University of California system sued over creationism

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."

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.

Where on earth did you get this perfectly bizarre idea? Sheesh.

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 excuses the need for Salvation.

That piece of insulting tripe must, of course, be coupled with this equally stunning piece of verbal vomit.

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.

For crying out loud. Why is it that every conversation about Christianity on these threads ends up with ridiculous assertions like this? Let me be blunt. You are full of irrational, self righteous, and accusatory hot air. But then, that's the new and improved Christian fundamentalist for ya'.

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.

Or critical thought. I get the point. Don't actually think about scriptures. It's a sin.

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, etc., etc., blah, blah, deliberate misrepresentation on top of deliberate misrepresentation . . ."

By the way. It's even easier if you don't think at all, and just go play golf.

. . .treating the Biblical account of the original sin as "metaphorical" certainly excuses the need for Salvation.

And here you reveal that you have no understanding at all of the import of metaphor in religious dialog, and that you do not remotely understand the concept of original sin.

I sincerely apologize for implying in my last post that you are a thoughtful, or remotely well-mannered, correspondent.

Actually your responses are making the point. I have asked you honestly directly some questions to answer directly. You have not not done that, you have been evasive, replaced my questions with your questions, made presumptions about me that are not there.

Science does not think does not have opinions does not make conclusions, inferences etc, People do. I hate it that this must be spoon fed to you, sorry if it sounds insulting.

1st. I do not believe that most of the people that you accuse to speak for God actually do or believe they or infer that they do. That is another 'coat' you hang on them.

2nd, No it is not a revelation to me that discussions on a discussion board are not the same thing as science. I wanted to put what passes for intelligent scientific debate here in context.

3rd. I am not suggesting there is a problem with you trying to communicate by analogy or metaphor.

Now I will repeat the questions just one more time. This is between donh and runningwolf, for the infinite being beyond all infinity eternity IS and beyond all comprehension and mans words to describe.

I do not expect you to behave any different than you have, to have any more honest less evasive, better or more answers.

The pejorative analogies and metaphors that spew out of your & others mouths under the guise of intelligent argument are more a reflection of where donh springs from than anything else.

Now I ask you again and finally and pertaining to (specifically the cult of of cosmology and evolution).. Do the writings here of donh (and several of the rest on these threads) represent the methodology, the logic, the most astute thinking, the core of scientists & science? Or are these things just the world as donh sees it? Or both?

Wolf

You wrote: :"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.." Well, tidy stories are great, especially for children; but the Just-So Stories I’ve heard sometimes leave me as skeptical as before.
For instance, Darwin himself proposed a major test which would either uphold or falsify his claims. He made a prediction that “under” the Cambrian strata we would find an inconceivably large number of ancestral and transitional forms. Now that the Ediacaran forms have been ruled out as direct links to the Cambrian invertebrates (turns out they were lichens--- Gould and others had long doubted that they were ancestors)--- we’re again facing slim pickins, evidence-wise. Commenting on the puzzling status of the Ediacaran (Vendian) fossils, the Russian paleontologist Mikhail Fedonkin writes:
”We are now in the situation Charles Darwin found himself in about 150 years ago. He was puzzled by the absence of the ancestors of the Cambrian invertebrates, considering this fact as a strong argument against his theory of gradualistic evolution of species. We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian fauna as well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state."
Whatever happened to the idea of transmissible changes + selection working gradually, incrementally, and ceaselessly, to produce a seamless continuum of a huge number of transitional forms?

I like a Just-So Story that can predict the future. But apparently Darwinism couldn’t even predict the past.

From your own familiarity with the evidence, would you do the favor of critiquing the following statement? It's a kind of declaration of scientific agnosticism, which accords with what (I think) I know so far:

---------------------------------------------------

This planet abounds with many different life-forms. What mechanism accounts for this, I do not know.

However, looking at the fossil record, I observe that it didn't happen via infinitesimally small modifications accumulating in descendants over vast stretches of time. The fossils show an overwhelming pattern of stasis (conservation of forms) over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, punctuated by mass extinctions apparently due to planet-wide catastrophes, followed by the rapid appearance of strikingly new forms.

Darwinism predicted all the wrong things: exceedingly gradual, incremental modifications, accompanied by even more gradual extinctions of "progenitor" species, evidenced by an inconceivably large number of intermediate forms.

We have no experience with genetic mutations accumulating in organisms and causing them evolve complex, efficient new organs and systems. To use one example: if DNA can be compared to a library containing a huge amount of information recorded in books, ionizing radiation --- a significant cause of genetic mutation --- functions like a maniac who runs through the library, pulling out books at random and ripping out the pages. This we know from abundant experimentation and observation.

Our experience shows that random mutations are almost invariably destructive; and that natural selection overwhelming acts as a conservative force, eliminating mutants.

After nearly 150 years of serious efforts, humans have still not been able to produce "life" via abiogenesis; and even when we succeed, as I suppose we will, its explanatory power in terms of evolution is not obvious unless we can also explain how our intensely "designed" laboratory efforts were duplicated 3.5 billion years ago in the nurturant, warm tidal-pool, so familiar to us from the stories our parents told us.

"The fossils show an overwhelming pattern of stasis (conservation of forms) over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, punctuated by mass extinctions apparently due to planet-wide catastrophes,"

No, they are not *apparently due to planet-wide catastrophes*, at least not the vast majority of them. Who told you that? Not scientists.

"We have no experience with genetic mutations accumulating in organisms and causing them evolve complex, efficient new organs and systems."

It would be incredible if we did find new organs and systems in the 150 years or so we have been looking for them. If we did it would be strong evidence against current evolutionary theory.

"Our experience shows that random mutations are almost invariably destructive; and that natural selection overwhelming acts as a conservative force, eliminating mutants."

No it doesn't. The evidence is that the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Some are beneficial and some are deleterious. Most are neither. You need to read the advances beyond 1915.

" After nearly 150 years of serious efforts, humans have still not been able to produce "life" via abiogenesis;"

150 years? This is a joke, right? The effort has barely been more than 50 years, and only in the last 10-20 have most of the advances taken place.

You need to stop reading the comic book versions of evolution and start looking at the actual literature.

Thanks for your response. Let's see if we can tighten up this statement:

"The fossils show an overwhelming pattern of stasis (conservation of forms) over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, punctuated by mass extinctions." (I eliminated the part about planetary catastrophes.)

"We have no experience with genetic mutations accumulating in organisms and causing them evolve complex, efficient new organs and systems." (I let this stand, as I understand you said this is pretty obviously true.)

"Our experience shows that random mutations are almost invariably either neutral or destructive; and that natural selection overwhelming acts as a conservative force, eliminating mutants." (I added the highlighted words for the sake of greater accuracy.)

"After 50 years of serious efforts, humans have still not been able to produce "life" via abiogenesis." (I changed it to "50 years," choosing Stanley Miller's experiments in the 1950's as my starting point. Though he did have predecessors.)

You wrote: "You need to read the advances beyond 1915." Actually, my impression about mutations being harmful stems mostly from my (I'll admit) not-very-recent reading and activism in the 1980's when I was part of the anti-nuclear-arms movement. At the time, I was doing a lot of reading about mutations resulting from ionizing radiation arising from nuclear fission and the diffusion of fission isotopes: it gave me an overwhelming impression that mutation is Not A Good Thing.

More recently (since I became caregiver for my debilitated 91-year-old father) I've been reading about aging, and particularly about the impact of oxidative stress on DNA. This has confirmed my impression that oxidation-related mutation is a significant factor in aging and death. Again, Not A Good Thing.

I value correction when I'm wrong, but don't accuse me of getting my information from 1915-era texts or creationist comic-books. In fact, I have never seen such a thing.

Thanks for your help. I hope to hear more from you.

Actually your responses are making the point.

What point? That you're a world class passive-aggressive who wants to be pleaded with before he's caugh up his opinions?

I have asked you honestly directly some questions to answer directly.

Bullpucky, there isn't anything significantly honest about this sort of behavior. If you have an opinion or an argument, put it on the table, or leave me alone.

You have not not done that, you have been evasive, replaced my questions with your questions, made presumptions about me that are not there.

I'm not your socratic sockpuppet. I believe I'll continue to choose what and how to respond to my deponents, with the expectation that that, in and of itself, is not just cause to insult me.

Science does not think does not have opinions does not make conclusions, inferences etc, People do.

That is a completely insane statement. Science has definite opinions that are remarkably easy to discern, concerning, for example, the large-scale nature of the universe, or whether the sun is a star like other stars, or whether Darwinian evolutionary theory explains why the creatures we see now don't look like the fossilized creatures we dig up.

I hate it that this must be spoon fed to you, sorry if it sounds insulting.

Yea, I can tell how much you hate it from the apologetic way you say it. Looking at this sentence, I think I'll refrain from taking lessons from you on the subject of rhetorical honesty.

Now I will repeat the questions just one more time. This is between donh and runningwolf, for the infinite being beyond all infinity eternity IS and beyond all comprehension and mans words to describe.

Oh for pity's sake. What in the world is this? You need a course in remedial communications.

Now I ask you again and finally and pertaining to (specifically the cult of of cosmology and evolution).. Do the writings here of donh (and several of the rest on these threads) represent the methodology, the logic, the most astute thinking, the core of scientists & science? Or are these things just the world as donh sees it? Or both?

I quite clearly answered this question the first time you asked it--if you have some point to make, than make it, and stop squirreling around. And if you want to continue this dialog, make it in short, clear pithy sentences--this self-important posturing isn't tingling my patience muscle.

I do not believe that most of the people that you accuse to speak for God actually do or believe they or infer that they do. That is another 'coat' you hang on them.

Really? So Young Earth Creationists, who insist that the literal words of Genesis trump science aren't spokesmen for God? People who insist that morality can only consist of following God's commands are not spokesmen for God? If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and swims like a duck--I'm thinking it's a duck.

Please excuse me, but I can't quite work out what you mean by this. Are you saying that "I" am assuming that calculations involving gravity at sidereal orders of magnitude can't be verified?

Let me first of all fess up that this particular line of reasoning is a honey trap for creationists. it's a matter of sad fact that the large-scale implications of the universal law of gravity is presently in pretty sad shape. Large scale calculations are NOT working out in accordance with Einsteinian mechanics in some cases, by an order of magnetude or more. On the other hand, the predictions of what we will find, which we had not, at the time, yet found, in the fossil record--from examining the fossil morphological, and micro-biologically claudistic, large-scale continuity--have been remarkably consistent and on the mark.

Whatever happened to the idea of transmissible changes + selection working gradually, incrementally, and ceaselessly, to produce a seamless continuum of a huge number of transitional forms?

It's not a linear continuum. It's a bushy tree continuum, most of whose branches are ruthlessly trimmed immediately. All you can ever hope to see, either now, or in the fossil record, are the singularly successful species, with wide "gaps" between. With always a few currently active exceptions, such as horses/mules/zebras, or lions/tigers, or llamas/camels, where the speciation is in the process of happening, and marginally successful crossbreeding is still possible.

I like a Just-So Story that can predict the future. But apparently Darwinism couldn’t even predict the past.

Darwinian evolutionary theory does a more spectacular job of predicting what happened in the past, and then finding potentially falsifying verification, than any other natural science. Go with some grad students on an evidence-directed dig, learn why the geology is directing the dig, and see for yourself.

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.