Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts
Fox News ^ | August 13, 2008

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy; US: California
KEYWORDS: academia; atheismandstate; christianschools; confesstothestate; creation; creationism; education; evolution; heresy; highereducation; homeschool; judiciary; publikskoolz; ruling; uc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 781-794 next last
To: allmendream; Elsie

==The first sexually reproducing organisms were hermaphroditic, so the penis and vagina obviously evolved in parallel.

How do you know? Were you there???


421 posted on 08/15/2008 11:57:07 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Living systems DEVELOPED by means of natural selection. They did not originate or generate themselves by means of natural selection; and as previously stated, it doesn't matter HOW living systems were generated, once here they began to develop and differentiate by means of natural selection."

Eau contraire my good man. How living systems were generated, at what level and how much differentiation has occurred are the crux of the issue. To think it does not matter is the height of credulity. You aren't first among credulists, are you?

That's why I'm waiting for you to tell me who doesn't believe that all biological systems were generated by natural selection, what systems were not so generated, and what generated them? If you can't answer that, then you are committing the fallacy of exclusion.

"Living systems were generated, hypothetically, by abiogenic processes."

What hypothetical abiogenic processes are those? Poof! Magic?

"Please research the Abiogeneis hypothesis and auto-catalytic RNA and get back to me."

Is it too obvious to point out that auto-catalytic RNA is part of an existing biological system and is not even close to the magical, hypothetical abiogenic processes you wish for?

422 posted on 08/15/2008 11:57:29 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Same evidence, different conclusions, all based on the presupposed ideas of either God or no God.

From a creation viewpoint, you can see that there are kinds of organisms with certain information in their genome, enough information to produce dachshunds and jackals from a common “dog”. The “dog” kind, perhaps a wolf, has more genetic information than the poodle and is capable of reproducing the poodle through natural selection or breeding.

You cannot, however, take a slug and have it breed with other slugs to eventually become a bird.

This viewpoint is consistent with observed evidence, but cannot be accepted by those presupposed to believe otherwise.


423 posted on 08/15/2008 12:00:54 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
I do believe that most Christian schools, and even home-schooled kids are taught what the theory of evolution is and why they believe it is to be rejected.

If the student has never been taught anything about the theory, I could see them having a point. But that doesn't appear to be the case - they seem to be trying to reject those who don't agree with the theory.

So much for academic freedom.

424 posted on 08/15/2008 12:02:36 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Well, except that the fallacy of exclusion has been layered on top of the philosophy of naturalism between it and the circular reasoning of ‘natural selection’ because the beginning of life has been found (by real science) to be impossibly complex...

Yes sir. You are correct.


425 posted on 08/15/2008 12:03:03 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I believe it is the non-Scientific side that supposes that abiogentic processes were ‘Poof!’ ‘Magic’; it is your side that are, if you will excuse the term, ‘poof’ters.

Scientists can only gather evidence in support of non-magical means whereby life could have originated and RNA as a molecule capable of enzymatic activity and information storage is the likely candidate.

426 posted on 08/15/2008 12:03:59 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"All the evidence suggests living organisms are devolving, not evolving. Natural selection is all about conservation of what exists, whereas random mutation has been shown to be an overwhelmingling destructive force, thus resulting in information loss. There is no observable principle in nature driving life ever upwards from the simple to the complex. The evidenced from the Bible, and confirmed by science, suggests all life forms were created fully formed and fully functional, have the capacity for variation within the confines of the created kinds, and have been slowly losing information/devolving ever since the fall."

Yes sir. You are correct as well.

427 posted on 08/15/2008 12:04:35 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Did nylon digesting bacteria DEVOLVE so that they could utilize a new food source?

Did citrate plus e.coli DEVOLVE so that they could digest citrate?

Do populations subjected to the selective pressure of heat stress DEVOLVE such that they can better survive at higher temperatures?

Wow, that Devolution stuff is POWERFUL, capable of changing a living system such that it can better survive in its environment, utilize new food sources, and develop new metabolic pathways.

We are not men. We are DEVO!

428 posted on 08/15/2008 12:07:43 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong,"

So what? If the theory is being taught, and the student can regurgitate the information sufficiently (i.e. at least as well as students taught in a public school, which should be VERY easy), whether the student believes it or not shouldn't be an issue.

After all, if evolution is true, and the professors are knowledgeable, shouldn't they be able to convince these kids once they get them away from their 'brainwashing' parents?

It seems that the issue is not about whether evolution is true or not, but about attempting to suppress dissenting views.

But of course, that's nothing new for evols.

429 posted on 08/15/2008 12:07:48 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall cause you to vote against the Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Very well put. And not only can it not be accepted, its non-acceptance must be enforced at all costs. Which means Creationist and IDers will eventually have to use force to break the Darwinist stranglehold on science and create and even playingfield. To my mind, that will ultimately mean having a MASSIVE going out of business sale re: government science, thus returning science to the private sector, where it belongs.


430 posted on 08/15/2008 12:07:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"I believe it is the non-Scientific side that supposes that abiogentic processes were ‘Poof!’ ‘Magic’; it is your side that are, if you will excuse the term, ‘poof’ters."

Yes, you believe this because to think otherwise would not allow you to hold to your beliefs. You must project your own beliefs onto others while ignoring them in your own position in order to deceive yourself into believing that your philosophical choice is somehow superior to those you despise. Your own beliefs are no better than 'poof, magic', even with a name like 'hypothetical, abiogenic processes'. Give it a scientific-sounding name and people will believe 'poof, magic' and deny they do it.

"Scientists can only gather evidence in support of non-magical means whereby life could have originated and RNA as a molecule capable of enzymatic activity and information storage is the likely candidate."

This proceeds from an 'a priori' commitment to the position that life originate from naturalistic means, which begs the question in the first place, as Richard Lewontin admits:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Unfortunately, such honesty is hardly found among the credulists who will swallow anything to retain their belief.

431 posted on 08/15/2008 12:14:11 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
So what? If the theory is being taught, and the student can regurgitate the information sufficiently (i.e. at least as well as students taught in a public school, which should be VERY easy), whether the student believes it or not shouldn't be an issue.

That's all the information the article gives. It doesn't say whether the the theory is being taught or not.

There seems to be a general assumption that the texbook goes on to cover the theory after having already declared it in error, but so there hasn't been any evidence presented that it was.

432 posted on 08/15/2008 12:16:55 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
And not only can it not be accepted, its non-acceptance must be enforced at all costs.

Because to do otherwise has WAY too many implications.

433 posted on 08/15/2008 12:16:56 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Have you proven that the “new stuff eating” bacteria weren’t offspring of

other bacteria that already had the genetic information necessary

to produce the new bacteria when the environment favored the expression of that trait?


434 posted on 08/15/2008 12:19:26 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
And how do you propose then to measure God? Do you think you can get God to act for you reproducibly in the lab?

Unless you can do so then God is forever beyond the realms of Scientific analysis, as HE said HE would be.

Heb11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

God tells you to have faith in HIM. Apparently that isn't enough for those who think they need to measure HIM to know HE is there.

435 posted on 08/15/2008 12:20:39 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; GodGunsGuts
"Did nylon digesting bacteria DEVOLVE so that they could utilize a new food source?"

A person has to be extremely credulous not to understand that the mutations necessary for nylon-digestion did not occur only after the creation of nylon. Those bacteria receiving the nylon-digestion mutations prior to the creation of nylon would have died.

Same w/ citrate.

Heat-stress adaptation is adaptation within existing configuration. Nothing special there.

Credulity seems to be a recurring theme here...

436 posted on 08/15/2008 12:22:00 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"And how do you propose then to measure God? Do you think you can get God to act for you reproducibly in the lab? Unless you can do so then God is forever beyond the realms of Scientific analysis, as HE said HE would be. Heb11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. God tells you to have faith in HIM. Apparently that isn't enough for those who think they need to measure HIM to know HE is there."

So do you now understand that your belief in 'hypothetical, abiogenic processes' is no different than a belief in God?

Do you now understand that your belief that mutations occur only when an opportunity for survival presents itself is due to an inability to think critically?

437 posted on 08/15/2008 12:25:24 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Nothing in Science is “proven”. But yes, the nylon digesting bacteria evolved its enzyme from a precursor that was unable to digest nylon, it took two amino acid substitutions to make it capable of digesting nylon.

In the case of citrate plus e.coli it was a controlled experiment in evolution (you know, the Science that some idiots claim is not an experimental Science) and the original e.coli (and many populations of others that evolved independently) did not have the capability of digesting citrate.

Yes, the environment DID favor DEVELOPMENT and expression of those traits. Amazing how environment can act as a selective pressure on living systems and allows them to evolve. One might suppose that living systems that are adaptable in a changing environment is a superior design than static systems trying to exist in a changing environment.

438 posted on 08/15/2008 12:26:43 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"In other words, the conclusions reached by evolution apologists, based on observations of the SAME EVIDENCE as evolution skeptics, are reached by presupposing that evolution is the mechanism, and that the natural/material existance is all that there is."

According to Richard Lewontin, you are correct.

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin

439 posted on 08/15/2008 12:29:23 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Nope, I’m telling you to tell me that the bacteria

from which these nylon digesting bacteria “evolved”

did not have the genetic information ALREADY in their genome.


440 posted on 08/15/2008 12:29:43 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 781-794 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson