WAPO Articles on Liberty University

There's not? There isn't a way to test the hypotheses raised in it? Really? The water into wine? The walking on water? Raising the dead? How about earlier, with the creation, the flood, Jonah and his big fish, and (my favorite) having the sun stop in the sky? These ideas can't be examined? And is it possible to go from accepting something on faith today to either accepting it or rejecting it based on science tomorrow? That's been the trend for thousands of years so far. There's no stalemate.

 

Diversity of thought in higher education? Surely you jest, and yes I'm calling you Shirley. We actually want people who think like us and look like someone else, that is what is meant when we talk diversity. White people = bad unless they think like us. White religous people = really double bad. White people with a school with education grounded in religion = extra special eviliciously bad!

 

You are saying they are unlikely, even impossible from our viewpoint. That is not the same as proving that it did not happen thousands of years ago. Outside of our current understanding does not equal impossible. A creationist would argue that a supreme being would have the power to defy the ideas that seem impossible to you. The only way to know for sure was to be there.

This is exactly what I am alluding to. Each side has an answer to what the opposition says, it goes around and around, ad nausium. I'll let you have the last word and my respect.

 

Actually, it is. Within the ability of science to "prove" things, of course. That's the nice thing about science; even things that have been "proven" are subject to change with new evidence. Scientists prove and disprove past events all the time. T-Rex not on his hind legs, dinosaurs died suddenly (in epochal terms) from a meteor strike, and Joshua did not command the sun to stop in the sky. (The last one gently ripped to shreds by Carl Sagan, using simple physics and math, in "Broca's Brain."

Right. It also does not equal "supernatural." To a scientist, there are things we know and things we don't know yet. There's no reason to accept a form of knowing we can't access. That hasn't happened, anyway. Not so far.

A convenient, God-as-wild-card construct. Any theory that isn't supported by the evidence? God did it. Okay, but then the universe is not knowable and predictable at all. But that's contrary to all evidence so far, which provides us a very orderly and understandable universe. We're just not done understanding it yet.

No. There are many other ways of knowing than to witness the event. There better be, because no one is alive today that was around when the events of the Bible occurred. Since they weren't there, Christians (for example) simply cannot state that those things actually happened, right?

Because we're talking about two different things, not opposite things. They (faith and science) can both co-exist. Like a library and a parking meter, one has nothing to do with the other, despite the fact that both can generate fines if you're late. But when the faithful try to "prove" their faith and call it science, this breaks down. That's the argument I have with creation scientists and universities like Liberty that insist on blurring the obvious line between the two.

Also, with respect.... :smile:

 

Wow...the article says "Turbocharged growth inevitably raises questions about quality". There it is my friends. Any successful private university that is online is going to get a mob with torches these days. First AU, then UoP, now we see a bandwagon ready to charge Liberty. I am kind of tired of it. I would gladly attend Harvard's extension if it were affordable...but its not. If it were, half the planet would enroll, and then the critics would come out of the woodwork and chant "crap!...crap!...crap!"

 

I have an answer to all you have said...to which you would have an equally compelling answer...to which I would have an answer...to which you would have an answer..... Around and around we go. I'll bail out and sincerely say that you are a brilliant man who makes a great contribution to Degree Info. Glad you are here, Rich. You keep a lot of people, myself included, on their toes.


_________________________________

 

Where are the theologians when you need them? We have enough on this board....


P.S. Super good job on this debate.....

 

Thanks for the exchange. I think we got some good ideas out there.

 

I can live with you calling a white person who is involved in Christian education extra special eviliciously bad, but can't we have a nice conversation without you calling people girl names? Geeeez! :smile:

 

The counseling program included vibrant discussion and debate, both secular and Christian perspectives. Counseling is a field with as much difference between Christian and secular as I imagine hard sciences and other disciplines have. I imagine there is pretty good debate and expose to a variety of texts in those programs as well.

 

That's certainly one way to look at it. Another would describe a folk tale that is utterly impossible according to the laws of physics and, rather than either finding a way to explain it or abandoning the belief as unsupportable, the same claimants instead invent a superhuman being that (a) invented it all and (b) therefore, is able to suspend it at will.

The only difference between our explanations is whether or not the omnipotent superhuman being that intervenes with physical laws exists. I'm very comfortable with the preponderance of evidence here.

One of the benefits of science is predictability. In other words, if you take a situation and replicate it, you get the same results. If the sun stops in the sky, that means the earth stopped rotating. But that would cause everything known to man to fly off the surface of the earth, leaving no one to write the account. That means the idea requires a being capable of suspending the laws of physics to intervene and make it happen, then intervene again to undo the intervention and get the world spinning again. Okay.

 

But science allows you to speak to the gaps, to explore them, to write about them, to have your research reviewed by others, to have it challenged, to change it as new evidence appears. Science is a method, not the explanation of a phenomenon. Find natural selection wanting as an explanation of evolution? Fine, offer an alternative. See gaps in a theory? Okay, fill them. Want to argue with evidence? Do it. Use logic? Go ahead. Not a problem. No one will deny you or call you a blasphemer. But expect your alternatives to be held up to the light and scrutinized.

Big claims require big evidence. And a lack of evidence is not itself evidence.

 

I learned a long time ago not to get in the middle of theological discussions on this board. No one wins. Many of the old theologians that were around, "The Bible Boys," jumped ship to another forum.

I am of the belief that science and creationism can be reconciled if BOTH sides are humble enough to allow for the possibility of an error in their interpretation of the data, or at least an incomplete, flawed understanding of it. The problem is that most scientists have a refusal to accept anything that can't be proven, or at very least, presented as a scientific theory (plausibility). Science is taught as absolute fact most of the time...until new science turns those facts inside out. To fundamentalists, the Bible is absolute, literal fact, even when there are other Christians who disagree. Some of the most heated debates on creationism aren't between scientists and creationists, they are between "young earth" creationists and "old earth" creationists.

I would suggest any number of books by Hugh Ross, starting with The Genesis Question. He's an astrophysicist and Christian apologist. Ross is a PhD in Astronomy and did his undergraduate work in Physics. He approaches biblical interpretation from the perspective of a scientist, with adherence to accepted scientific principles. (reasons.org)

My favorite quote from him is, "Both sides of this debate must humble themselves and accept that we are probably both at least a little wrong."

 

And here I thought it was a discussion of getting one's chocolate (faith) on another's peanut butter (science). Not for a minute am I interested in a "theological discussion."

Paradoxically, this both hits and misses the point. Yes, there are theories so well-supported that they are treated as facts. But science requires the maintenance of an open mind so that new developments can arise. Changing what one believes to be true on the basis of new evidence is not a weakness, it is a strength. And it doesn't make the old idea bad, just superseded.

Which is why none of it is science, and none of it should substituted for--or offered as an alternative to--science in a classroom. It fails as science. I don't care about its veracity as theology.

Or a lot wrong. But in being wrong--or, at least, being open to being wrong--one can accept new vistas as they present themselves (or are constructed).

One side fights constantly to learn new discoveries, new changes, new theories, even on seemingly settled issues. The other fends off all new data, new ideas, new logic in defending its position. They are fundamentally different, but only one side of this issue tries to pretend it is the other.

 

Oh, sure, play the leprechaun card. :shock:

(All good points, MC. All good. You can quote me on that.)

 

[/QUOTE] Changing what one believes to be true on the basis of new evidence is not a weakness, it is a strength. And it doesn't make the old idea bad, just superseded.[/QUOTE]

I would agree if the initial belief was not positioned as fact. However, that is usually not the case. Science has a bad habit of presenting facts that constantly change. Most of the scientific community lacks humility. To be fair, the same can be said of most of the "faith based" community.

[/QUOTE]Which is why none of it is science, and none of it should substituted for--or offered as an alternative to--science in a classroom. It fails as science. I don't care about its veracity as theology.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. It depends on the "what" and "how" of what is being presented.


[/QUOTE] One side fights constantly to learn new discoveries, new changes, new theories, even on seemingly settled issues. The other fends off all new data, new ideas, new logic in defending its position. They are fundamentally different, but only one side of this issue tries to pretend it is the other.[/QUOTE]

This last statement is either made out of ignorance on the subject matter or extreme bias. Both sides have their extremists and their moderates. There are highly educated scientists who also happen to be devout Christians. I offered an author by the name of Hugh Ross. There are a growing number of Christians who embrace science as a tool to be seen in concert with their faith. There are also a number of Christians who refuse to hear anything other than their own narrow interpretation of scripture. There are scientists who believe the Bible (or other literary works of faith) are nothing but fiction that breeds stupidity and war-like behavior. There are other scientists that see no difficulty in reconciling faith and science. To categorically state that "One side fights constantly to learn new discoveries, new changes, new theories, even on seemingly settled issues. The other fends off all new data, new ideas, new logic in defending its position. They are fundamentally different, but only one side of this issue tries to pretend it is the other" is not only incorrect, that mindset IS the problem.

 

I am still not sure what the author's point of this threat was. I am sure I would quickly be asked the purpose of my thread if I just posted random dirt on your Aspen or nationally accredited degrees right?

Aspen Future Uncertain?
ASPEN GROUP, INC. - FORM 8-K - EX-99.1 - ASPEN UNIVERSITY INC. AND SUBSIDIARY INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - March 19, 2012

National Accreditation is Misleading
Regional Accreditation or National Accreditation? – Big Difference!
Aspen University (CO) Accreditation Scam | Diploma Mill Police | GetEducated.com
National Accreditation, the real difference between Regional and National Accreditation - www.ValueOfADegree.com

"National accreditation can be a misleading term. Sometimes we are programmed to think that something with “national” in the title is automatically bigger and/or better, but in this instance, this isn’t true. National accreditation is not better than regional accreditation. In fact, for most students and most situations, regional accreditation is better than national accreditation." - Onlinecollegereport.com

"When people ask you if your school is accredited, they often mean Regional Accreditation." - Valueofadegree.com