Regent University – Where the Uneducated go to get Brain-Washed

14 04 2007

So I just saw a clip of Bill Mahr doing his ‘New Rules’.  He points out that the 33 year old lawyer who just resigned from the White House because of the latest Bush scandal got her degree from Pat Robertson’s law school.  According to Mahr, there are 150 officials in the Bush administration who have received degrees from this less than prestigious school.

from the wikipedia article:

Regent University highlighted that at least 150 graduates have served in the George W. Bush administration, as noted on their “Quick Facts” page.[14] The Regent Law school garnered unwanted attention in 2007, when Monica Goodling, a Regent graduate, invoked her fifth amendment rights to avoid testifying about White House involvement in the U.S. attorneys controversy.[2] Before 2001, it was rare for Regent’s graduates to get government jobs. However, the Bush administration’s appointment of the dean of Regent’s government school, Kay Coles James, as director of the Office of Personnel Management caused the “the doors of opportunity for government jobs [to be] thrown open to Regent alumni.”[2] Regent was a lower-ranked school than the typical alma mater of DOJ employees, and its graduates tended to have less experience in civil rights law. [2]

Should you be able to work for the government if your highest degree was awarded from a religious institute? Should the school have even gotten its accredidation?

I think not.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

9 responses

16 04 2007
laluttefinale

Nice blog!

16 04 2007
Mitchell

Thank you.

24 04 2007
Jean

I’m sorry- but I think you need to look at the overall curriculum of the school and the national awards it has been receiving in recent years before you jump on the uneducated Bill Mahr rant-wagon. True the school does have a religious element- in that it has devotions every day and offers chapel to its students, but the books and the teaching methods (i.e. Socratic Method) and the curriculum is the exact same as those at Marshall Wythe Law School and better…. when a Regent Team beats “those elite schools” in Moot Court and Negotiation Competitions- that has something to say about what they are teaching those kids….

27 04 2007
Mitchell

The exact same curriculum as secular schools? I think not. Here’s the Regent website with a list of educational seminars they offered during a conference concerning Evolution.

http://www.regent.edu/admin/stusrv/chapel/faiths.cfm

They are:
Faith, Facts and Evolution Conference

Tools for Resolution: A Scientific Model of Creation – Dr. Hugh Ross
Origin of Life: Comparing Models – Dr. Fazale Rana
Scientific Challenges to the Evolution Model – Dr. Fazale Rana
Scientific Support for the Creation Model – Dr. Fazale Rana
Cosmic Design: Fine Tuning the Universe – Dr. Hugh Ross
Cosmic Design (cont’d) – Dr. Hugh Ross
Hope, Purpose and Destiny – Dr. Hugh Ross

“Scientific Support for the Creation Model” – This is something that would not appear at a secular school because it is informed by faith and not by science.

Beyond that – a person who accepts so much on faith is likely to be less rigorous about scientific or logical evidence concerning anything and everything. The idea of a logical and valid argument obviously has no meaning to them.

A school can not fulfill its function as a place of education unless it is based on the pursuit of knowledge through evidence. Any school that teaches otherwise is not a school at all, but a church.

31 07 2010
JEAN

You appear to be an ardent evolutionist. How sad!

Evolution, your religion, teaches that everything came from nothing, ex-nihilo.

Creation, by contrast, affirms that there is a Creator, Christ Jesus, El Elohim Israel, YHWH of Hosts, who easily created all (John 1 / Gen 1 et al).

Greation teaches that there is a Cause for the many effects—founded upon Science (Proven Fact: e.g. We can see, and see the Creation).

Evolution has no evidence, save what you and your fellow evolutionist monkeys can monkey around with, and “produce”.

How sad that there are so many of satan’s dupes in this world, “deceiving and being deceived.”

Read our above website, and find out why you have so easily been made into a “monkey”??

I.E. before responding. Thanks.

Jean

31 05 2007
A Random Tagging... « Redheaded Daughter

[…] close to family), however I must mention two things in her defense (since the press is trying to strip her of all credibility merely by labeling it “Pat Robertson’s […]

17 10 2007
gore

Mitchell,
Think about what you are saying here. “a person who accepts so much on faith is likely to be less rigorous about scientific or logical evidence concerning anything and everything.” If evolution is so largly thought of as a “fact”, and these scientists are arguing over this “fact”, wouldn’t that mean they would have to be really careful? Otherwise they would be laughed off for scientific reasons, and wouldn’t be taken seriously. Last time I checked these guys hold doctorate degrees, and will debate just about anyone, and while their views are not always accepted, they are still viewed as valid scientists.

I also loved when you wrote this ““Scientific Support for the Creation Model” – This is something that would not appear at a secular school because it is informed by faith and not by science.” That makes sense to me because secular schools do not accept scientific support right?… Then you even go on to say that it is informed by faith and not by science? Hm maybe you need to read the title you wrote, it doesn’t say faith support for the creation model, it says SCIENTIFIC support for the creation model.

Next time you post something “bashing”, it would be more believeable if you provided facts about what they preach, and how its wrong. This is so commonly the debates I hear against it “Well they believe in God, so they are not good scientists”. Belief in God is a faith based thing, and also not believing in God, either way its faith. Athiest scientists present their scientific reasons on why they do not believe God exists, and I never hear people like you putting them in their place for their faith, and accusing them of being bad scientists. Is Dawkins a bad scientist? So why is it that a person that does have faith in God, and presents their scientific reasonings are considered by people like you, not good scientists?

18 10 2007
Mitchell

Hello Gore, and thanks for commenting!

regarding your first point – If you are willing to accept things such as the virgin birth or the assumption without any evidence, it is clear that you can be convinced of anything – evidence or no. therefore, when it comes to a way of studying the world that specifically relies on the existence of evidence (science) I find that I am automatically skeptical of religious scientists. Additionally, I would say that 99% of the intellectual, academic, and scientific communities don’t take these scientists seriously (for no other reason than those scientists who argue the earth is 6,000 years old don’t take science seriously). The truth is, they are laughed at – and their followers are confined to the uneducated, the ignorant, and the gullible.

As for your second point, I don’t think you understood my point. The point is that there wouldn’t be any class at a secular school about the creation model – since again, in most circles it is a laughable idea.

And finally to your contention that lack of faith is a faith based thing . . . I don’t know where to begin with this one. I don’t take anything on faith, I take things on evidence, on reason, and on logic. It is not that I have faith that there is no god, it’s that there simply is no evidence that would lead me to believe that there is a god.

Thank you, and keep reading

Mitchell

20 10 2007
gore

Hey Mitchell,
I agree with you that there is a misunderstanding. I believe this commonly happens in this sort of debate and the street runs both ways. As far as you saying there is no evidence for a God’s existence, it all depends on your worldview, which is completely understandable. I think this is how you are misunderstanding me and the scientists at RTB; they base their arguments off of scientific facts and how these facts fit in their worldview.
In your response you stated this “regarding your first point – If you are willing to accept things such as the virgin birth or the assumption without any evidence, it is clear that you can be convinced of anything – evidence or no.” Since you first decided to bring up the virgin birth, I did some research on this for myself. There is scientific evidence of virgin births. The term the scientific community has given this is parthenogenesis. Here is a direct quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica Online, searched from the term “parthenogenesis”. “biological reproduction that involves development of a female (rarely a male) gamete (sex cell) without fertilization. It occurs commonly among lower plants and invertebrate animals, particularly rotifers, aphids, ants, wasps, and bees. An egg produced parthenogenetically may be either haploid (i.e., with one set of dissimilar chromosomes) or diploid (i.e., with a paired set of chromosomes).”
“parthenogenesis.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 19 Oct. 2007 .
Now I know what you are probably thinking, what about Humans? As far as scientific articles related to how the human egg cell to begin cell division without first being fertilized by sperm check out the following. I got these resources from Dr. Tiplers book “The Physics of Christianity”.

Balakier, H., et al. 1993. “Experimentally Induced Parthenogenic Activation of Human Oocytes.” Human Reproduction 8:740-43

Levron, J., et al. 1995. “Highly Effective Method of Human Oocyte Activation.”
Zygote 3:157-61
So back to your quote of “regarding your first point – If you are willing to accept things such as the virgin birth or the assumption without any evidence, it is clear that you can be convinced of anything – evidence or no.” I would not consider this information I have supplied as an assumption without evidence as you have stated in the quote. You next state “therefore, when it comes to a way of studying the world that specifically relies on the existence of evidence (science) I find that I am automatically skeptical of religious scientists.” As I have just stated there is evidence (virgin birth for time being), now this may not totally persuade you, but as I have stated it’s your worldview.
For your next statement of “I would say that 99% of the intellectual, academic, and scientific communities don’t take these scientists seriously”. First of all, to make a statement this extreme should be followed by evidence. I could battle that with random things that I have heard such as 3% of the population is atheist (which I would never consider a real argument without a reliable source). I could further my point by saying, it seems clear that more than 3% of the public are educated intellectuals. From making a bold statement of your 99% I would also say you are excluding agnostic people. For your next statement “The truth is, they are laughed at – and their followers are confined to the uneducated, the ignorant, and the gullible.” As for myself, I am a junior at NAU. To further that, I was in quoted in the newspaper this Wednesday for educating students about science. The newspaper is the Arizona Daily Sun for Wednesday October 17, 2007. It is the top article on page A2. In other words, I work my butt off in school.
As for saying why it is not accepted in secular schools, I thought I understood you quite well. You were saying that it’s faith when clearly the title stated it is “science,” so I was correcting you on that. This is something I stand beside because that’s what my whole point in doing this: to demonstrate that it is scientific research, and not faith. To go on and say that its laughable does nothing more for me than to shrug your shoulders at the entire debate.
I would go on to talk about your last paragraph, but I’m tired, and basically touched on all those topics. Just for the record, you seem to be an open minded person, and I enjoy this debate with you! However, like I have mentioned I am a college student, and will most likely not find much time to respond the rest of this semester, but I will try to make an effort!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: