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]

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

The future of our country depends on academic and religious freedom in private and public institutions which don't discriminate on the the basis of race or religion in science.

[jcrawford]

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.

I like your last sentence. That's what Marvin Lubenow says about neo-Darwinist evidence for human evolution. Not only do neo-evos disregard creationist documentation and evidence like Lubenow's, they distort, twist and fudge the fossil facts to fit their fantastic fairy tale of a fable.

[ST88]

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

The future of our country depends on academic and religious freedom in private and public institutions which don't discriminate on the the basis of race or religion in science.

Religious freedom isn't the issue. There is already religious freedom. Anyone is free to believe in any particular narrative they wish. But science isn't affected by religion. If you want to study science, then study science. First, you need to know what Science says and why. Then you can assault it all you wish. You can even use its own logic if you like. But you can't use any logic at all if you don't at first understand that logic.

I don't understand why people object to learning. Creationists should follow the example of the Far Right, who places their moles in law schools so they have legitimacy to assault the Constitution when they graduate. They should learn all they can about the enemy so that they can defeat them with their own logic. Creationists should form sleeper cells within high school science classes all across the nation so that they can emerge with all sorts of ideas as to how to refute science successfully. Of course, they run the risk of being convinced that the science is true, but surely a sufficiently pious creationist household could keep the little soldiers in line when they're not in school.

[jcrawford]

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.

The legal point to be advantageously made by the Christian students and schools is that the court may recognize and grant the fact that it is quite rational to equally reject the teachings and policies of neo-Darwinist theorists in public institutions on the basis of perceived scientific racism, repugnant social practices and objectionable religious discrimination.

[jcrawford]

Religious freedom isn't the issue. There is already religious freedom. Anyone is free to believe in any particular narrative they wish. But science isn't affected by religion.

The last sentence is a highly illogical conclusion on your part since UC is being sued for religious discrimination based on their 'scientific theories.'

First, you need to know what Science says and why. Then you can assault it all you wish. You can even use its own logic if you like. But you can't use any logic at all if you don't at first understand that logic.

We already know what your neo-Darwinist 'science' says about human evolution and why. Your last sentence in this paragraph is also highly illogical because it seems to assume the existence of some 'science' a priori to logical thought.

Creationists should follow the example of the Far Right, who places their moles in law schools so they have legitimacy to assault the Constitution when they graduate. They should learn all they can about the enemy so that they can defeat them with their own logic. Creationists should form sleeper cells within high school science classes all across the nation so that they can emerge with all sorts of ideas as to how to refute science successfully.

What do you think creationists have been doing for the past 50 years? Now it's time for the moles to come out of the holes neo-Darwinist race theories have forced them into over the past 50 years.

Of course, they run the risk of being convinced that the science is true, but surely a sufficiently pious creationist household could keep the little soldiers in line when they're not in school.

Pious creationist households and Christian students are not the problem in public schools. Teaching neo-Darwinist race theories of African ape ancestors turning into African people once upon a time in Africa are the problem.

[FreddieFreeloader]

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.

I'm not asking for a link to his thesis (although most serious researchers are quite happy to publish their work online), but that you present the basic ideas of "his falsification of the human fossil record". You should atleast be able to give us the brief version of some of his evidence against evolution and the fossil record. Please present the evidence, rather than just saying that it's in there.

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.

It's at most about religious discrimination, not racial discrimination.

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.

I can't be held responsible for what you think it "sounds like".
The U of CA holds the position that students who don't know evolution are unfit (or unable) to succeed at the level of education that it provides, in quite the same way that students who can't read sheet music will be unable to succeed at Juliard.

[ST88]

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.

The legal point to be advantageously made by the Christian students and schools is that the court may recognize and grant the fact that it is quite rational to equally reject the teachings and policies of neo-Darwinist theorists in public institutions on the basis of perceived scientific racism, repugnant social practices and objectionable religious discrimination.

You're confusing more than one issue here. If the objection to a creationist curriculum is on scientific grounds then you have absolutely no case. Which it is, and which you do. Your continued use of the red herring & the non-sequitur of "Neo-Darwinist Racism" has no relevance here, nor would it in court. What are you going to do, stand up before the judge and say that the theory is racist, so we should trash it? This is exactly the same as saying that we shouldn't study how sunlight affects differently colored skin because to make distinctions between light-skinned and dark-skinned people is racist.

The U.C. system has every right to select candidates based on what they feel are high standards for science education. You may see racism in the evolutionary idea of ape to man. It is your prerogative to be wrong. And it is a university's prerogative to point out just how wrong you are and just how much of a tragedy it is that some people agree with you.

[jcrawford]

I'm not asking for a link to his thesis (although most serious researchers are quite happy to publish their work online), but that you present the basic ideas of "his falsification of the human fossil record". You should atleast be able to give us the brief version of some of his evidence against evolution and the fossil record. Please present the evidence, rather than just saying that it's in there.

Since the book already contains the necessary human fossil evidence to disprove human evolution from African apes, I'm not going to reiterate it here 'on demand' just for your satisfaction. If you don't have the book with all its scientific notations and listings on the human fossil record, then there is no way that you can refute either Lubenow's or my charges against neo-Darwinist racism.

It's at most about religious discrimination, not racial discrimination.

The only reason UC wants to shut out creationists from the admissions process is because creationists charge neo-Darwinists with religious discrimination and racism, and will continue to do so whether they are admitted to state universities or not. It's all over for neo-Darwinist race theories, teachings and theorists at UC and every other state college and university in the country. UC saw it coming and out of desparation, thought it could suppress creationist charges of religious discrimination and racism by discrediting science teachers and science courses in Christian highschools. Well, it backfired because now in addition to calling UC anti-Christian, creationists can call the UC admissions directors a bunch of neo-Darwinist racists also. Call us Homo sapiens, will they?

The U of CA holds the position that students who don't know evolution are unfit (or unable) to succeed at the level of education that it provides, in quite the same way that students who can't read sheet music will be unable to succeed at Juliard.

Not for long, since UC is a public institution and not a private corporation like Juliard.

[jcrawford]

You're confusing more than one issue here. If the objection to a creationist curriculum is on scientific grounds then you have absolutely no case. Which it is, and which you do.

Nonsense, since the case may be made that the creationist curriculum contains references to the inherent racism in neo-Darwinist pseudoscience.

Your continued use of the red herring & the non-sequitur of "Neo-Darwinist Racism" has no relevance here, nor would it in court. What are you going to do, stand up before the judge and say that the theory is racist, so we should trash it?

Not exactly. Creationists can say that they leave neo-Darwinist theories out of their highschool science coursework in higher mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and biology because they have historically documented evidence proving that neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are racist. The fact that they are competently able to teach aforementioned academic disciplines without neo-Darwinist race theories and racial influences will undoubtedly impress the judge and jury immensely.

This is exactly the same as saying that we shouldn't study how sunlight affects differently colored skin because to make distinctions between light-skinned and dark-skinned people is racist.

Not really, since melanin does play a role in dertermining human skin shades whereas natural selection does not.

The U.C. system has every right to select candidates based on what they feel are high standards for science education.

Not if their selection process is based on anti-Christian racist policies.

You may see racism in the evolutionary idea of ape to man. It is your prerogative to be wrong. And it is a university's prerogative to point out just how wrong you are and just how much of a tragedy it is that some people agree with you.

Oh yeah. Since when did anti-Christian neo-Darwinist racists in UC become the moral guidance force of the nation?

[ST88]

You're confusing more than one issue here. If the objection to a creationist curriculum is on scientific grounds then you have absolutely no case. Which it is, and which you do.

Nonsense, since the case may be made that the creationist curriculum contains references to the inherent racism in neo-Darwinist pseudoscience.

Your hijacking of this thread with a nonsense proposition is impressive, but it's taking up space unnecessarily. How about if you just use the acronym "RND" whenever you want to disagree with someone? It would make it so much easier for the rest of us and would save server space.

Your above statement makes no sense at all in a scientific context. This particular objection is a red herring and makes me wonder if you know what the generally accepted definition of "racism" is.

Your continued use of the red herring & the non-sequitur of "Neo-Darwinist Racism" has no relevance here, nor would it in court. What are you going to do, stand up before the judge and say that the theory is racist, so we should trash it?

Not exactly. Creationists can say that they leave neo-Darwinist theories out of their highschool science coursework in higher mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and biology because they have historically documented evidence proving that neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are racist. The fact that they are competently able to teach aforementioned academic disciplines without neo-Darwinist race theories and racial influences will undoubtedly impress the judge and jury immensely.

WOW. You mean we can teach Math without referring to evolution? Who knew? Naturally, you can teach biology without referring to evolution, but you would be lying to the students about how science works. Which is the real issue here. If you want to talk ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then science is not the place for it. Science is a place for experimentation and exploration. Students need to know how scientists arrived at the theories and conclusions they did, and test them for themselves. You are depriving them of this, and are therefore causing them to be inferior students -- not because they are inherently inferior, but because you are denying them the opportunity to be adequate. Students who learn science in the way you suggest are not equipped to succeed on the U.C. level.

This is exactly the same as saying that we shouldn't study how sunlight affects differently colored skin because to make distinctions between light-skinned and dark-skinned people is racist.

Not really, since melanin does play a role in dertermining human skin shades whereas natural selection does not.

That's an interesting deflection of the point. I don't know if you realize that you are using the same Neo-Darwinist excuse for studying the differences between dark-skinned and light-skinned people. You seem to believe that Asians and Europeans evolved into "higher" life forms than the current "race" of Africans. Boy are you wrong. But more than that, your continued dismissal of this idea because you believe it to be racist is little more than lying disguised as demagoguery.

The U.C. system has every right to select candidates based on what they feel are high standards for science education.

Not if their selection process is based on anti-Christian racist policies.

It's not anti-Christian because there are many Christians who attend U.C. schools. The objection is strictly with the curriculum -- a curriculum which reflects only the Far Right wing of Christian politics.

You may see racism in the evolutionary idea of ape to man. It is your prerogative to be wrong. And it is a university's prerogative to point out just how wrong you are and just how much of a tragedy it is that some people agree with you.

Oh yeah. Since when did anti-Christian neo-Darwinist racists in UC become the moral guidance force of the nation?

Brilliant retort, sir! You have not only lied, misstated the truth, and made false conclusions, you have also brought your previously hidden non-scientific objection on moral grounds into the open. Morality was never a part of this thread, nor was it a part of the UC decision. No doubt you find your version of morality more important than scientific inquiry. If this is true about teaching creationism, then I now truly understand why science is not important and why you are clinging to this false idea of the RND -- you're trying to save our souls from the immorality of science! Well, thank you.