University of California system sued over creationism

National Center for Science Education ^ | 08 September 2005 | Staff

[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."

[Elsie]

 

There are plenty of conservative Christians who have no problem with evolution.

---

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.  If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and then of the New Testament writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.   Was Paul WRONG about this???

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "Of course tissue rejection, and a number of other issues in applied biology, such as growing human parts replacements on pigs, or anticipating cross-grafts that will bear fruit, has quite a bit to do with mutational distances between the entities in question."

You are making the assumption that relationship = evolutionary relationship. You can certainly compare the tissues, the organs, the antigens, and the DNA of one species and another, and make all the observations necessary to predict the success or the rejection of a graft. This may be, but is not necessarily related to the two species having diverged from a common ancestor two, or five, or ten million years ago.

In other words, the distances between the entities in question, doesn't have to be explained by reference to remote origins. It can be observed directly. That's apparently what this incompetent surgeon, Bailey, did not do.

[Elsie]

Proud?

Because Narby claims MY stubborn cling to Creationism has caused HIM to abondon his faith?

Why Should I be?

Ask HIM why HE is so easily influnced by Luddites like me.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "I suppose that's possibly true, much as you might assume that because there were a hole in the fence, and the cat had feathers hanging from his mouth, and some of your chickens were missing--that space aliens teleported your chickens to another dimension.

Good one, donh --- that raised a smile :o)

But if, say, you don't have a cat, just like you don't have an inconceivable number of finely gradated intermediate forms down there in the geologic column amongst the prokaryotes --- but you do have the feathers, the hole, the missing chicken, etc.--- a perfectly reasonable response might be, "Maybe the chicken escaped on its own. Or maybe it was grabbed by (1)a fox, (2)a snake, (3)a dog, (4)a cat or (5)a small boy. Bottom line, I don't know."

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote, "The argument for evolutionary theory does not rest on observing every minute step in the process, any more than the theory of universal gravitation relies on observing its effects in every square inch of the known universe, or the theory of continental drift relies on someone seeing south america and africa separate."

This is true; but whereas we have, for instance, measured the effect of gravity many many times, on objects as diverse as motes of dust and galaxies, your argument rests on the assumption that the elaboration of new types of organs, systems, and body plans has actually been observed somewhere, sometime, even once, which it has not. Volley back, please. I could learn. <..>

[atlaw]

Concerning Gen 2:17 there is a correct interpretation.

And that is?

[Tribune7]

Concerning Gen 2:17 there is a correct interpretation. And that is?

That something really, really bad happened.

[atlaw]

Please don't post to me again. You are impenetrably ignorant, you have absolutely nothing of value to say, and you are an embarrassment to Christians everywhere.

[From many - one.]

Could your wife comment on "dust" since snakes don't eat dust?

[From many - one.]

You didn't answer my question.

Are you proud of your role in Narby's loss of faith?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"...it has been dealt with scientifically and defeated." (me)

"Not so!"

Yes, so.

I am talking about so-called creation *science*. YEC. Not theistic evolution.

[donh]

In other words, the distances between the entities in question, doesn't have to be explained by reference to remote origins.

no, it doesn't. It could be explained by tree sprites, or wikkan spells. However, what science likes to deal in is tidy stories that seem to have great predictive consistency and potency, and are fairly economic to arrange tests for that could easily yield negative results if the theory were, in fact, invalid & explain otherwise puzzling things such as, for example, why all living entities can pretty much all eat each other, given, at most, a few intermediate consumers.

It can be observed directly.

Observing things indirectly is a prefectly legitimate, common, and necessary way to do science.

[donh]

But if, say, you don't have a cat, just like you don't have an inconceivable number of finely gradated intermediate forms down there in the geologic column amongst the prokaryotes --- but you do have the feathers, the hole, the missing chicken, etc.--- a perfectly reasonable response might be, "Maybe the chicken escaped on its own. Or maybe it was grabbed by (1)a fox, (2)a snake, (3)a dog, (4)a cat or (5)a small boy. Bottom line, I don't know."

Equally, it could be God that created life, or it could be Santa Claus, or it could be the Pleadian reptile people who will be back shortly to harvest the delicious crop they planted, and made easy to harvest by introducing christian meekness and charity.

Science has a very narrow focus--it deals in elegant predictive notions it can do something with: attack and/or verify in fine detail. That doesn't make its theories necessarily better or more correct, but it does make them necessarily science.

[donh]

This is true; but whereas we have, for instance, measured the effect of gravity many many times, on objects as diverse as motes of dust

Which are local, and only demonstrate local micro-gravity.

and galaxies,

Which are much further scattered from each other in the cosmos than fossil creatures are in the geological record, and whose evidence is fossil light that is millions of years old.

your argument rests on the assumption that the elaboration of new types of organs, systems, and body plans has actually been observed somewhere, sometime, even once, which it has not. Volley back, please.

Your arguement rests on an assumption about the action of gravity at a distance that cannot be verified in the entire reach of the intergalactic void.

Similarly, you have no first-hand evidence from anyone that continents drift. A few earthquakes and volcanos around an apparent crescent ring could just as easily be explained as volcanos attempting to herd.

I could learn. <..>

If I might offer a humble suggestion, it might be more of a learning experience to look at the primary sources, and try to understand why a vast majority of scientists, who bath in the primary sources daily, think darwinian evolution is the most securely demonstrated scientific theory we possess. I guarantee that, notwithstanding opinions I've seen expressed in these threads, it is not because they are all left-wing punks engaged in a vast conspiracy to implement communism by covering up the real evidence, and polluting our minds with Darwin's teachings--or venal, intellectually cowardly liars that suppress the real evidence in order to keep their cushy jobs.

These arguments are fun, but the weight of scientific reasoning lies where the rubber hits the road.

[atlaw]

Thank-you for your thoughtful reply. I have seen one suggested translation, by the way, that replaces "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" with "if you eat of its fruit, you will be doomed to die" (emphasis added). I tend to think that this translation, while a valiant effort to reconcile the conflict between the threat of death and the subsequent long life of Adam, is impermissibly loose.

It is a difficult passage, but it seems to me consistent with the otherwise curious and anomalous juxtapositions found in Genesis 1-3. For example:

-- the patent metaphoric phenomena (e.g., "trees" that stand in for the conceptual rudiments of life and the knowledge of good and evil, temptation anthropomorphized as a serpent) are contrasted for apparently deliberate effect against mundane natural phenomena (herbs, rivers, deltas, birds, etc.);

-- woman is described as being created from a rib, a piece of the structural cage surrounding the heart of man, and this description is followed immediately by a description of marriage as the leaving of father and mother and the cleaving to wife (what father and mother?);

-- the lack of death prior to the threat in 2:17, and the consequent inexplicability of God threatening death to someone who would otherwise have no concept of it;

-- the very civilized references to gold, bdellium, onyx, and lapis lazuli in the garden, elemental basics of currency and ornamentation for which Adam would have no use or knowledge.

The passage is also of a piece with the notion that "Adam" is a representative whole in Genesis 1-3, and not a discrete individual. Although I have seen efforts to parse and distinguish the generic use of adam as the Hebrew common noun for man from a more specific use of Adam as a singular individual in these early chapters, they are, for me, rather unpersuasive.

I therefore view the passage as of a piece with the metaphoric whole of the Genesis creation account. In simplistic terms, the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a metaphor for the development of sentience in man, for the appearance of the capacity to exercise free will. And Elsie, I do not view it as merely an act of generic disobedience, since this capacity to choose wrong is substantively broader than ordinary sins of omission and commission -- it is an earmark of human capacity, an ability to, by deliberation, distinguish between right and wrong and choose to perceive wrong as right.

The ultimate metaphoric suggestion seems to be that, when we choose evil, fellowship with God is broken resulting in spiritual death. And this metaphoric interpretation certainly appears consistent with the recitation of the long and productive life of the discrete individual, Adam, which commences as a distinct demarcation in Genesis 4.

The death referenced in 2:17, then, suggests an estrangement from God borne of the capcity to perceive good and evil, not a physical or biological death (immediate or delayed).

This is also entirely consistent with the later appearance of Christ as the sacrificial path back to fellowship with God. In short, as Paul stated in Ephesians: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; . . . Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved).”

[RunningWolf]

It is interesting that you have defined things about science, its focus, its concerns, its cares, its opinion, etc. like science is a conscious rational thing & entity when science is a methodology, used by people and each science stands on its own.

What is also interesting is the analogies that posters like yourself use to define concepts you revile & while not claiming to be a scientist, ostensibly speak for science on these threads. This is gathered from the amount of material you put on these threads.

I gather from your writings that you cannot describe the creation of life and its origin, that 'science is still working on it' and yet it is seems a perfect argument for you to include (the being that is beyond all human conception) as equal with concepts that Santa Claus, the Pleadian reptile people, etc. etc. were the origins of life.

That is the revealing thing, not a msg board debate, but the pejorative analogies and metaphors that spew out of your & others mouths under the guise of intelligent argument.

Now I ask you.. Do the writings here of donh (and several of the rest on these threads) represent the methodology, the logic, the core of science and its scientists? Or are these things just the world as donh sees it?

Wolf

[balrog666]

I started as an altar boy working at the church
Learning all my holy moves doing some research
Which led me to a cash box labelled "Children's Fund"
I'd leave the change and tuck the bills inside my cumberbund

I got a part-time job at my father's carpet store
Laying tackless stripping and housewives by the score
I loaded up their furniture and took it to Spokane
Auctioned off every last naugahyde divan

I'm very well acquainted with the seven deadly sins
I keep a busy schedule trying to fit them in
I'm proud to be a glutton and I don't have time for sloth
I'm greedy and I'm angry and I don't care who I cross

CHORUS
I'm Mr. Bad Example, intruder in the dirt
I llike to have a good time and I don't care who gets hurt
I'm Mr. Bad Example, take a look at me
I'll live to be a hundred and go down in history

Of course I went to law school and got a law degree
And counselled all my clients to plead insanity
Then worked in hair replacement swindling the bald
Where very few are chosen, fewer still are called

Then on to Monte Carlo play chemin de fer
I threw away the fortune I made transplanting hair
I put my last few francs down on a prostitute
Who took me up to her room to perform the flag salute

Whereupon I stole her passport and her wig
And headed for the airport and the midnight flight, you dig?
Fourteen hours later I was down in Adelaide
Looking through the want ads sipping Foster's in the shade

I opened up an agency somewhere down the line
To hire aboriginals to work the opal mines
But I attached their wages and took a whopping cut
And whisked away their workman's comp and pauperized the lot

CHORUS

I bought a first class ticket on Malaysian Air
Landed in Sri Lanka none the worse for wear
I'm thinking of retiring from all my dirty deals
See you in the next life, wake me up for meals

-Warren Zevon, 1991

[balrog666]

I gather from your writings that you cannot describe the creation of life and its origin, that 'science is still working on it'

You want a published conclusion before the research is complete? That's the way religion works, not science.

... and yet it is seems a perfect argument for you to include (the being that is beyond all human conception) as equal with concepts that Santa Claus, the Pleadian reptile people, etc. etc. were the origins of life.

You have misunderstood what was said. The argument is that "there is the same amount of evidence for (the being that is beyond all human conception) as for Santa Claus or the Pleadian (sic) reptile people or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or...".

[woodb01]

-- woman is described as being created from a rib, a piece of the structural cage surrounding the heart of man, and this description is followed immediately by a description of marriage as the leaving of father and mother and the cleaving to wife (what father and mother?);

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just dealing with this ONE example for illustration purposes, here's the issue. You are interpreting these passages from the first person perspective. From the perspective of Adam and / or Eve as the authors.

To the best of my knowledge, no biblical scholar attributes the first book of the Bible to Adam / Eve. It is often referred to as part of the "Penteteuch" or the First Five Books. (IF I remember correctly), it is attributed to Moses, or some other ancient author who was far removed from the events of the Garden. However, as with nearly all cultures, stories, commentaries, songs, and other means of transmitting the culture were **likely** written down by the author if the First five books.

So, from that perspective, inserting LATER learned knowledge and understanding (i.e. hindsight is 20/20) would not have been unusual. Conteporaneous references to leaving mother and father in reference to the importance of marriage would not have been unusual to mix in with the earlier understandings and thereby "completing" the story.

Understanding both the author and the context does not make any of the references you refer to unusual. They would only be unusual coming from Adam or Eve CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with the events. Potentially, they could have come from Adam or Eve (though unlikely) far later in their lives after they gained greater understanding themselves.

These are not inconsistencies when you consider that the Old Testament to the Bible was specifically written originally for the descendents of Abraham / Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lastly, the "metaphoric phenomena" you refer to are only metaphor if you don't believe that God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and they were given specific instructions not to eat of the fruit of a particular tree which they then disobeyed. That is the crux of the "original sin" and if you don't believe in the "original sin" then you have excused the need for a Savior to be reconciled BACK to God. I.e. the division was caused by the "original sin" and the price was a life for that original sin to be RECONCILED BACK to God. To be able to RESTORE that relationship with God.

In the process, Christians believe there is a savior in the person Jesus Christ who lived a blameless life, and because he was both flesh, and lived a blameless life, he was a proper substitute for the "original sin." For that matter, he was the replacement for all of the substitute animal deaths (animal sacrifices) that were previously used to atone for sin.

Let me be a little more blunt, if you're looking for a reason NOT to accept that you are a sinner and in need of Salvation, treating the Biblical account of the original sin as "metaphorical" certainly excsues the need for Salvation. If someone doesn't want to place their faith and trust in an intelligent designer, that is a conscious decision. There is no need for silly rationalizations.

For me, it is easier to believe in an intelligent designer than the spontaneous, miraculous, fanatical believe that out of nothing, everything suddenly "was" (Big Bang), and then from that nothing that become something, that dead matter "miraculously" created life in itself. And then from that disordered chaos, enough magically miraculous accidents took place to create the plethora of species, and then from that miraculous set of accidents that there is no fossil record to account for it. And then from that magically miraculous and mystical variation of life, that somehow a sentient life form emerged, and then from that, more and more complex mechanisms were created from vastly infinite accidents. Then you have more faith than I will EVER be able to believe in! In the pure, raw, unadulterated, fanatical blind faith category, I'm too weak minded to have that much fanatically zealous faith!

If your purpose is to find a way not to face your need for Salvation, then that is your decision. There is no need to rationalize the Genesis account away to do that. Just simply be big enough to refuse to accept the Salvation that is freely given. At least then when we ALL stand before God, the God of the account in Genesis, you can then admit that you flatly rejected his account in Genesis. At least that is a more "honest" position that trying to rationalize what Genesis says away.

[donh]

Now I ask you.. Do the writings here of donh (and several of the rest on these threads) represent the methodology, the logic, the core of science and its scientists? Or are these things just the world as donh sees it?

Does it come as a big relevation to you that discussions on a conservative political discussion board are not the same thing as science?

Since I pretty much just explained the distinction between my opinions and the scientific evidence, not-so-sly innuendo to the effect that there is something disrespectable about my having opinions about how science works doesn't even rise to the level of a decent insult.