Christian Schools Bring Suit Against UC

[Cheese]

No not University of Calgary...University of California.

Amid the growing national debate over the mixing of religion and science in America's classrooms, University of California admissions officials have been accused in a federal civil rights lawsuit of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Lunacy continues...

[Cowperson]

Under a policy implemented with little fanfare a year ago, UC admissions authorities have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution, the suit says.

Since Evolution is a fact and creationism merely a theory, why would they?

Cowperson

[Draug]

Actually, I would argue that they are both theories from a scientific point of view.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

This is stupid.
Why shouldn't a university be able to deny people who haven't learned what the university deems to be necessary? I think I'm gonna make up a wacky religion and home school myself so I can get into university without actually learning anything,and if they won't let me in, I'll sure. Ill even make up some stupid theories about math, Pherhaps 1+1+1 will = 1, because anyone familliar with the trinity knows that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three different things, but sill the same thing, so logically 1+1+1=3, the bible tells me so.
Can I get my math degree now.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Draug@Aug 31 2005, 09:06 AM
Actually, I would argue that they are both theories from a scientific point of view.

Sure, thechnically speaking, they are both theories, but one is a widely accepted as true based on a very large body of emperical evidence, while the other is a literal interpretation of the bible.

Here's another theory, should UC accept science majors that learned this. (Yes I know it's satire, but you get the point).

Intellignet Falling

[mykalberta]

What schools would have textbooks that mention creationism. I can see having religious books but they cant teach that as an acredited science program. While I am in belief of a combination of both theories, I cant see a school science program being acredited in the US.

In Alberta there is nothing in the textbooks but just because its in a textbook or not in one doesnt make it true.

If the University is public then they dont have a leg to stand on, its clear religious discrimination. Same as race - you can pull statistics that say anything but it violates core constitution beliefs. If its a private, then they might win.

MYK

[peter12]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 31 2005, 08:58 AM
Under a policy implemented with little fanfare a year ago, UC admissions authorities have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution, the suit says.

Since Evolution is a fact and creationism merely a theory, why would they?

Cowperson

No scientific theory is fact.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Draug@Aug 31 2005, 08:06 AM
Actually, I would argue that they are both theories from a scientific point of view.

You mean you would attempt to drag evolution down to a level where it equals creationism, thereby creating a level playing field from which to debate the relative merits of both.

I'm no fan of organized religion, believing it nothing more than a bunch of factless fairy tales designed to concentrate power, but I also don't rule out there might be a guiding hand behind the Big Bang, where nothing turned into something. In that event, God or Gods would be just as good an explanation as any other.

In that event, its quite possible to have a God AND evolution.

But I'm not going to waste my time denying the truth of evolution merely to justify religious beliefs borne out of the minds of primitives in the dust of deserts thousands of years ago.

Cowperson

[Draug]

I suppose a University has the right to accept or deny applicants based on what they have learned or not learned.

A prospective student should know and understand the Theory of Evolution, but at the same time, should know other proposed theories, such as Creationism. For that matter, they should know any other theories that are pertinant to those two, if they are relative to their chosen discipline. IMO, a University has the right to reject a student that only knows one of the two theories, but does not have the right to reject a student if they have learned both theories.

Originally posted by Cowperson

You mean you would attempt to drag evolution down to a level where it equals creationism, thereby creating a level playing field from which to debate the relative merits of both.

I guess I would.

Just because a theory is widely accepted, doesnt mean it is a fact. It must be proven correct to be a fact; neither Evolution or Creationism is proven to be correct at this point. In fact, that is the point of science, to prove and disprove theories, whether they are widely accepted or not.

[Cheese]

Many people in our society do not know the difference between a theory and an assertion. Science operates through use of theories. Those who claim to have absolute knowledge are simply making an assertion.

Evolution theory, and science generally, frees the mind to confront and test experience, to investigate and explore.

Creationism closes the door.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally posted by Draug@Aug 31 2005, 10:22 AM

Just because a theory is widely accepted, doesnt mean it is a fact. It must be proven correct to be a fact; neither Evolution or Creationism is proven to be correct at this point. In fact, that is the point of science, to prove and disprove theories, whether they are widely accepted or not.

I think science has proven our evolution about as much as humanly possible. Do you want them to travel back in time and videotape our evolution. Would you accept it then? Keep the blinders on...

[peter12]

Originally posted by Frank the Tank+Aug 31 2005, 09:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Frank the Tank @ Aug 31 2005, 09:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Draug@Aug 31 2005, 10:22 AM

Just because a theory is widely accepted, doesnt mean it is a fact. It must be proven correct to be a fact; neither Evolution or Creationism is proven to be correct at this point. In fact, that is the point of science, to prove and disprove theories, whether they are widely accepted or not.

I think science has proven our evolution about as much as humanly possible. Do you want them to travel back in time and videotape our evolution. Would you accept it then? Keep the blinders on... [/b][/quote]
Just because there is a large amount of evidence supporting evolution does not mean it is true. Our misunderstanding of biology and physics is even now proving to be somewhat flawed. It is possible we have gotten something wrong.

Even something as "solid" as the theory of gravitational fields is proving to be incorrect now.

[Frank the Tank]

So just say "screw it all!" and beleive some third-hand account of some book that was written 400 years after the events in it occured because it is called the "Bible"? No thanks. I pick science.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by peter12+Aug 31 2005, 08:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peter12 @ Aug 31 2005, 08:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I think science has proven our evolution about as much as humanly possible. Do you want them to travel back in time and videotape our evolution. Would you accept it then? Keep the blinders on...

Just because there is a large amount of evidence supporting evolution does not mean it is true. Our misunderstanding of biology and physics is even now proving to be somewhat flawed. It is possible we have gotten something wrong.

Even something as "solid" as the theory of gravitational fields is proving to be incorrect now. [/b][/quote]
The concept that biological entities can adapt and mutate through natural selection - the strong winning out over the weak - is amply proven and a fact.

That basic concept is what we're talking about.

Whether or not dinosaurs became birds at some point isn't the fundamental point on the table.

Organized religion has typically attempted to ###### knowledge that differs from its own established theories of how the world around us operates.

You have to admire sometimes, however, the way organized religion can evolve and mutate its beliefs to maintain its power base . . . . . I think Catholics a few years ago were willing to concede the possibility of life on Mars as an example. This is the same group that once insisted the world was flat, the Sun orbited the Earth, etc, etc.

Cowperson

[Cheese]

Originally posted by peter12+Aug 31 2005, 11:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peter12 @ Aug 31 2005, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I think science has proven our evolution about as much as humanly possible. Do you want them to travel back in time and videotape our evolution. Would you accept it then? Keep the blinders on...

Just because there is a large amount of evidence supporting evolution does not mean it is true. Our misunderstanding of biology and physics is even now proving to be somewhat flawed. It is possible we have gotten something wrong.

Even something as "solid" as the theory of gravitational fields is proving to be incorrect now. [/b][/quote]
Creationists often claim that they have nothing against science in general or that they rely on the scientific method as much as anyone, and yet they arbitrarily reject science when they dislike its results for subjective reasons. The fact of the matter is that evolution is a product of the scientific method, and it is hypocritical to accept one and reject the other. Despite all protestations otherwise, evolution is indisputably good science, built up by over a century of experimentation and observation. While it has been refined by new discoveries, it has never seriously been challenged in any important respect, and it has been used again and again to make predictions which have been borne out. This is true science in every sense of the word, and anyone who claims to use the scientific method has no choice but to accept that. Creationism, by contrast, is nonscientific. It does not start with a tentative hypothesis open to change and vulnerable to disproof if contradictory evidence is found. Instead, it starts with an immutable hypothesis which may not be questioned and goes out searching for evidence to support it, ignoring evidence which does not. This is the antithesis of science, yet creationists hypocritically and dishonestly claim to only be following where the scientific method and the evidence lead them.

[peter12]

You guys are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that evolution is false and creationism is the only true holy way, but saying evolution is complete fact is stretching things.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by peter12@Aug 31 2005, 09:32 AM
You guys are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that evolution is false and creationism is the only true holy way, but saying evolution is complete fact is stretching things.

The concept that biological entities can adapt and mutate through natural selection - the strong winning out over the weak - is amply proven and a fact.

I never presumed you were arguing in favour of religion. I was simply answering your point with the above statement of fact.

Cowperson

[peter12]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Aug 31 2005, 10:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Aug 31 2005, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-peter12@Aug 31 2005, 09:32 AM
You guys are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that evolution is false and creationism is the only true holy way, but saying evolution is complete fact is stretching things.

The concept that biological entities can adapt and mutate through natural selection - the strong winning out over the weak - is amply proven and a fact.

I never presumed you were arguing in favour of religion. I was simply answering your point with the above statement of fact.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Agreed.
However the extent to which evolution exists and to when/how it started is definitely not fact. When you go back as far as the Big Bang, evoluton and cosmology have barely more credence than God creating the universe in 6 days.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by peter12+Aug 31 2005, 09:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peter12 @ Aug 31 2005, 09:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The concept that biological entities can adapt and mutate through natural selection - the strong winning out over the weak - is amply proven and a fact.

I never presumed you were arguing in favour of religion. I was simply answering your point with the above statement of fact.

Cowperson

Agreed.
However the extent to which evolution exists and to when/how it started is definitely not fact. When you go back as far as the Big Bang, evoluton and cosmology have barely more credence than God creating the universe in 6 days. [/b][/quote]
If you go back to one of my posts above, I believe I referenced the Big Bang and said that God was as good an explanation as any.

In other words, I would agree its possible that God unleashed the forces of natural selection. I won't agree that the forces of natural selection are a theory, however.

Cowperson

[Cheese]

Originally posted by peter12+Aug 31 2005, 12:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peter12 @ Aug 31 2005, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The concept that biological entities can adapt and mutate through natural selection - the strong winning out over the weak - is amply proven and a fact.

I never presumed you were arguing in favour of religion. I was simply answering your point with the above statement of fact.

Cowperson

Agreed.
However the extent to which evolution exists and to when/how it started is definitely not fact. When you go back as far as the Big Bang, evoluton and cosmology have barely more credence than God creating the universe in 6 days. [/b][/quote]
Creationism/Christians assume the world is anywhere between 6 and 10,000 years old.
Science has proven otherwise. Evolution has scientifically proven the world is MUCH older. The origin has not been explained yet, but I would place a bet that science will find the correct and logical explanation...and that explanation will not be a God.