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 ... 721-740741-760761-780781-794 next last
To: MrB
Wrong again. The genetic variation will arise and has been mapped back and compared to the original genome.

Do you think that a population derived from a single organism will all be genetically identical? How could they maintain absolute genetic fidelity when DNA polymerase is prone to errors?

As long as you are engaged in mind reading why don't you tell me what you think my “assumptions” are an attempt to justify?

741 posted on 08/20/2008 6:35:18 AM 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 740 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The genetic variation will arise and has been mapped back and compared to the original genome.

I don't believe this to be true and require supporting data if you wish to stand on this argument. And even if so, it does not point to the ADDITION of information (required to extrapolate your observations to "molecules to man"), just a variation on EXISTING information.

Do you think that a population derived from a single organism will all be genetically identical?

No, given that a single human pair has the EXISTING genetic information to produce 10^2017 genetically non-identical offspring, this means that there is a huge pre-existing potential for adaptation to natural selection pressures.

What assumptions do you have?
No Creator, therefore the observed behaviors must be due to natural/material causes. I see X behavior, it's due to material cause Y, therefore, no need for a Creator or design.

And, this justifies an individual need for there not to be a Creator.

742 posted on 08/20/2008 6:56:57 AM 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 741 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Of course, you could just answer the question.


743 posted on 08/20/2008 7:12:23 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 713 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I am a Christian and do believe the universe was created. I just don't believe for a second that God created a stupid universe where living systems are incapable of the adaptation that we so obviously see.

So you admit that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a genetically identical population to derive from a single organism.

Was nylonase a variation of existing information? Seems that it was NEW useful information (how to break down nylon)derived from OLD less useful information (how to break down an ester).

Why do you assume that variation of existing data cannot produce new data?

744 posted on 08/20/2008 7:22:35 AM 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 742 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

We might be arguing the same thing... hmmm... humorous.

I have no problem with variations of old information providing new useful functions. This supports the viewpoint that organisms were created with the innate ability to adapt. But these changes in no way support the extrapolation that single cell organisms (wherever they came from!) can ADD information to the point that eventually you get a human.
I DO support the idea that God created living systems capable of adaptation, we see that all the time. I mean, where did that stupid looking poodle come from, and whose idea was that?

I’d request clarification of your “population derived from a single organism”. You don’t mean a SINGLE organism... right? It takes two to “tango” - sexual reproduction is required for genetic variances to propagate...


745 posted on 08/20/2008 7:35:07 AM 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 744 | View Replies]

To: MrB
You don’t mean a SINGLE organism... right? It takes two to “tango” - sexual reproduction is required for genetic variances to propagate...

You really didn't say that, did you? You are presenting yourself as qualified to judge and condemn the work of tens of thousands of biologists, working of a couple of centuries, and you think single celled organisms don't mutate and evolve?

Even worse, you seem not to have considered lateral gene transfer. bacteria sex, if you please.

746 posted on 08/20/2008 8:14:49 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Well, I certainly wasn’t referring to some bacterial sex organ penetrating another bacteria’s sex organ... “sexual reproduction” in its basic definition is the exchange and recombining of genetic material.

You’ll do your damndest to try to disqualify anyone with a dissenting viewpoint, won’t you?

That’s OK, I’ll take that as a compliment, in my worldview. I’m in good company. Acts 4.


747 posted on 08/20/2008 8:22:56 AM 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 746 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Well, I certainly wasn’t referring to some bacterial sex organ penetrating another bacteria’s sex organ... “sexual reproduction” in its basic definition is the exchange and recombining of genetic material.

That's exactly what is common among single celled organisms.

But excannge of genetic material is not necessary for evolution to occur. The best experiments demonstrating evolution start with a single, isolated cell.

748 posted on 08/20/2008 8:26:59 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: MrB
You’ll do your damndest to try to disqualify anyone with a dissenting viewpoint, won’t you?

I'll do my best to correct factual errors when I see them.

749 posted on 08/20/2008 8:28:05 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Not in an asexual organism it doesn't take two to tango.

You can plate a single organism and watch it divide itself into two then four then sixteen, etc, etc. By the time you have a few hundred thousand organisms all from the same originator you will see quite a bit of genetic variation within the population; even though they started out as the exact same organism with the exact same genome.

Even in the case of sexually reproducing organisms you would have to believe that Adam and Eve contained within themselves all the genetic variability of the entire human race in order to deny that this variability came about due to imperfect replication. In other words one would have to assume that Adam and Eve were simultaneously blue brown green and hazel eyed, lactose tolerant and lactose intolerant, had epithelial folds on their eyes and did not have them, had kinky hair and straight hair, had dark skin and light skin, etc etc.

Seeings as how within two individuals there are only four possible allelic differences at any loci (Adam has trait A and B at that loci and Eve has trait C and D), and far more than four alleles at many loci have been described among human populations; it is simply impossible that the entirety of variability in the human genome could be contained within two human individuals.

750 posted on 08/20/2008 8:33:33 AM 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 745 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

re: Adam and Eve. I believe we have a topic for civil discussion here.

Yes, I do believe that Adam and Eve had all the genetic information necessary to produce every variation we see today - remember the 1 with the 2017 zeros behind it - the number of possible genetically non-identical possible offspring. The number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is estimated on the order of 10^80th, just for comparison.

I’ve seen pictures of twins of “medium brown” people - one child white and blond, the other brown skinned/brown haired.

I also believe that the harmful variations, the harmful replication errors, mutations, even death itself, are a consequence of the Fall.

If you don’t want to assert Man’s wisdom (”reason”) over God’s literal Word, then there was no death, disease, mutation, or predation (all green plants were for all to eat) before the Fall. This precludes “theistic evolution”.


751 posted on 08/20/2008 9:31:15 AM 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 750 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Not the same thing at all. They had the information necessary to PRODUCE every variety, due to the information being subject to change during replication. They could not have possibly CONTAINED every existing variety, because as I pointed out, two individuals can maximally only have four different alleles at any one loci. Human populations have far more than four alleles described at many loci. If seventeen different alleles at a loci are described, how could any more than four of them be original to Adam and Eve?
752 posted on 08/20/2008 9:39:23 AM 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 751 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
No, you are just trying different ways to move the argument into unfalsifiability and keep it there. You need the argument to be unfalsifiable to maintain your mental paradigm. You continue to claim that 'experiences' are equivalent to facts in the experiment because you need the argument to be unfalsifiable. I reject that because 'experiences' are not facts of the argument.

Irrelevant. The only inputs that are relevant are the facts. 'Experiences' are not facts of the argument.

You can wish that away as much as you like. It doesn't make any difference that people's actions are based one what they experience in the past, regardless of stimuli given in the present.

Or can you devise an experiment where people's past experience can have absolutely no impact on the decisions they make in the present, based on given stimuli?

753 posted on 08/20/2008 10:26:00 AM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 712 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Different alleles could arise due to mutation. This is a change in information, but not an addition.

Now, back to the source of information - are you a “I know what You said, God, but this is what You meant” kinda guy? IE, wiser than God’s Word? Or is it that you don’t believe God actually was the source of the Word? Or you’re just willing to compromise this one section, the basis of everything else?

Just wondering. You seem to be adamantly arguing that the Word is Wrong.


754 posted on 08/20/2008 11:05:49 AM 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 752 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Here, argue with this guy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp


755 posted on 08/20/2008 11:09:46 AM 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 752 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"Apparently I am worthy of imitation, as you did it three posts running."

Yeah, you just keep on believing that was the reason.

"“explain how you know that the ability to adapt ‘evolved’”

"I don’t “know” anything anything about how it came about (although there are some interesting hypothesis about auto-catalytic RNA), but I know that it was Gods plan that the Oceans bring forth life."

That's correct. You don't know. You assume, as does 'science'. Science *assumes* that the ability to adapt 'evolved' and proceeds from that 'a priori' assumption.

And it does not logically follow that life emerged from the oceans because God caused them to bring forth life. After all, if you are going to invoke God, land plants were created first and flying birds at the same time as the sea creatures.

Clearly you want to pick and choose what you believe God did based on what man says.

"I can also observe that living systems can and do adapt to changing circumstances and the evidence suggests they do it by means of natural selection of genetic variation."

Yes, but you can't say whether life acquired that ability by evolution or whether God created all life with that ability except by invoking man's opinion because you believe what man says about evolution.

"Adaptation by means of selection is an inescapable conclusion of the scientific evidence."

Which could equally mean that life was created with that ability from the domain to the sub-species level and there would be no disagreement with observation. It is your opinion that causes you to reject what God says and believe what man says.

"As is the fact that the Earth circles the Sun by means of gravitational attraction. You accept neither."

And I used to accept both until I started looking for the scientific evidence to support them and found none.

756 posted on 08/20/2008 11:19:47 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 729 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
"If your comments represent some kind of Turing test, I'd have to say you've failed. Is there a name for the logical fallacy of not being able to answer a simple question?"

Why do you continue to avoid answering the question? Don't understand it, can't, afraid, have no idee?

Which is exactly why my point from the beginning was, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion."

I even addressed this specifically TO YOU when I said, "It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies." That was posed TO YOU way back in post 658.

757 posted on 08/20/2008 11:22:19 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 730 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"The ability to adapt is inherent within any living system whose molecules of inheritance is subject to change and the population is influenced by natural selection. If the molecules of inheritance are malleable, and they most certainly are, then genetic variation arises. Genetic variation can be subject to selective pressure such that some alleles are favored and others are not."

Clearly that is true.

The problem lies in where you assume this ability came from. Did it 'evolve' or was life created with this ability? You assume that it 'evolved' when it is just as likely that life was created with this ability that naturalists now distort into 'evolution'.

It is only the assumption of the philosophy of naturalism that supports the assumption that the ability to adapt 'evolved'. You now realize that was Darwin's huge assumption and blunder, don't you?

758 posted on 08/20/2008 11:27:00 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 733 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"How are these people able to say that God didn’t tell us how He “did it” and in what time frame and what order? You’d have to be a leftist “Constitutional Lawyer” to be able to read Genesis and not understand what God says He did."

It's pretty simple. They use the word of men as their worldview-filter and not the word of God.

Unfortunately, the words of men have a nasty habit of being wrong all the time. Yet they would rather believe in men because men will tell them what they want to hear.

Or, they fear the opinions of men more than the opinion of God.

759 posted on 08/20/2008 11:31:20 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 735 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
"Of course, you could just answer the question."

As could you.

760 posted on 08/20/2008 11:32:32 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 743 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780781-794 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