Posted on 09/15/2005 6:36:25 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Creationism is prominent in a recent lawsuit that charges the University of California system with violating the constitutional rights of applicants from Christian schools whose high school coursework is deemed inadequate preparation for college. The complaint was filed in federal court in Los Angeles on August 25, 2005, on behalf of the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, California, and a handful of students at the school. Representing the plaintiffs are Robert H. Tyler, a lawyer with a new organization called Advocates for Faith and Freedom, and Wendell R. Bird of the Atlanta law firm Bird and Loechl.
Bird is no stranger to litigation over creationism. As a law student in the late 1970s, he published a student note in the Yale Law Journal sketching a strategy for using the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to secure a place for creationism in the public school science classroom. Bird later worked at the Institute for Creation Research, where he updated its model "equal-time" resolution. The ICR's resolution eventually mutated, in Paul Ellwanger's hands, to become model "equal-time" legislation. A bill based on Ellwanger's model was passed in Arkansas in 1981 and then ruled unconstitutional in McLean v. Arkansas.
Although Bird was not able to participate in the McLean trial -- he sought to intervene on behalf of a number of creationist organizations and individuals, but was not allowed to do so -- he was involved in Aguillard v. Treen, which became Edwards v. Aguillard. Named a special assistant attorney general in Louisiana, Bird defended Louisiana's "equal-time" act all the way to the Supreme Court, where in 1987 it was ruled to violate the Establishment Clause. His The Origin of Species Revisited, which compared evolution and "abrupt appearance," was subsequently published (in two volumes).
At issue in the present suit are the guidelines set by the University of California system to ensure that first-year students have been adequately prepared for college in their high schools. The complaint (1.6M PDF) cites a policy of rejecting high school biology courses that use textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books as "inconsistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community." Such a policy, the complaint alleges, infringes on the plaintiffs' rights to "freedom of speech, freedom from viewpoint discrimination, freedom of religion and association, freedom from arbitrary discretion, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from hostility toward religion."
Robert Tyler told the Los Angeles Times (August 27, 2005) that "It appears that the UC system is attempting to secularize Christian schools and prevent them from teaching from a [Christian world] view." But creationism is a matter of theology, not of science, Robert John Russell of the Center for Theology and Natural Science told the Oakland Tribune (August 31, 2005). "It's almost ludicrous anyone would even take this seriously," Russell said. "It seems absurd that a student who had poor biology would meet the same standards as a student with 'good' biology. ...This has nothing to do with First Amendment rights."
A spokesperson for the University of California system would not comment on the specific allegations leveled in the complaint, but told the Los Angeles Times that the university was entitled to set course requirements for incoming students, adding, "[t]hese requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed."
In its fall 2005 newsletter, ACSI expresses concern that the University of California system's "secular intolerance might spread to other institutions and to other states. ... If this discrimination is allowed to continue unchallenged, it is only a matter of time before secular institutions in other states will join the bandwagon." Interviewed by Education Week (September 7, 2005), however, a spokesperson for the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers expressed the opposite concern, reportedly worrying "about the potential implications of asking a university to ignore its course requirements -- which had been shaped by experts in various fields -- in favor of a 'free-for-all,' in which any interest group is allowed to shape policy."
How many times has the significance of the word "theory" been explained to you in this thread alone?
I think this question refers to a “young-earth creationist.” I don’t know much about what they believe, so I can’t adequately answer for them. I’m guessing (just guessing) that they would observe the relationship between certain geological structures and the likely presence of oil, without necessarily subscribing to a theory of remote origins which is not directly useful to their quest.
But I don’t think this has anything to do with a critique of the divergence of species via the gradual accumulation of inherited modifications, which is what I’m mainly looking at.
”Explain how vets would go about treating animals they did not train on, if they did not believe in the commonality of biochemical, structural, and morphological claudisms that evolutionary theory predicts?”
Again, any vet can observe anatomical, physiological, and biochemical similarities, no matter what his or her notions might be about their ultimate origins. I might believe they all evolved via random variation + selection pressure. My non-Darwinian counterpart might suppose they were designed with these similarities. People practiced veterinary science successfully for many years before Darwin published his hypotheses.
”There is no sound evidence for a micro-macro barrier between "species" or families, or phyla”
Well, if you observed lots of changes in Drosophilia melanogaster resulting in the development of new kind of fruit-flies, but you never observed the development of new, complex organs and systems, or the evolution of fruit-flies into something else (houseflies? butterflies?), you’d be justified in maintaining a sober agnosticism. Variation in fruitflies does not necessarily parlay into something as huge and as minutely ramified as ‘The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man.’
”There are a number of variations in the ID conjecture. Including naturalistic ones. It is very easy to accept the general notion of ID, without requiring any particularly profound modification of Darwinian evolutionary theory, and which does not require the acceptance of creationism.”
Thank you. I have often thought so, myself.
”The argument from irreducible complexity, ... is best stated: "since my giant brain can't comprehend how something was built, it must be a miracle!"
No, one might maintain that design is empirically detectable, and then when it is detected, it is not necessarily evidence of a “miracle” (in the sense of an intervention by a supernatural entity) but of some designer (Could be LGM’s! Or directed panspermia! Just joking, Haha: with apologies to Captain James Kirk and Dr. Francis Crick.)
Endeavors like cryptography, forensic investigation, archaeology and even SETI have developed empirical criteria for determining whether something is an artifact or a natural formation, and for separating message from noise. Applying such criteria to, say, DNA as an information system is legitimate, is it not?
”Go back up a few posts in this thread and read about the heart surgeon who thought transplanting a baboons heart into a human was a good idea because he "did not believe in evolutionary theory".
This Bailey guy’s problem was that he was shockingly ignorant about neonatal immune function, antigens, and other factors related to tissue rejection. Again, this has nothing to do with the theoretical descent of humans and other primates from common ancestors by heritable modification. If he had transplanted a heart of a much-closer-related primate (say, a chimpanzee) --- or even an unrelated human ---- into the unfortunate Baby Fae, she would have died anyway.
So though Bailey is bizarrely interesting in his way, he is not directly relevant. Indeed Bailey’s crossing of species boundaries would undoubtedly be repugnant to most non-Darwinians, precisely because of their general view that the species do not blend into each other.
I'll read these. Thanks.
I worded that poorly. I know spontaneous generation was proved wrong. While we now know far more than even 100 years ago, there is still far more that we don't know and scientists are continually updating and revising their theories as new data comes in. When we know all the facts and all the proofs are in, then it can be declared dead. Until then there remains a need to consider it. If creation is wrong, prove it. Don't just categorize it as a myth and dismiss it off hand.
Not 'against current prevailing wisdom', Creationism goes against all available empirical, scientific evidence. More, I think it is very clear from the literature A Beka posted earlier, the reason this is so is clear: for some Biblical literalists, who can not refute evolutionary biology using empirical means, are seeking to effectively abandon the scientific method. And, if such material is ones sole source of instruction, then clearly one is not capable of doing science. Of course, it is a perfectly valid personal choice to simply ignore science if one feels it conflict with ones religious faith. A majority of Christians do not have such a conflict, but some Christians (and some Muslims, some Jews, etc.) do--and that is a freedom they have under our constitution.
It is an interesting set of examples you offer of other theories. They did indeed become established as true, but by means of science, not by denying science--except for spontaneous generation, which was demonstrated to not occur. And in the case of the heliocentrism, it was established by science despite the opposition of the church, for at that time Biblical literalism was indeed 'mainstream' Christian theology.
Why is the dictionary definition inadequate? What special definition of theory are scientists using that they are not letting the general public know about? If it's different, then why isn't in the dictionary as all the other variations on the word are?
" If creation is wrong, prove it. Don't just categorize it as a myth and dismiss it off hand."
Sigh. Not another directive to show *proof*. Theories aren't proved, they are supported by evidence or not supported by evidence. Creationism is not supported by the evidence; natural selection and common descent is.
It has not been dismissed offhand, it has been dealt with scientifically and defeated.
Creations believe that the order and complexity of the universe supports creation. It's just seems hard to believe that even given billions of years random chance could produce that. If there's even an admission that there was an outside force working on it, it opens the door for creation.
These unenlightened professors must be touched by His Noodly Appendage!
Both have the same basic beliefs; they want to destroy scientific inquiry as a method of acquiring knowledge.
That leaves both men and women with 5 prime ribs. Otherwise, one could ask if Eve were created from a prime rib, a unitary rib, or just a composite rib.
"If "ID is philosophy", fine."
ID includes criticism of the current philosophy of science.
"Teach it in philosophy class."
Then why don't we teach evolution in a philosophy class? The point being that cosmology is based on philosophical assumptions. An evolutionary cosmology is just as philosophical as ID, it just doesn't admit to it.
"ut science does not assume that if we don't have perfect knowledge of how something works, then it must be the result of a deity."
Nor does ID. In fact, if we don't have a good knowledge of how something works, the design inference is not usable. The Design Inference is only usable when there is a very good knowledge on the material processes involved.
Of course, if we don't have good knowledge about how evolution works, how can intelligent guidance be excluded from it? This would just be a philosophical preference included by people with a philosophical axe to grind, not an inference from the data. If we _do_ have good knowledge, then the explanatory filter can be used to decide between design and non-design.
"Such a philosophy is death to science. Because if God did everything that we can't explain, then where's the motivation to find out what we don't know?"
This is the most ludicrous concepts I've ever heard. (a) noone says that God did everything that we can't explain. Noone. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Complete straw man. As to the motivation, science got its start with religious motivation -- to determine how God set up the world. In fact, it was the assumptions of a reliable, understandable God that gave us the faith to believe that the world was also reliable and understandable. So, contrary to be against inquiry, believing in God creating was the entire foundation for inquiry to begin with.
Let's take young-earth creationism. Do the scientists in young-earth creationism just say "oh, God did it, let's stop understanding it". No. Instead, they seek diligently to determine what it is that God created, which processes should be attributed to him and which to material causes, and what insight that we can learn from the way that God set up nature.
"In order to teach a theory is in error, you must have substantiating evidence. That evidence will contradict the current understanding of the subject in question. Therefore, the student in ill prepared."
So you think the best way to prepare a student for science is to prevent the student from even seeing conflicting data? And you would call such a thing science?
Not only do creationists want to do away with biology, geology, physics, chemistry, and astronomy, they also want to do away with mathematics. When I was teaching, they were mostly against imaginary numbers being treated on an equal footing with real numbers.
Yeah, that's true. I'm a high school senior who used A beka biology when I was in 10th grade. When I took a practice NYS regents test, I got about 90% on evolution. The practice test was an actual test that was given to students a few years ago.
His daughter got the perfect score, not the poster.
"What they want are students who understand the principles of research."
But the same still applies. You have to show that they actually aren't teaching such principles, not just that their conclusions are different.
You are still missing the difference between _teaching/understanding_ and _believing_. The former is required, but to require the latter is viewpoint discrimination.
If the students didn't know the methodologies and assumptions, that would be problematic. If they didn't understand the principles of research, that would also be problematic. However, if they knew of different principles IN ADDITION TO the other ones, then it is truly viewpoint discrimination to penalize them.
If someone knows all of the data, understands the principles, and is even able to apply them, yet disagrees, and they are forced into remedial theory until they "believe correctly", that is called BRAINWASHING.
So far, there hasn't been any 'conflicting' data. There is no controversy in the scientific community.
Understandibly; they were probably too "Complex" for them!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.