Posted on 08/13/2008 9:44:45 AM PDT by Sopater
A federal judge has ruled the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.
Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, told the Chronicle that the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What is taking so long is that there are so many papers on the subject of directed evolution of proteins evolving to tolerate heat that it is difficult to find that particular one where they covered every Single nucleotide polymorphism. Why do you deny that it is mathematically possible to do so, will me finding it change your opinion about anything?
How is this to tide you over; it shows how bacteria respond to stress by increasing its own mutation rate (now why would it want to do that?)....
Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Sep-Oct;42(5):373-97. Links
Stress-induced mutagenesis in bacteria.Foster PL.
Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA. plfoster@indiana.edu
Bacteria spend their lives buffeted by changing environmental conditions. To adapt to and survive these stresses, bacteria have global response systems that result in sweeping changes in gene expression and cellular metabolism. These responses are controlled by master regulators, which include: alternative sigma factors, such as RpoS and RpoH; small molecule effectors, such as ppGpp; gene repressors such as LexA; and, inorganic molecules, such as polyphosphate. The response pathways extensively overlap and are induced to various extents by the same environmental stresses. These stresses include nutritional deprivation, DNA damage, temperature shift, and exposure to antibiotics. All of these global stress responses include functions that can increase genetic variability. In particular, up-regulation and activation of error-prone DNA polymerases, down-regulation of error-correcting enzymes, and movement of mobile genetic elements are common features of several stress responses. The result is that under a variety of stressful conditions, bacteria are induced for genetic change. This transient mutator state may be important for adaptive evolution.
PMID: 17917873 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
And if a gambler looses or wins at dice, is that not God’s will, even if the dice rolls are demonstrably random?
==Why do you deny that it is mathematically possible to do so, will me finding it change your opinion about anything?
No, I just want to read the entire study to make sure you didn’t miss any data or conclusions that might point to epigenetics or Creation.
I have to go for now. I’ll read the “tide you over” paper when I return.
All the best—GGG
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/08/more_on_the_california_creatio.php
Now, given what I've heard about Bob Jones University, I figured that any biology text that they produce would be unlike any I'd read before. So I trotted on over to the Bob Jones University Press website to see what I could find. Looking over their list of books for "conventional schools", I found a textbook for a 10th grade biology class. The price is a bit high for me, given the quality, so I didn't order it. However, the website has a nice "see the inside of this book" feature that gives access to the frontmatter, preface, introduction, and a sample chapter. After looking at it, I think I understand why UC has problems with it.
From the Introduction:
That's funny. There I was thinking that science is a universal concept, open to anyone who is willing to study the natural world. I had no idea that there are things in science that can only be understood if you believe what these folks do.
Let's see. What we have here is a "science" textbook, written by people who have made a conscious effort to put science second. Wow. What possible reason could the University of California have for being concerned about the quality of classes using this book?
It's nice to see how willing they are to keep an open mind about things.
Believe it or not, the book actually seems to get worse. The sample chapter provided on the website is Chapter One: The Science of Life and the God of Life. Page nine is a box that is labeled as one of the book's "Facets of Biology". The title of this particular facet is: "How God Communicates with Man". In it, we find:
If you want to know what this has to do with science, or why it appears in a science book, you'll have to ask someone else, because I've got no clue. It must be one of those aspects of science that perplexes those who lack the BJU-approved beliefs.
There's another Facet later in the chapter, dealing with spontaneous generation. It spans three pages, and concludes with this creationist gem:
This chapter of the text also has some material that discusses evolution:
Looking at just the available samples from this text, I'm not surprised that UC declines to accept courses using it as the primary material as valid. I am surprised that there are apparently some schools that do.
By the way, the examples that I've quoted are by no means a comprehensive listing of everything that's wrong with the material I read. They are simply a few of the more egregious examples illustrating the comprehensively unscientific nature of this book. A thorough examination would have taken far more time than I have, and would simply have depressed me further.
Good work. I have a couple of books by Dembski and Behe. It’s always good to see what the opposition is saying, unfiltered by forum posts and quote mining.
I wonder how the CA Univ. would feel about a Christian Student who was taught BOTH Creationism, and the Theory of Evolution? IMHO, that is what these Christian schools should be doing in regards to evolution/creation. In order to truly debate a subject you must know “both sides”.
It would be a win-win for the students - they can attend whatever college they would like, and still get the foundational education their parents want for them (faith-based). Plus, they will have been taught critical thinking skills - something seriously lacking in most public education curriculums.
ALL:
One thing I’ve always wondered about... In Genesis it states that God made the animals “each after their kind”... I’ve always wondered if this refers to a natural evolution of some sort (God doesn’t need to be taken out of this equation!)? Meaning that God instilled some basic apparatus in our DNA for adaptation to our environment. It would take a while to completely explain my views on this as they are definitely a mix of creationism, and SOME parts of evolution theory - but I definitely do NOT think we evolved from APES!
What exactly is a kind?
It is a common misconception by those not familiar with evolution to believe that evolution teaches that we evolved from apes and repeat this fallacy.
The conclusion of the paper you cited is especially interesting. They see that epigentic inheritance seems especially transitory, yet conclude that the resulting major changes in body plan that can result could bring about major evolution once the different methylation pattern is established.
http://www.dbmi.columbia.edu/~xiw7002/xiaoyan_files/N_genetics.pdf
Because of the inherent instability of epigenetic inheritance, fixation of an epigenetically-determined phenotype is probably less stable than fixation through a genetic selection mechanism. Waddington, for example, was unable to reduce the frequency of the crossveinless phenotype in negative selection experiments once the phenotype was fixed17. In contrast, after only two or
three generations of negative selection, we observed a complete reversion to wild-type frequency of ectopic outgrowth in our sensitized iso-KrIf-1 strain in the geldanamycin selection experiment (data not shown). Similarly, epigenetic traits such as color
variegation or cold adaptation in plants are unstably inherited18,19. Therefore, a combination of both epigenetic and genetic mechanisms is probably required to explain the rapid changes in body plans that are observed in the fossil record20
If you mean modern apes, that is correct. However, if you use the term ape to refer to a family classification, we still are apes.
I don't believe even you could say something this stupid.
(Actually, I take it back. I do believe it.)
I suppose that’s the next logical step after failing in the field and laboratory and in the courtroom.
Do you have any scientific evidence for that pitifully low frequency of beneficial mutations?
(And you better be careful talking about millions of years or your YEC buddies will get after you.)
The theory of evolution, and all other science, follows the evidence where it leads.
A number of religious beliefs have been shown to be inaccurate in the past. For example, evil spirits do not cause disease, and thunder is a natural occurrence.
If you choose to believe something that gets overturned by science, don't complain to science.
In other words, they can make up any damn thing they want, on the fly, and there is no need for any evidence whatsoever. Creation "science" at its best.
Thanks; I'll stick to science. You know, evidence and all that stuff.
Now, if naturalism is not true but is purely philosophical; then those 'material explanations' are counter-intuitive because they are wrong.
I suppose its my posts you are misrepresenting, as usual. Here is what science says about truth (and TRVTH):
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.Note, it is not me saying that. That definition is from a CalTech website.
And I don't know why you creationists are so worried about science and the assumption of naturalism. If you think you can get better results using some other method, well go do it! Don't complain to us because our results contradict your a priori beliefs. If you want to disprove science and the assumptions it uses quit complaining and do some research. Or whatever it is you do.
No. Absolutely wrong. In science "theory" has a very specific meaning, and "any supposition" is not it.
Check my FR home page for some useful definitions, and perhaps you won't make this kind of mistake again.
God is the only natural thing out there. Everything else was created.
Are we both agreed that this is where the next battleground will be fought between creationists and evolutionists? And it makes me wonder (to quote LedZep) about the citrate plus e.coli. Namely, what would happen if they removed the citrate diet? If after removing the citrate diet the e.cole reverted back to the original after X number of generations, then the so-called random mutations would not have been random at all, but rather epigenetic responses to environmental stresses (which has been my suspicion all along, btw).
The point here is that Government schools are discriminating and restricting access to public education for Christian college students. It’s a slippery slope and ludicrous decision that denies and overlooks the fact that their University system admits thousands of students from abroad to insure diversification. Unless they are researching all courses and textbooks in multiple languages from their applicant students, they have no way of discerning what science text coincides with their admissions expectations.
If students have complied with their private school requirements and have demonstrated the superior testing scores necessary to be granted admission, there should be no reason to deny admissions or modify the requirements against students attending non-government schools.
This is a fight for domination, control, and monopoly over the sale of textbooks (written by CA professors, perhaps) and education which is driven by an overzealous California University System and Teacher’s Union.
Since 1-2 science courses are required for a Liberal Arts or Business Degree, what’s the problem? The CA Universities can teach or indoctrinate their viewpoints at the collegiate level to every college student. Therefore, the admission of the Christian student should be viewed as an oppotunity to convert a mind, rather than reject the student. Obviously, this is not the case. The decision is about keeping public school teachers K-12 employed and forcing the private or homeschool students into their system. It is also about restricting access to public affordable education to qualified students. It is discrimination based on religion.
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.