Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts

Fox News ^ | August 13, 2008

[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."

[Alamo-Girl]

Hmmmm ... interesting question. Thanks for the ping!

[tacticalogic]

How do you conclude I was preaching from this discussion?

Subjective determination. You can substitute "preach" with "argue" unless the semantic quibble is your only defense.

[tacticalogic]

How do you conclude I was preaching from this discussion?

Subjective determination. You can substitute "preach" with "argue" unless the semantic quibble is your only defense.

[tacticalogic]

Or is simply a matter of adhering to the correct belief system of Darwinism, no matter what the level of academic performance?

I don't think anything short of accepting an exclusively YEC Creationism curriculum for science and history will pass muster as not "adhering to the correct belief system of Darwinism", and I don't see them doing that.

[editor-surveyor]

"On what planet does that make any sense?"

Earth, the planet where life was created. You should visit it some day.

[ColdWater]

Earth, the planet where life was created.

One of many possible planets where life has begun.

[toneythetiger]

“It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms.”

Yes that IS a FACT, and that FACT alone PROVES that Evolution is a false doctrine/religion.

regards

[tpanther]

“subjective determination”, ahhhh...IOW no proof.

[Coyoteman]

...Evolution is a false doctrine/religion.

Evolution is a field of science that can be approached from several disciplines, including genetics, biology, zoology, paleontology, primatology, etc.

To call it a religion is a lie being spread primarily by a group of narrow fundamentalists, who for some reason seek to denigrate evolution by making it equivalent in nature to the religion they practice.

It is not equivalent. The theory of evolution is based on evidence, while religion is based on belief, in one form or another, in revelation, and that revealed knowledge is the exact opposite of scientific evidence.

But knowledge won't stop the lies, nor will facts affect fundamentalists' beliefs. Again this is just the opposite of science.

[toneythetiger]

Good afternoon sir,

“The theory of evolution is based on evidence, while religion is based on belief…”

What “evidence” is there that life began with a single cell organism ?

regards

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

To call it a religion is a lie being spread primarily by a group of narrow fundamentalists, who for some reason seek to denigrate evolution by making it equivalent in nature to the religion they practice.

I am frequently reminded of a comment by a longtime but long-departed participant in these threads, to the effect that people who are accustomed to getting their beliefs handed to them from some infallible source assume that everyone forms their opinions the same way. The quote was something like "they think we believe in evolution because we revere Darwin; they don't get that it's the other way around, that we respect Darwin because we see the brilliance of the theory of evolution." That mindset explains why they keep calling evolution a religion, because that's the only way they can understand reaching conclusions about their relationship to the universe. And it explains why they're so interested in proving Darwin was a plagiarist, because an attack on their infallible source *would* call their belief system into question, while it doesn't affect the merits of a scientific theory at all.

[toneythetiger]

Good afternoon,

I call it a ‘religion’ (no disrespect to true religions *__*) because evo’s have to have a ‘belief’ in something that has never been reproduced in a ‘scientific’ lab.

regards

[Coyoteman]

“The theory of evolution is based on evidence, while religion is based on belief…”

What “evidence” is there that life began with a single cell organism ?

You have made a mistake common among creationists; you have mixed the theory of evolution with various hypotheses concerning origins.

The theory of evolution describes how species developed from that initial life form.

There are various hypotheses attempting to explain the origin of that first life form. None has yet reached the level of documentation and acceptance required to be called a theory. The general field is often called abiogenesis, and it is separate from evolution.

[Coyoteman]

I call it a ‘religion’ (no disrespect to true religions *__*) because evo’s have to have a ‘belief’ in something that has never been reproduced in a ‘scientific’ lab.

Again you are incorrect. Speciation (evolution) has been observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

[valkyry1]

Apparently the evolutionist can never talk about evolution without importing religion into their conversation. It keeps the focus off the the belief of evolution and all of its scientific weaknesses.

[toneythetiger]

Good afternoon,

Yeah, evolutionists like to change the definition of the word ‘evolve’ *__*

For evolution to be true, one has to be able to trace the ‘evolution’ of life backwards, all the way from life to non-life, else the definition of ‘evolve’ is incorrect.

It is interesting that evo’s have to limit their time frame to fit into their ‘definition’, considering that they have billions of years to work with — LOL

regards

[toneythetiger]

Good afternoon, *___*

“Apparently the evolutionist can never talk about evolution without importing ‘THEIR’ religion into their conversation.”

there, fixed it.

LOL

regards

[toneythetiger]

Good afternoon,

Speciation has not proven that even ONE species has “evolved” into another species.

regards

[toneythetiger]

yes sir,

they do have millions of weaknesses - life today upon this earth as we know it *___*

Let me share some thoughts with you:

(from the first 2 pages in my phamplet on “Why Evolution CANNOT be true” copyright 2006)

If evolution was true, there would be BILLIONS of “in between” animals on the earth NOW -— like half dinosaur and half bird, using evo’s ideas.

Actually, there would have to be ALL percentages of “in between” species alive today, not just 50/50 but 1/99, 2/98, 3/97 -— 96/4, 97/3, 98/2, 99/1 etc, for ALL of the EVOLVED species, which of course according to the evos, is EVERYTHING and EVERYONE *___*.

WHERE are they ????

There are NONE to be found -— that’s not possible if evolution is true.

PLUS, we should see new animals “evolving/emerging” from the sea every day —— DO WE see any -— NOPE, NADA, NONE -— that is IMPOSSIBLE, of course, that is, if evolution were true.

Obviously, by just this simple observation alone, EVOLUTION is NOT true.

Now, some simple trivia:

There are at least 2,000,000 (two million) distinct species of animals in the world, and maybe as many as 5,000,000 (five million) or more – at least 1.8 million have been named.

Over 9,000 distinct bird species

Over 4,000 distinct mammal species

Out of the over 4000 mammals, there are only 2 (two) monotremes living today; a small spiny anteater called an Echidna and the Duck-Billed Platypus.

(btw, I like that the platypus causes the evo’s some heartache, cause per evolution, that means that the beaver and the duck are close cousins. LOL )

Explaining the origin of Australia’s marsupial population, and especially its uniqueness to that one isolated southern continent, is EXTREMELY difficult for evolutionists, unless they lie, (which of course they DO).

Approx 70% of the worlds’ marsupials are found in and around Austrailia -— per evolution, this is not possible. Also, Australia has only a tiny percentage of placental mammals, and of course the only monotremes.

For the numbers to be fair in evolutionary terms, there should be an even number of placenta, marsupial and monotreme mammals -— why aren’t there?

Why are there only about 3 or 4 mammals that cannot produce it’s own Vitamin C ??

Why is the giraffe the only large animal that has a unique gait? -— i.e. when walking, it picks up both legs on one side of his body

Why only one kind of mammal that can fly?

Where are the half-bats ?

Why only one kind of bird that can fly backwards and hover? And why is it, that ALL of the over 300 species of these birds only live in the Americas. How is that possible?

Why can’t all birds fly? What good are their wings (in an evolutionary aspect) if they can’t fly? Why haven’t ‘they’ de-evolved their wings (i.e. got rid of them) ?

Does anyone really believe that the ostrich, at one time, could fly ??

Or the elephant bird ??

Or that the penguin could fly ??

Speaking of mammals, from the evolutionist’s viewpoint, what good are the teats on a boar hog ??? Hmmmmmm

---

so Valkyryl,

what do you think *___*

have a good afternoon.

regards

[toneythetiger]

gotta go.

got some ministerial duties elsewhere *__*.

good afternoon to all —— may be back later tonight

regards