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."
Some of us non-math folk would like to do away with them too. Also numbers ending in 7. :-)
That's funny! Did this innocent Adam understand the concept of "death" at the time? Or the idea of threats in general?
"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."
Hello? What in the world does math or physics or chemistry have to do with evolution? And why would creationists not like imaginary numbers? I have never met any creationists who want to do away with all science and math.
I tend to agree that individuals who perform well and demonsrate their knowledge should get credit for their achievement and not be penalized because of their school.
If you can earn college credit by taking a test, you should be able to demonstrate objectively that your high school credits are valid.
This does not contradict my belief that science is an activity rather than a list of facts.
"So far, there hasn't been any 'conflicting' data. There is no controversy in the scientific community."
These are two separate statements which have little to do with each other. And they both happen to be false. If by "no controversy" you mean "by ignoring the scientists we disagree with there is no controversy" then you are correct. Or if you say "because of the argument from the authority of the NAS there is no controversy" then you are correct. But to say "no controversy at all" is simply to ignore facts. There are well-published biologists who disagree.
As for the evidence, well, that's pretty clear. Even Dawkins says that biology is the study of things which have the appearance of being designed for a purpose. And, until he comes up with a mechanism that is SHOWN AND DEMONSTRATED to provide the complexity that these animals exhibit in complex organs and even cellular activities, then the obvious that everyone admits to has the weight of the evidence. If X appears to be Y, then it is up to those who disbelieve Y to offer proof, not the other way around. The reason we believe that, counter to appearance, that time is not absolute, is because it has been sufficiently, experimentally proven. Without such proof, requiring that everyone believe you just because you say so is authoritarian, not scientific.
Dembski and Behe have shown mathematically why evolution doesn't work. The only defence I've seen against Dembski's "Searching Large Spaces" paper is that evolution doesn't follow a mathematical model. And yet, supposedly, its just as proven as gravity! Oi vey, the scientific theory that refuses to be mathematically modelled trying to make claims against creationists.
Unfortunately, ever since Darwin, imagination has become the equivalent of proof in the biological community, provided that the imagination is pro-Darwinian.
You have a soul and it's eternal.
Very facile. Now, how about applying that directly to God's words to Adam in Gen. 2:17. Is it your suggestion that the correct interpretation of God's admonition is that only Adam's soul would die if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? And if that is the case, why would the knowledge of good and evil cause Adam's soul to die (my first question, if you were following the series of posts).
-- What's the correct interpretation of the word "death" in connection therewith (e.g., complete spiritual death; a spiritual death capable of remediation; immediate physical death; delayed physical death; the death (spiritual and/or physical) of man alone; the physical death (immediate or delayed) of man-plus-certain-selected-biological-life-forms (with which life forms included and excluded?); the physical death (immediate or delayed) of man-plus-all-biological-life-forms; etc., etc.)
"The reason we believe that, counter to appearance, that time is not absolute, is because it has been sufficiently, experimentally proven. Without such proof, requiring that everyone believe you just because you say so is authoritarian, not scientific."
You really don't want to know how science works do you?
Genesis 2:16-17 states:
"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
What is the correct interpretation of the word "die" (or the reference to death) in that passage? My parenthetical examples in the original question are just some of the interpretations that have been proffered over time.
And this was the second question in my original post. The first one was -- what is the correct interpretation of the correlation between man's acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil and the consequence of death (whatever that "death" may be).
That's the problem with ID and creationsism. There is no evidence, let alone proof. There is tons of evidence for evolution. Appearance of design is not proof of design.
Dembski and Behe have shown mathematically why evolution doesn't work.
Actually, they have not shown anything of the sort. They tried to work with abiogenesis, not evolution. There is a big difference. you should look it up. And secondly, their work is not chemically valid. they applied mathematics without using sufficient chemical knowledge.
"They tried to work with abiogenesis, not evolution."
---
Then why are they slammed for being against evolution when their work is with abiogenesis?
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.
Must have hit a nerve. So I'll grind it in a bit.
The iconic explanation of ID is Behe's Flagellum "irreducible complexity" argument. Since science did not at the time have a good explanation for how the flagellum evolved, Behe made a philosophic argument that it was designed based solely on our then lack of knowledge. Had science accepted that argument, there would have been no work done to understand it's evolution. The research on flagellum evolution has since explained away Behe's argument, but like typical ideologues, the ID and creationism advocates don't recognize that they've lost that fight.
Behe was satisfied that he had the answer, based on a lack of knowledge. That provides motivation to halt further science.
ID is anti-science at it's core.
science got its start with religious motivation -- to determine how God set up the world.
Very true. But religion has abandoned acceptance of most of science purely on the basis of faith, not on evidence.
My particular theory is that faith has acted as a filter, dividing people between those who can understand abstract logic, vs. those who operate emotionally. Thus churches are filled with those who get teary eyed at the story of Christ dying for their sins, and have thus bought into a simplistic faith based explanation of their existence. Some denominations literally drive scientists from their memberships.
When science was beginning as an avocation, the acceptance of faith was nearly universal. But the population is now divided, and some denominations are taking advantage of that to radicalize the minds of their believers. I'm not comfortable with what that might do to western civilization in the long run.
By the way, it's "No one", not "Noone".
It's not a debate. You're asking for the "correct" meaning of death. Why would you accept some anonymous person on the internet as an authority?
Of course it is. It's hard to believe that you've been participating on this forum as long as you have and have somehow concluded that this is not a debate. Besides, there's nothing wrong with debate. It's how we learn other viewpoints.
You're asking for the "correct" meaning of death.
No. I'm asking for the "correct interpretation" of the word "die" in Genesis 2:17. Please go back and read wallcrawlr's post that led to that question, and the question itself.
Why would you accept some anonymous person on the internet as an authority?
Huh? Why do you converse on this site? Maybe because you enjoy it and learn from it? How novel.
Now go back and read both wallcrawlr's posts and my posts (which also include clarifications of my question due to inartfulness on my part in initially phrasing it).
I'm asking wallcrawlr to defend his assertion that there is only one "correct interpretation" of the Bible by providing the "correct interpretation" of Genesis 2:16-17. He may indeed provide what he believes to be a "correct interpretation" (and it may indeed be an interpretation with which I presently agree). Or he may understand that there are, in fact, a great many persuasive interpretations, revealing the notion that there is a singular "correct interpretation" to be the chimera it is (which, of course, is precisely why we continue to study the Bible and don't presume that our past readings have revealed all).
I would disagree with that statement. I'm sure that Behe knows he is a charlatan and is quite happy with the money he makes selling pseudo science books to fools who have their minds preset on rebuking science when they buy them. What was it P T Barnum said?
Anyone who claims the Earth is 6,000 (or even 10,000) years old is just plain ignorant, regardless of his religion.
There are plenty of Protestant sects and/or schools that accept modern science. The UC system is only attempt to exclude those who make themselves willfully ignorant of it.
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.