DeeJayH

ironic since my catholic high school was exempt from NY Regents exams
we graduated with more credits than your typical high school
and we graduated with a more desirable education than most schools

and i have yet to see naything that shows why credits are exempt in this single issue, but are accepted in so many others which include so many other types of 'non-scientific' teachings

__________________
These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb. - Joshua P. Allem

Kernel Sanders

Such as?
(ten characters)

Vader

This is an athiest judge taking the side of science and his political constituants.

It's something that needs to be appealed to the supreme court. I am confident that the SCOTUS will reverse that judge's decision.

__________________

obvious Child

What's the big fuss over this?

Schools should deny credit to people who took classes that did not cover the subject adequately. If I take a chemistry class and learn nothing about stoichiometry and bonding, etc, have I met the requirements for understanding chemistry? No. It would be irresponsible (not to mention unfair) for a college to give me credit for a class where I did not learn the subject. If their science course failed to teach them about evolution and the vast mountain of evidence backed with thousands of commercial products, then they should be denied credit. To not would be like giving students college literature credit when all they did was read kids' books and comics. Dickinson who? Thoreau? Huh?

I love the quote:
"Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."

Since when did God fall within the jurisdiction and study of science?

__________________
"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them" - Jeffery Sinclair

obvious Child

Couple obvious reasons. Creationism, of the young Earth requires a world of around 6,000 years old. There lies one of the many problems. Geology, chemistry, radioactivity, physics and many other sciences conflict heavily with a 6,000 year old planet. For example, the study of radioactivity has lead to commercial nuclear power plants. radioactivity works on several principles, all of them based off an extremely long time period, billions of years. If a student of creationism wants to become an engineer, they will have a seriously hard time gelling the two. On one hand we have an obvious tangible proof of an eons old planet. How can we be teaching our kids otherwise?

Second, the basis of literal creationism is fundamentally flawed. Every piece of evidence suggests that the world is in fact, not 6,000 years old. That it is quite old. Now, if the Bible God wanted creationism to be taken literally, then he has planted evidence to the contrary and operates the world contrary to literal genesis. If God created the world as we know it and understand it but wanted genesis to be literal, then he's lying in the Bible. That means God by definition of action is a huge liar. Teaching kids that YEC is correct is failing to do the one key lesson of schooling: instill critical thinking.

Finally, evolution is the basis for a large number of commercial applications and products. Creationism has no commercial uses outside of a subject for books. How can we teach our kids a belief that directly contridicts their daily lives?

YamiB.

The difference would be of course that the classes they're supposed to be getting credit for are scientific classes that were taught in taught in an unscientific manner.

__________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
-Douglas Adams
"It would be better not to know so many things than to know so many things that are not so."
-Felix Okoye
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-Aristotle

Simon W. Moon

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!! roflmao
I just bought tickets to the feeding of the majority of the US's population to lions.
Over-exaggerated hyper-hyperbole.
Seriously, some off the victim act. Most of this country is Christian. This isn't about Christianity or religion but about bad "science".

__________________
"That is the problem... [we] fell in love with the idea that politicians-- even the slickest and brightest presidential candidates-- were real heroes and truly exciting people. That is wrong on its face. They are mainly dull people with corrupt instincts and criminal children. -H.S.T"

shuamort

Please show proof that the judge is atheist.
Based on what, exactly?

shuamort

In case anyone wants to know how this judge got his position, it was by George W Bush.

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Central District of California
Nominated by George W. Bush on January 7, 2003, to a seat vacated by Richard A. Paez; Confirmed by the Senate on February 10, 2003, and received commission on February 12, 2003.

Simon W. Moon

So many people has appointed have turned out to be liberal traitors. I guess GWB isn't as good at seeing into someone soul as he was with Putin.