U of CA Rejects Creationism

[micatala]

The Boston Globe ran a short article on Saturday last entitled University of California sued over creationism.

According to the article, UC admissions officials have refused to certify some science and other courses, particularly those using curriculum developed by Bob Jones U and Abeka Books. As a result, The Association of Christian Schools International has filed suit in federal court.

A UC spokesperson said the University has the right to set entrance requirements. She futher stated:

These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed.

The questions for debate are:

1) Is the UC system justified in refusing to certify courses they deem to be of poor quality because of the creationist viewpoint of the courses?

2) Does the Association of Christian Schools have any grounds for filing suit? What are they?

I am particularly interested in science courses, especially those pertaining to evolution. However, the article does note that some non-science courses, including one entitled "Christianity's Influence in American History," have been rejected.

I do not know at this point any of the particular rationale for the rejections, what was found objectionable in each case, etc.

[jcrawford]

What evidence do you have that the first African people on earth actually originated or 'evolved' from non-human African ape ancestors, other than scientific heresay?

As another example to supplement the one provided by Chimp, here is some evidence you have seen before, and simply dismissed, because you did not want to consider it I presume.

The above is a small part of a larger page with 29+ evidences for macroevolution .

Thanks for listing all the fraudulent 'species" of human beings which 'talkorigins' uses to 'scientifically' document the racial evolution of non-human African ape ancestors into modern African people.

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

A. Modern chimpanzees are apes.
B,C,D and E taxons consist of African ape fossils.
F is the fossil skull of a modern human being showing evidence of Broca's area of speech articulation.

(tbc)

[ST88]

At the risk of addressing the topic, let me state that I got a B.A. from a U.C. school. The California higher education system is structured in three tiers: the community colleges are the first tier; state schools are the second; and the U.C.'s are the third. It used to be that the U.C. schools guaranteed admission to the top 10-15% of public high school students in any given high school, based on a combination of grades and standardized test scores. If any spots were left after that, other qualified candidates were considered based on the above scores, personal essays, and/or other "life situations" that met the criteria. (state schools took the top 40%, and CC's were guaranteed for anyone who wanted to go). U.C. admissions is no longer like this because of the competitive nature of higher education.

In high school, we were given three different "tracks" that we could follow, each tailored to the tiers of colleges. For example, if you wanted to follow the U.C. track, you would take physics and AP chemistry; if you wanted to follow the state U track, you would take Bio I & II instead. All of the accredited high schools in California are known quantities in U.C. admissions, and U.C. admissions officers know some of them quite well.

I don't know much about out-of-state admissions, but I do know why they took their stand. The way Creationism is taught is not science. And before you challenge me on that, read that sentence carefully. The U.C. science classes that I took were not an amalgamation of facts that must be memorized (though there was some of that). Science is presented as a critical study topic -- real world experimentation and using your noodle to solve problems. If you had been taught Creationism was correct or a viable alternative to evolution, your teachers did you a disservice by talking at you instead of involving you in the subject. Creationism is a set line of the way things happened, how they happened, and why they happened. Critical study is not only not required, it is discouraged. Science, by contrast, is all about questioning itself. You will not have the tools you need to succeed at the U.C. level if you accept Creationism (any flavor) as true, because you will not have been allowed to use those tools.

This is the primary reason why Creationism should not be taught until the college level. Students require the tools to examine and be critical of evolution before they can examine or be critical of it. Teaching Creationism only gives students a story they can tell themselves. Why, for example, do young young-earth creationists not understand why some people think evolution is true? It's because they haven't been taught why science has found that evolution is the best explanation. They have only been told why evolution is (or could be) wrong and why Creationism is (or could be) correct.

If anything, science is the study of history. How did we come to this point? How did we reach these conclusions? Are these conclusions still valid, and how do we test if they are?

[jcrawford]

Regardless of what you think of this evidence, it is VERY CLEAR that the case for neo-Darwinism is a scientific one, as I claimed above, by the basic definitions of what science is (you might look here if you are still confused about what science is).

No one is disputing that the case for neo-Darwinist racism is a scientific one as claimed and substantiated by your above posts. That's Lubenow's thesis, although I like to call it a theory.

Neo-Darwinist proofs of non-human ape-like ancestors in Africa mutating and evolving into the first African race of people on earth according to neo-Darwinist theories of 'natural selection,' just prove and substantiate the inherent racism in all neo-Darwinist theories about human origins and evolution from Old World African monkeys. The amazing thing is that neo-Darwinist 'scientists' don't seem to realize that all of their so-called 'evidence' and 'proof' of human evolution in Africa just re-enforce neo-Darwinist racial theories that the first human beings on earth were an African 'species' of the original human race whose fossilized skeletal remains closely resembled those of some species of African monkeys or apes.

[micatala]

So you refer us to "talkorigins" for scientific evidence that proves that the first African people on earth actually originated and 'evolved' from non-human African ape ancestors in Africa! Amazing.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that 'talkorigins' simply endorses neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution in Africa and like all neo-Darwinist theorists on the origins of African people, actually supply racial 'evidence' in support of, and subscription to, neo-Darwinist racism?

Truly amazing!

I see. Simply dismiss the evidence by declaring that the source is biased. What is even more pathetic is that several people provided evidence of major problems with Lubenow and his work in the other thread, and you simply dismissed that too.

Do you have any evidence that what is presented at talkorigins is not correct?

No one is disputing that the case for neo-Darwinist racism is a scientific one as claimed and substantiated by your above posts.

Twisting words again. Neo-Darwinist racism does not exist. Neo-Darwinism as a theory is scientific.

UC would have to prove that neo-Darwinist racism is scientific then.

How is the government able to distinguish between pseudoscience, pure religion, scientific racism and real science though? What legitimate criteria might state and federal judges be guided by? Pseudoscientific testimonies of neo-Darwinist racists?

You're contradicting yourself.

Thank you ST88 for your information, and trying to get us back on topic.

[jcrawford]

I don't know much about out-of-state admissions, but I do know why they took their stand. The way Creationism is taught is not science. And before you challenge me on that, read that sentence carefully. The U.C. science classes that I took were not an amalgamation of facts that must be memorized (though there was some of that). Science is presented as a critical study topic -- real world experimentation and using your noodle to solve problems. If you had been taught Creationism was correct or a viable alternative to evolution, your teachers did you a disservice by talking at you instead of involving you in the subject.

This is a long post so suffice it to say that there is no 'scientific' evidence that Creation teachers are "talking at you" rather than involving you with neo-Darwinist racist theories of African people originating and evolving from African ape ancestors before Asians and Europeans did.

Creationism is a set line of the way things happened, how they happened, and why they happened. Critical study is not only not required, it is discouraged. Science, by contrast, is all about questioning itself.

Why do neo-Darwinists discriminate against the critical thinking on the part of creationist scientists then?

You will not have the tools you need to succeed at the U.C. level if you accept Creationism (any flavor) as true, because you will not have been allowed to use those tools.

Since critical thinking is the necessary prerequisite essential to scientific enquiry, why do supporters of neo-Darwinist racial theories about the origins of the human race continue to discriminate against certain Christian scientists who maintain that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are inherently racist?

[jcrawford]

So you refer us to "talkorigins" for scientific evidence that proves that the first African people on earth actually originated and 'evolved' from non-human African ape ancestors in Africa! Amazing.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that 'talkorigins' simply endorses neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution in Africa and like all neo-Darwinist theorists on the origins of African people, actually supply racial 'evidence' in support of, and subscription to, neo-Darwinist racism?

Truly amazing!

I see. Simply dismiss the evidence by declaring that the source is biased. What is even more pathetic is that several people provided evidence of major problems with Lubenow and his work in the other thread, and you simply dismissed that too.

Do you have any evidence that what is presented at talkorigins is not correct?

Sure. Lubenow's published falsification of talkorigins racist theories since any evidence supporting such racist theories are nothing but scientific support for racist theories of scientific evolution.

Neo-Darwinism as a theory is scientific.

Neo-Darwinst theories about African people originating from the ancestors of non-human apes are a form of scientific racism.

Thank you ST88 for your information, and trying to get us back on topic.

The topic is scientific racism vs. Christianity.

[FreddieFreeloader]

So you refer us to "talkorigins" for scientific evidence that proves that the first African people on earth actually originated and 'evolved' from non-human African ape ancestors in Africa! Amazing.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that 'talkorigins' simply endorses neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution in Africa and like all neo-Darwinist theorists on the origins of African people, actually supply racial 'evidence' in support of, and subscription to, neo-Darwinist racism?

Truly amazing!

I see. Simply dismiss the evidence by declaring that the source is biased. What is even more pathetic is that several people provided evidence of major problems with Lubenow and his work in the other thread, and you simply dismissed that too.

Do you have any evidence that what is presented at talkorigins is not correct?

Sure. Lubenow's published falsification of talkorigins racist theories since any evidence supporting such racist theories are nothing but scientific support for racist theories of scientific evolution.

Then present that evidence, instead of referring to Bones of Contention. If it really is so obvious, you should either be able to explain it yourself or link to somewhere it can be read. Or better yet... link to multiple sources. If it really is true science, more people should have presented or commented on this evidence than just Lubenow.

Neo-Darwinism as a theory is scientific.

Neo-Darwinst theories about African people originating from the ancestors of non-human apes are a form of scientific racism.

Instead of hijacking this thread, couldn't you keep your "scientific racism" to the Bones of Contention thread.

Thank you ST88 for your information, and trying to get us back on topic.

The topic is scientific racism vs. Christianity.

No it's not. It's about the right of a university to select which courses to give credit.

In a recent case here, a christian private school has been notified that it will lose it's public funding, in reality meaning that it will have to close, because it doesn't meet academic requirements for science and danish classes. School are expected to produce students. If the product doesn't meet standards, nobody will buy it.

There has be some sort of "quality control" in order to ensure that students learn the proper academic skills that must be built upon later. That is, high schools and universities rely on students having basic skills in math, language, science, history etc., and if those requirements (in the U of CA case it's knowledge of evolution) are not met the school has every right not to approve those courses. Students who lack knowledge of evolution, will be unable to learn at the level they are expected to, and as such, they are unfit for admission.

But ST88 said it much better than I have.

[Jose]

There has be some sort of "quality control" in order to ensure that students learn the proper academic skills that must be built upon later. That is, high schools and universities rely on students having basic skills in math, language, science, history etc., and if those requirements (in the U of CA case it's knowledge of evolution) are not met the school has every right not to approve those courses. Students who lack knowledge of evolution, will be unable to learn at the level they are expected to, and as such, they are unfit for admission.

This is what is so insidious about the No Child Left Behind law. It pretends to place a priority on getting everyone up to a certain level of standards, but has these wacky clauses that make it work otherwise. It's actual purpose is to disband the public schools' teachers unions, which are strongly Democratic, and to move public funding to unregulated private schools. The two things that are odd are: holding students with learning disabilities to the same standard as others (and defining the whole school as "failing" on the basis of this group of students), and forbidding teachers from tutoring students if they don't pass the test.

Unfortunately, it has been shown that the teaching and learning of science suffer the most when high-stakes tests like this are mandated. I wonder if that's also a goal of the Repubs in passing NCLB. Science, after all, tends to contradict their current policies, or prove them to be wrongheaded.

So, in short, if the federal government is going to micromanage the schools, and set things up so that students learn less--especially in science--then colleges have to be even more explicit in stating what information their incoming students must know.

The colleges, unlike the current Administration, know that the future of our country depends on science, and creationism undermines the very foundation of science.

[ST88]

This is a long post so suffice it to say that there is no 'scientific' evidence that Creation teachers are "talking at you" rather than involving you with neo-Darwinist racist theories of African people originating and evolving from African ape ancestors before Asians and Europeans did.

Do you have that line on your clipboard so you can cut and paste it to every argument you present? Seriously now. There is much more to evolution than ape to man.

Creationism must be taught by rote. There is no other way to teach it. There is a narrative as to how things came about, and here it is. Science is the study of replicative experimentation and the inferences made on the results. It is NOT a survey of pre-selected scientific data that form the shape of a religion.

Creationism is a set line of the way things happened, how they happened, and why they happened. Critical study is not only not required, it is discouraged. Science, by contrast, is all about questioning itself.

Why do neo-Darwinists discriminate against the critical thinking on the part of creationist scientists then?

Because it's not critical thinking. There are some valid criticisms about the current thinking behind human evolutionary lineage, and these are taken seriously. But many if not most creationists do not have valid criticisms because they either ignore, deny, or lie about existing evidence that contradicts their claims. They fail to look at the whole picture, because there is only so much of the evidence that supports them. The evidence that doesn't support them is disregarded because it doesn't support them.

You will not have the tools you need to succeed at the U.C. level if you accept Creationism (any flavor) as true, because you will not have been allowed to use those tools.

Since critical thinking is the necessary prerequisite essential to scientific enquiry, why do supporters of neo-Darwinist racial theories about the origins of the human race continue to discriminate against certain Christian scientists who maintain that neo-Darwinist theories of human origins and evolution are inherently racist?

A) The theory isn't racist; B) Discrimination against scientists is acceptable if the scientists are demonstrably wrong (which they are); C) There is no scientific point to make by calling a theory "racist". It is yet another example of pseudo-scientists attempting to bypass rationality in order to make a religiously objectionable theory appear socially repugnant.

[jcrawford]

Then present that evidence, instead of referring to Bones of Contention. If it really is so obvious, you should either be able to explain it yourself or link to somewhere it can be read. Or better yet... link to multiple sources. If it really is true science, more people should have presented or commented on this evidence than just Lubenow.

The text of Lubenow's thesis on the scientific racism inherent in all neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution as well as his falsification of the human fossil record as evidence of that evolution, is only available in published book form at this time, as far as I know.

Instead of hijacking this thread, couldn't you keep your "scientific racism" to the Bones of Contention thread.

Evidence of scientific racism and religious discrimination are germane to this civil rights lawsuit against a state university.

Students who lack knowledge of evolution, will be unable to learn at the level they are expected to, and as such, they are unfit for admission.

"Unfit?" Sounds like some racial theory of survival of the fittest by natural selection and state college admissions.