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.

[Jose]

I'll set aside much of the rest of the recent posts, on the grounds that we've beaten the "racism" idea into the ground in the Bones of Contention thread. However,

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.[/quote]I guess you'd say that god darkened the skin of some folks because of some imagined reason for doing so. However, the actual story is this:

1. melanin shades skin cells from UV (fact that you can't deny)
2. people with more melanin receive less UV radiation to their skin cells (again, fact, based on #1)
3. people with less melanin receive more UV radiation (fact, the flip-side of #2)
4. UV causes mutations; in skin cells, some of those mutations cause skin cancer (fact; check the medical literature)
5. UV induces the formation of vitamin D (fact; check even old biochemistry texts)
6. UV causes the breakdown of folic acid (fact; recently shown, but I can't remember where. I could look it up if you want to quibble)
7. There's a higher incidence of UV at the equator than near the poles (fact; just measure it) there's also more UV in Australia (fact based on measurement)
8. Too little UV results in too little vitamin D, which results in Ricketts (fact, just look it up)
9. Light-skinned people exposed to high UV get skin cancer at a high rate (look at Australia's rate relative to the rest of the world)
10. Dark-skinned people exposed to too the average UV dose in, say, New York city have a higher rate of Ricketts than light-skinned people in the same environment. Although milk is fortified with vitD to prevent this, many African Americans are (duh) not of European descent, and therefore lack the mutation that causes adult persistence of lactase. Hence, they are lactose-intolerant, and can't drink milk past weaning. Soymilk is not vitD fortified. Hence, the Ricketts.

THEREFORE there is intense selective pressure for skin color. Equatorial Africa has high UV, which selects for lots of melanin--to protect DNA from mutation, and to protect folic acid from degradation. There's enough UV there to produce adequate vitamin D. Europe has low UV, especially in Scandinavia, and therefore selects for light skin--to produce enough vitamin D for bone development; there's not enough UV to cause the other effects often enough to offset selection for vitamin D production. In short, skin color has been, and still is being selected for.

So, here are a bunch of incontrovertible facts. You may, if you like, claim that no conclusion can be drawn from them, and claim that natural selection cannot occur. But you'd be ignoring the science if you did so. Since the facts point inescapably to selection, but since you stated confidently that no such thing could occur, I humbly suggest that you learn some evolution.

[jcrawford]

Thanks for your intelligent concern and enquiry. Here's the full text of the lawful and legal complaint against neo-Darwinist racists in high places of California's state government.

Thank you jcrawford, I actually found that rather interesting.

You're welcome, Nyril, and thanks for your expressed interest. I hate to think I'm boring anyone with trivial lawsuits.

I'm in college right now so I did the entire apply for schools bit very recently. What I'd really like right here is the person's actual SAT score and the actual requirement for the college.

I don't know what any of the students actual SAT scores were. I'm sure that data will be presented as plaintiff's evidence during the trial.

In theory they could of had a 1 on their SAT and still been eligible for the college. Saying that their SAT scores would likely have lead to admission for -everyone- is meaningless, especially in the following context given by the college:

UC Berkeley is among the most selective universities in the country, becoming more competitive for freshman applicants each year. This past year Berkeley received more than 37,000 applications, with more than 90% coming from UC-eligible students. Generally the campus is able to admit about one in four freshman applicants for the fall term.

Yes, UC will be shown to be tripping up all over itself during the trial, no doubt, since these latest admissions policies of discreditation are obviously based on irrational neo-Darwinst racial thought processes.

discriminated against and excluded from University of California and California State University institutions because some courses at Calvary Christian School are disqualified from approval as a-g curriculum because of the Christian viewpoint added to standard subject matter presentation in those courses and their texts,

That's not a Christian viewpoint. That's a creationist viewpoint.

It's a Christian creationist POV.

[jcrawford]

In a legal context, it makes sense to say that pointing out the flaws in an alternate theory is mentioning the theory. However, those flaws have to be scientifically valid, and you can't show that beause racism is not in the pervue of science.

Since, as you say, "racism is not the purvue of science," this case is not about the merits, validity or flaws of science but about racial and religious dicrimination in political institutions like UC.

I'll say this again. Christian S/scientists are being discriminated against because they are wrong, not because they are Christians -- or even Christian S/scientists. This is perfectly legal.

It's illegal for the state to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Right and wrong aren't the sole purvue of 'science' either.

[jcrawford]

Science does not claim absolute truth. Science only claims adequate explanation.

I'm sure the plaintiffs will be only too happy to refer to your scientific statement here, sir, and use it for justification of their own theories of science.

The State of California treats all students as equal when it comes to the type of learning they must achieve in order to be accepted at the UC level.

Sounds like racial and religious quotas being imposed by neo-Darwinist racial supremacists in the State of California to me.

Again, I suggest the use of RND when referring to your pet hypothesis, a hypothesis for which you have given no evidence, and for which you have, in fact, given evidence against by a) referring to the definition of racism, b) stating that your motivation is done on moral grounds, and c) that you mistake science as a means for discovering truth.

Are RND's the same as NDRT's

[jcrawford]

As a term of social attitudes, racism does not have any meaning in a scientific context.

Good. I'll keep that in mind. The human race and its diverse membership have no meaning in a scientific context. Thank you.

I realize it's difficult to understand the type of dispassionate research that scientists go though every day.

Do you think that "disspassionate research" and logical analysis is the sole purvue of "scientists?" What about lawyers and judges? Are they scientists too?

Religion, being a concept that embraces emotion and intuition, tends to teach that intellectual pursuits are highly suspect, if not actually evil.

Is this your 'scientific,' legal or personal opinion?

I also realize that you have a vested interest in painting all "Darwinists" & "Neo-Darwinists" & "Presque-Darwinists" as racist, so you are compelled to state this whenever it appears appropriate to you.

You're very observant. How do we know that you're not some sort of scientist?

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to the determination of such inasmuchas it affects those of us who see through your thinly veiled attempt to force a Radical Right Wing agenda upon everyone else.

Why not? Don't Christians, creationists, African-Americans and other tax-payers have any civil rights anymore?

[jcrawford]

You're assuming that melanin (i.e., skin shading) is a viable topic for study. Therefore, you are being racist in the same way that you accuse "Neo-Darwinists" of being.

Nonsense. The scientific discovery of melanin has nothing to do with neo-Darwinist race theories of mythical African people originating from non-human ancestors of African apes once upon a time in Africa.

And make up your mind, is it a "race theory" or is it a "racist theory"? There is a difference.

Race, racial, racist, racialist. What's the 'scientific' difference?

But I find it interesting that you believe the admissions officers are lying demagogues. Do you believe all of material science is made up of liars & demogogues, or only the ones who disagree with you?

Only the ones who teach racial and racist theories about the origins of the human race from the mythological ancestors of a race of African apes once upon a time in Darwin's mythical Africa.

[jcrawford]

Politics is not a part of the discussion.

Why not? You sound like you think that U.S. jurisprudence is based on science and not politics. What kind of scientist are you anyway?

It just so happens that only the Far Right Wing of Christian Politics is interested in pushing this agenda. It's not the UC's fault that this is the case.

It seems that you are religiously biased against FRWCP here. You're not a communist or liberal socialist are you?

I'm sure you don't realize it. You may be surprised to discover that morality has nothing to do with determining what is actual science and what is junk science. Only dispassionate scientific study can make that determination.

You seem to be elevating 'science' to the supremacist postition of scientific pontificator here. You are aware that the term 'science' is just another word for knowledge, aren't you. Do you want to be known as a scientific 'know-it-all?'

[jcrawford]

I'll set aside much of the rest of the recent posts, on the grounds that we've beaten the "racism" idea into the ground in the Bones of Contention thread. However,

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.

I guess you'd say that god darkened the skin of some folks because of some imagined reason for doing so. However, the actual story is this:

1. melanin shades skin cells from UV (fact that you can't deny)
2. people with more melanin receive less UV radiation to their skin cells (again, fact, based on #1)
3. people with less melanin receive more UV radiation (fact, the flip-side of #2)
4. UV causes mutations; in skin cells, some of those mutations cause skin cancer (fact; check the medical literature)
5. UV induces the formation of vitamin D (fact; check even old biochemistry texts)
6. UV causes the breakdown of folic acid (fact; recently shown, but I can't remember where. I could look it up if you want to quibble)
7. There's a higher incidence of UV at the equator than near the poles (fact; just measure it) there's also more UV in Australia (fact based on measurement)
8. Too little UV results in too little vitamin D, which results in Ricketts (fact, just look it up)
9. Light-skinned people exposed to high UV get skin cancer at a high rate (look at Australia's rate relative to the rest of the world)
10. Dark-skinned people exposed to too the average UV dose in, say, New York city have a higher rate of Ricketts than light-skinned people in the same environment. Although milk is fortified with vitD to prevent this, many African Americans are (duh) not of European descent, and therefore lack the mutation that causes adult persistence of lactase. Hence, they are lactose-intolerant, and can't drink milk past weaning. Soymilk is not vitD fortified. Hence, the Ricketts.

THEREFORE there is intense selective pressure for skin color. Equatorial Africa has high UV, which selects for lots of melanin--to protect DNA from mutation, and to protect folic acid from degradation. There's enough UV there to produce adequate vitamin D. Europe has low UV, especially in Scandinavia, and therefore selects for light skin--to produce enough vitamin D for bone development; there's not enough UV to cause the other effects often enough to offset selection for vitamin D production. In short, skin color has been, and still is being selected for.

So, here are a bunch of incontrovertible facts. You may, if you like, claim that no conclusion can be drawn from them, and claim that natural selection cannot occur. But you'd be ignoring the science if you did so. Since the facts point inescapably to selection, but since you stated confidently that no such thing could occur, I humbly suggest that you learn some evolution.[/quote]

Jose, what does any of this have to do with Darwin's theory that African people originated from mutant ape ancestors, and neo-Darwinist beliefs that you and I descended from some African woman of our own species?

Are you sure that you understand Darwin's theory of human evolution? Have you read his book on the "Descent of Man?"

[ST88]

Science does not claim absolute truth. Science only claims adequate explanation.

I'm sure the plaintiffs will be only too happy to refer to your scientific statement here, sir, and use it for justification of their own theories of science.

... which would fail the adequacy test shortly thereafter.

The State of California treats all students as equal when it comes to the type of learning they must achieve in order to be accepted at the UC level.

Sounds like racial and religious quotas being imposed by neo-Darwinist racial supremacists in the State of California to me.

I'm quite sure that equality does sound like racism to you. Since you have not proven your assertions, or even supported them, I would not be surprised if some Christians were more equal than others as well.

Again, I suggest the use of RND when referring to your pet hypothesis, a hypothesis for which you have given no evidence, and for which you have, in fact, given evidence against by a) referring to the definition of racism, b) stating that your motivation is done on moral grounds, and c) that you mistake science as a means for discovering truth.

Are RND's the same as NDRT's

If you like.

[ST88]

As a term of social attitudes, racism does not have any meaning in a scientific context.

Good. I'll keep that in mind. The human race and its diverse membership have no meaning in a scientific context. Thank you.

Thank you for proving you have no idea what "racism" means.

I realize it's difficult to understand the type of dispassionate research that scientists go though every day.

Do you think that "disspassionate research" and logical analysis is the sole purvue of "scientists?" What about lawyers and judges? Are they scientists too?

Not in the strictest sense, I suppose. One can't really call them scientists of the law, because their job is only to interpret and infer. Only the legislative branch can actually make law. As for dispassion, it's much more difficult to assign that characteristic to people who work with the law because there are different interpretations for any given law, and lawyers by necessity must choose the degree to which crimes or torts are pursued. However, we would all suffer if lawyers decided the science for us.

Religion, being a concept that embraces emotion and intuition, tends to teach that intellectual pursuits are highly suspect, if not actually evil.

Is this your 'scientific,' legal or personal opinion?

Practically speaking, this is my opinion. You may shred it if you wish.

I also realize that you have a vested interest in painting all "Darwinists" & "Neo-Darwinists" & "Presque-Darwinists" as racist, so you are compelled to state this whenever it appears appropriate to you.

You're very observant. How do we know that you're not some sort of scientist?

I don't know quite what you're getting at, but you only have my word for what I do for a living. I'm not a professional scientist. I could show you my income tax forms, but I don't really like sending my SS# through cyberspace.

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to the determination of such inasmuchas it affects those of us who see through your thinly veiled attempt to force a Radical Right Wing agenda upon everyone else.

Why not? Don't Christians, creationists, African-Americans and other tax-payers have any civil rights anymore?

Civil rights are one thing. They guarantee you to say what you wish. What they do not guarantee is that anyone else has to believe you. The UC system does not believe you. That is their right.

So you are quite willing to force everyone else to believe as you do? What method will you use?