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 ...
==The first sexually reproducing organisms were hermaphroditic, so the penis and vagina obviously evolved in parallel.
How do you know? Were you there???
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes sir. You are correct as well.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because to do otherwise has WAY too many implications.
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?
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.
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...
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?
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.
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
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.
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.