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]

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

Your above statement makes no sense at all in a scientific context.

The statement is made in a legal context.

This particular objection is a red herring and makes me wonder if you know what the generally accepted definition of "racism" is.

Since there is no "generally accepted definition of racism," I use the Oxford dictionary and Lubenow's theory of Darwinist racism.

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.

That's why the creationists are taking their case to court. To establish how true science really works and how Darwinist racists at UC are discriminating against Christian scientists.

If you want to talk ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then science is not the place for it.

That's just your personal philosophical opinion about the ultimate nature of science and truth.

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.

This is true. That's why the Christian creation scientists are suing the state for discriminating against them.

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.

No, that's what the State of California is doing to certain Christian students and the highschools which graduated them.

Students who learn science in the way you suggest are not equipped to succeed on the U.C. level.

Only because UC religiously discriminates against them on the basis on Darwinist racial theories in science.

[jcrawford]

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.

How can I be doing that since I obviously stated that "natural selection" plays no part in determining human skin shades.

You seem to believe that Asians and Europeans evolved into "higher" life forms than the current "race" of Africans. Boy are you wrong.

I don't believe that any members of the current or past human race "evolved" from common ancestors of African apes, so "boy," are you wrong to assume that there even is such a thing as a "current 'race' of Africans."

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 only "lying demogogues" in this legal case are the UC admissions officers who want to impose neo-Darwinist race theories upon certain Christian students who wish to pursue a carreer in such scientific disciplines as physics, chemistry, biology and medicine.

[juliod]

Anyone know if the lawsuit has actually been filed? I searched google news for it. Nothing new since the original stories. I'm still waiting to see what is alleged in the actual suit, rather than in the press release.

DanZ

[jcrawford]

It's not anti-Christian because there are many Christians who attend U.C. schools.

Obviously, this State University is only too happy to accept Christian students who don't find Darwin's theories of African peoples biological descent from African ape ancestors racist, while it discriminates against those Christian students and highschools that do.

The objection is strictly with the curriculum -- a curriculum which reflects only the Far Right wing of Christian politics.

Since when can an American state or other govermental institution discriminate on the basis of Christian, non-Christian or anti-Christian politics?

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.

Since morality is the only science which can distinguish between 'good, bad and junk science,' I fail to recognize either the moral or scientific basis of your previously posted statements about my moral character.

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.

You wouldn't elevate immoral Darwinist race theories about African people originating from apes above African peoples science of morality and bio-ethics, would you?

Just because Charles Darwin was a naturalistic supremacist and racist, doesn't mean that you or any other American citizen has to be.

[jcrawford]

Anyone know if the lawsuit has actually been filed? I searched google news for it. Nothing new since the original stories. I'm still waiting to see what is alleged in the actual suit, rather than in the press release.

DanZ

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.

http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/a ... plaint.pdf

If the 5 Christian students and 800 Christian highschools don't win this case, in the event that UC doesn't back off from it's discriminatory practices and settle out of court, I guarantee that the next civil rights lawsuit against any state university that discriminates against Christians on the basis of Darwinist race theories of African people originating from ape ancestors will involve civil rights charges of racial discrimination on the part of state universities teaching neo-Darwinst racism.

[Nyril]

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.

Just a few points:

...SAT Reasoning Test scores would otherwise qualify for admission...

They bring this point up for every single student in various forms.

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. As luck would have it, I found the second part of the information I was after here.

In the paragraph in which they discuss SAT scores you find this.

Under no circumstances does Berkeley employ minimum scores or “cut-offs” of any kind.

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.

Once again, 75% of applicants are rejected by default. With luck maybe 1 in 4 of those students should of made it in, and that's if one of them happened to be outstanding.

Secondly:

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.

[ST88]

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

Your above statement makes no sense at all in a scientific context.

The statement is made in a legal context.

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. It is instead Social Science. I have no problem with Creationism being mentioned in a Humanities class.

This particular objection is a red herring and makes me wonder if you know what the generally accepted definition of "racism" is.

Since there is no "generally accepted definition of racism," I use the Oxford dictionary and Lubenow's theory of Darwinist racism.

If true, then you would know it is not applicable to any branch of scientific inquiry.

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.

That's why the creationists are taking their case to court. To establish how true science really works and how Darwinist racists at UC are discriminating against Christian scientists.

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.

If you want to talk ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then science is not the place for it.

That's just your personal philosophical opinion about the ultimate nature of science and truth.

No, sir. You are absolutely 100% wrong here. Science does not claim absolute truth. Science only claims adequate explanation.

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.

This is true. That's why the Christian creation scientists are suing the state for discriminating against them.

You can teach the unsuspecting little student victims whatever you wish. However, you should expect that there will be some consequences. One such consequence is that you leave them unprepared for the high-level of UC education they would be faced with.

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.

No, that's what the State of California is doing to certain Christian students and the highschools which graduated them.

That, my friend, is an opinion you must support with evidence. 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.

Students who learn science in the way you suggest are not equipped to succeed on the U.C. level.

Only because UC religiously discriminates against them on the basis on Darwinist racial theories in science.

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.

As a term of social attitudes, racism does not have any meaning in a scientific context. I realize it's difficult to understand the type of dispassionate research that scientists go though every day. Religion, being a concept that embraces emotion and intuition, tends to teach that intellectual pursuits are highly suspect, if not actually evil. 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 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. And, of course, inasmuchas you are incorrect when you state it.

[ST88]

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.

How can I be doing that since I obviously stated that "natural selection" plays no part in determining human skin shades.

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.

You seem to believe that Asians and Europeans evolved into "higher" life forms than the current "race" of Africans. Boy are you wrong.

I don't believe that any members of the current or past human race "evolved" from common ancestors of African apes, so "boy," are you wrong to assume that there even is such a thing as a "current 'race' of Africans."

I was referring to your beliefs, not mine. You believe that Darwinism teaches this, but you're wrong about that as well.

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 only "lying demogogues" in this legal case are the UC admissions officers who want to impose neo-Darwinist race theories upon certain Christian students who wish to pursue a carreer in such scientific disciplines as physics, chemistry, biology and medicine.

Please, RND.

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

[ST88]

It's not anti-Christian because there are many Christians who attend U.C. schools.

Obviously, this State University is only too happy to accept Christian students who don't find Darwin's theories of African peoples biological descent from African ape ancestors racist, while it discriminates against those Christian students and highschools that do.

Correction, only those students who have been taught this by rote.

The objection is strictly with the curriculum -- a curriculum which reflects only the Far Right wing of Christian politics.

Since when can an American state or other govermental institution discriminate on the basis of Christian, non-Christian or anti-Christian politics?

Never. Politics is not a part of the discussion. 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.

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.

Since morality is the only science which can distinguish between 'good, bad and junk science,' I fail to recognize either the moral or scientific basis of your previously posted statements about my moral character.

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.

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.

You wouldn't elevate immoral Darwinist race theories about African people originating from apes above African peoples science of morality and bio-ethics, would you?

No, I wouldn't. Because that's not what Darwinism is about.

Just because Charles Darwin was a naturalistic supremacist and racist, doesn't mean that you or any other American citizen has to be.

Hmmm. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Darwinism actually is. I must admit, it's very complicated, and to fully understand it, you would have to slog through a lot of science. I think many people use shorthand ideas to try and get through a lot of it, so misunderstandings are probably inevitable.

[micatala]

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.

http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/a ... plaint.pdf

The document is helpful. Now we can at least see what the plaintiffs are saying.

Unfortunately, your description of the document is not accurate since you are stating that UC officials are racist, which has not been shown. IN fact, you have not even shown there is such a thing as neo-Darwinist racism. I know this is sort of silly to be tossing 'did too', 'did not' back and forth, but as long as you are going to drag this idea into this thread, I will continue to point out that you are making a false assertion.

Since morality is the only science which can distinguish between 'good, bad and junk science,' I fail to recognize either the moral or scientific basis of your previously posted statements about my moral character.

Morality is not commonly considered to be a science in any sense of the word science. Furthermore, whether it is a science or not, it has nothing to say about the quality of scientific work.

Morality might have something to say about how scientific knowledge is applied, but that is a separate question as to whether the science is 'junk' or not in the first place.

Back to the lawsuit.

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,

The suit is obviously stated from the point of view of the plaintiffs. As such, it is likely to contain assumptions on their part that are not necessarily valid, and will certainly be subject to scrutiny as the trial proceeds (if the suit gets that far).

In this passage, the plaintiffs claim that the materials are being disqualified "because of the Christian viewpoint added to standard subject matter."

This begs several questions.

1) Is the material really 'standard subject matter.'
2) Is the 'added viewpoint' actually Christian, or are the plaintiffs trying to misapply the term Christian to the viewpoints so that they can try to claim religious discrimination (much as jcrawford has misapplied the word racism to his misunderstanding of evolution in an attempt to further his slanderous racial charges).
3) Is the viewpoint, whether Christian or not, only 'added to' or has it completely altered the nature of the material being presented.

The third point is probably the most salient. I have seen school curriculums where the 'Christian viewpoint' was not simply an add on, but was substituted for the 'standard subject matter', or altered the standard subject matter to such a degree that it was no longer recognizable as such. AN example of this would be explaining a geological phenomenon by explanation of a miracle when a perfectly reasonable and well-tested scientific explanation would be the 'standard' explanation.

As one reads further into the suit, it is apparent the plaintiffs are going to try to paint the actions of UC as 'viewpoint discrimination.' We will see how far they get with this, but I personally don't see how it is viewpoint discrimination at all. UC is not saying that students who don't believe evolution is true can't be admitted, or that Christian students can't be admitted.

Nyril's point is also well-taken. The minimum standards for courses to be taken mentioned in the suit (2-years of lab science, etc.) do not guarantee admission. Students need to go above and beyond these in order to be competitive in this highly competitive system.