might be best to eliminate both in school curriculum. The bottom line is, not all evolution is science and not all creationism is religion.
If Ruse were here, I’d ask him to name specific examples of individuals who use evolution as a religion.
Since he isn’t (sfaik), I’ll have to ask Chris to do the same with the last sentence of his most recent comment.
Isn’t it strange that devout religious followers such as Chris always employ the “religion†label as an attack on evolution? However, this merely demonstrates their lack of principled thinking and why they cannot be trusted. Science doesn’t fit any scholarly definition of religion. Portraying evolution as a religion does, however, fit the ideological goals of anti-modern ideologues and biblical literalists.
Ivorygirl,
Aren’t your thoughts a little silly? Principle thinking is nothing one could claim who believes man has evolved from fish, when neither man nor fish has or can exist in reversed environments. Portraying evolution as religion is far from a ideological goal, it’s a simple observation made by Ruse and anyone else who honestly evaluates the proposition. The fact is after over 200 years portions of evolution must still be propped up, just stand as hypothesis. A nonconforming pass has and must be given evolution for it’s survival and sloppy conclusions. Belief is the only thing which validates the mystical ape like creature to it’s unidentified ancestors. Other than insanity, there is no other reasonable explanation other than the adherence to a faith based religion which can identify those who by faith believe trees are cousins to butterflies. And there is nothing modern to be opposed to here, the belief has an extremely old satanic history. The volume of concocted hysteria over your monkey cult has not produced a reason to believe it. So good luck with that.
Chris
Your comments, as always, show you have absolutely no understanding of evolution what so ever. This is borne out by the most ridiculous statements that you continue to make. You out did yourself on this one “Principle thinking is nothing one could claim who believes man has evolved from fish, when neither man nor fish has or can exist in reversed environments.
I will leave you with this quote from Ken Miller (a practicing Catholic)
“It is crucial for creationists that they convince their audience that evolution is not scientific, because both sides know that creationism is not.
Chris – I would try to refute your most recent comment, if only it were coherent enough for anyone to figure out what the hell you (think you) mean.
But I can’t, so I will simply ask you to learn the difference between “its” and “it’s” – oh, and please give those examples I asked about 3 days ago.