Christian Schools Sue State University

Ah...The Ad Hominem...Truly the mark of the desparate. Or at least those without facts.

Now let's see here..."descriminate [sic] : make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit"... This is where you show your inability to grasp the situation. The inability of the students to be admitted based on the grades is precisely because of the lack of merit (merit: Demonstrated ability or achievement; Superior quality or worth; excellence; A quality deserving praise or approval) in their science "education."

They tried to slip in biology falsely called so and were rightly rejected. If they want to claim credit for taking biology then they need to have taken biology and not a course masquarading as something other than what it really is.

And they are not being denied entry to the school. They are being denied entry only through the path of GPA and this is because of the choice to take a science class that has no merit. They are still free to enter the university through any of the other approved paths.

 

JC - I can understand WHY the fundamentalists (in the SBC) were so serious about the LIBERALS ...

Thank God the liberals lost. Now the conservatives can STAND with these young men and women against the LIBERALS & the GOVERNMENT as they discriminate!

 

John brought up something important earlier which seems to have been ignored.

Now, this could very easily be a slippery slope fallacy, they usually are if you use the phrase "slippery slope," but maybe not. To show that it is, someone needs to point out where you can logically draw the dividing line.

The issue here is that certain students think that they deserve special treatment because of their religious beliefs. Because they do not accept modern biology (and really, a group of high school students, their parents and their high school teachers are the BEST judge of the validity of a complex scientific theory), they feel that they should be given special consideration with regard to university admissions. Everyone else must attend schools with certified science classes, but since they object to science, they should be given special consideration and allowed in on their grades even though the grades are in classes that are subpar.

John's question is whether this should extend to all religions and interests. And it is a reasonable question. Should we allow students of other faiths to throwout whatever subjects might not agree with their own beliefs? In science and other areas, too. Should holocaust deniers be let in, their history lesson excused because it is what they believe? (This is a good analogy. Both YEers and holocaust deniers go in with preconceived notions, based on nothing substantial, that allow them to trumpet anything that even sounds good to their position, without regard to factual content, and to ignore the overwhelming evidence against their position.)

What about other religions? If some folks wanted to teach re-incarnation as part of their biology class, would you stand in solidarity with them if they were denied the use of their grades for entry in the university or do you hypocritically only support groups that share your specific set of beliefs?

What if some parents do not believe that their kids should be made to think that they can fail. As a result, they choose schools that teach some sort of new math where there are no wrong answers, just alternative ways to solving the problem. Should they be let in?

How about some other real life controversies?

Should churches be given exemptions to zoning laws?

Should church bells be except from local noise ordinances?

What about people who believe in the use of illegal drugs in their religious ceremonies? Should they be given excemptions?

Should people be allowed to serve their unerage children wine with meals if it is part of their believes?

What if someone wants to practice human sacrifice and has volunteers ready to go?

Could you please tell us just how we should define the line that tells us what religious practices and beliefs should allow for excemptions from the standards under which everyone has to live and which ones should remain as standards for everyone regardless of their beliefs?

I think everyone should have the same standards. I guess you want exemptions from those standards.

I really hate to see fellow conservatives who abandon their beliefs when it threatens to affect what they want to do. We preach personal responsibility but yet you want special treatment when choices you agree with fall outside of the standards and have real consequences.

 

First - No, the objections to evoluntionary science do not all hinge on "observation." There are series questions related to physics and more recently DNA involved.

Second - UTEOW - No, I won't elaborate here .I've elbaorated on it before, I've even pointed people like you to quotes and websites. The bottom line is your faith is not in God, it is in Science. So, you will most likely take the routes of others and look at the list of thousands of respected scientists who go, "evolution IS wrong," and say, "Well, they're crack pots."

Third - This is indeed discrimination.

If your University starts telling you that you will not qualify for admissions until you study the teachings of WICCA or of SATANISTS or of Hindu's, will you object?

In no other University subject of study have I seen a college say, "Don't even look at that theory or we won't admit you!" To say, "Your studies must include some of this," is one thing. To say, "It cannot include this," is a whole other kettle of fish.

LAST - Ask yourself - do you, or do you not, believe the Bible is the Word of God? If you say you DO believe it is, then on SOME level you MUST accept that God is a creator. Now, you MIGHT be one who says, "He used some form of evolution to achieve that," or you MIGHT say, "He spoke the universe into existence."

If you don't believe the bible is God's word - why do you claim to be Christian? The only teachings we have about Christ are FROM the Bible and Based ON the Bible.

I don't really ~care~ how God created the world.
I do, though, know that science is theory, not fact.
And that to blindly accept everything science teaches as fact is a weakness of the ignorant.

The great scientists doubted, quested and were riddiculed for questioning established scientific theory. So Christians are in good company when they look beyond, "My teacher said it so it must be so."

 

Take a look at the state of the church in the following article
http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21464

 

The above post by jcrawford was posted by a being with vestigal digits on his feet, a vestigal tailbone that is immobile, a vestigal muscle placed for moving the immovable tailbone, vestigal ear moving muscles that can actually still wiggle ears in some people, and with vestigal roots in his eye teeth that are so outsized as to reflect a time when those teeth were real fangs.

But he sees no evidence.

He is utterly dependent on vitamin c in his diet thanks to a defective gene for making vitamin c that has exactly the same defect in chimpanzees and other primates;

But he sees no evidence.

Genetic studies show that in the past retro-virus genes have been inserted in an ancester. And hey, that same ancestral marker appears in the genes of other chimpanzees and primates.

But he sees no evidence.

Uh - jc - Ute is not alone. He has a lot of highly qualified scientists on his side, you know.

 

But, since you state they don't relate to any observation, they can be safely discounted as not being scientific.

Those of us who are committed to finding out the truth no matter how it conflicts with previous prejudices find it ludicrous that you think doing this means we don't believe in God. GOD IS TRUTH!
But it does mean, of course, some traditional opinions aren't true.

I'll bet you cannot find even one thousand living scientists who go "evolution is wrong" in the sense that they deny all dna based life has a common descent. Don't count Michael Behe of "intelligent design" theory in that group, he acknowledges the common descent of life.

Ute has on several occasions testified that he accepts Christ as his savior and God as creator, and evolution merely as a means that God used.

Science is the very opposite of blind acceptance. Science takes nothing on faith, demainding evidence, and then questioning the evidence over and over until some things come to be established with confidence, such as that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and all life is of common descent.

Well, now that you've doubted, questioned and ridiculed Ute, that means he's right, too, according to this logic. In other words, reasoning like that is self contradictory, a not uncommon finding for the reasoning of those who oppose the findings of science.

Just explain to me in your picture of the universe, how DID that vitiman c making gene get damaged in exactly the same accidental way in every primate? I've got an explanation based on evolution theory - it happened by accident once in a common ancestor who wasn't bothered by it because she had lots of vitamin c in her diet anyway.

It seems to me all the alternative ideas are crazy.

The result of sin and corruption? That would be a random, chaotic thing that wouldn't put the exact same fault into every primate species.

The result of common design? Designers don't design errors, they design error free.

The result of a retroviral infection that happens to zoom into that exact same spot in the chromozone every time? Viral infections are random as to where they insert, there's nothing driving them to pick one spot over another.

A deliberate action by God to punish the living species on account of the sin of Adam? Leaves us wondering what He was thinking of when only primates were involved and dogs and cats got off scott free. And most primates don't even think its a punishment, having plent of vitamin c in their diets anyway, you know.

Well, my imagination isn't up to it. So help me out here, how DO you account for the vitamin c disabled gene facts in your view of the world?

And how many facts like that that evolution can account for but creation theory cannot would it take to persuade you that evolution is correct after all?

3 more - 10 more - a thousand more- or none will ever suffice because the mind is made up?

 

"Why should I be either bothered or forced to retype Lubenow's 400 page book on demand for you when serious debaters will buy their own copy for 20 bucks and can refer to the scientific facts about neo-Darwinist race theories on every page ... The least you could do is also have a couple of essential textbooks available which either advocate neo-Darwinist racism or critique it.

This is the reason, already explained to you.

Lub IS NOT a recognized expert on the subject. There is therefore no reason to own his book. It is not "essential." If you were recommending I go buy, say, something by Gould or Dawkins, then that might be considered essential reading.

If Lub really should be read, then you need to give me some reason to actually read it. So far all you have done is repeat your mantra of racism without providing any facts. You claim repeatedly that it is well researched and well documented. Well if you wish to get me to consider a book by someone who is not an expert, then you need to detail a few of his key arguments and include the references which you say are in there. Maybe if the arguments are well reasoned, logically sound and do not misrepresent the original sources, you might could convince someone to read it.

As it is, it just sounds like he spends a few hundred pages repeating the word "racist." And the one time you did give a specific arguement and a reference, the reference said something different than what was claimed.

"As Lubenow so adequately documents and scientifically demonstrates in his expert assessment of the human fossil record, there is absolutely NO evidence of humans sharing common ancestry with any African monkeys or apes."

Then go over to the thread and provide a better interpretation for the genetic evidence.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html

"Why should anyone bother to read or even refer to your posted links when they don't prove anything other than your failure to have either studied or even read Lubenow's theories on historical neo-Darwinist racism in natural science."

Beacuse Lub is not an expert in the field while if you follow the links you will see evidence presented from those who are experts in the field.

"Your problem is that you think that you are the sole and final arbitor, interpreter and judge of those 'nasty little things called facts' before you even have a theory explaining the nature of 'facts.' "

I am not the arbitor. I am not an evolutionary biologists so I do not have the knowledge to judge.

But those who DO have all the requisite learning, who have put in the years of study and who have examined and even collected the evidence do have a theory which explains the data very well.

"'Evolutionists today are not racist, but their theory is racist to the core.' - Marvin L. Lubenow, "Bones of Contention," 2004 ed. page 157.

Anyone who has the book may easily verify that the reference says exactly the same thing as what I have claimed."

Fallacious appeal to authority. He is not an expert who may be quoted as authoritive. If you will give us the logic behind this statement and references to the orignal sources that support this assertion, then maybe we could judge it.

"Where's the supporting evidence for either of your claims here?"

I presented it above. I went and looked up the actual BJU textbook and mentioned some of the specific areas in which the text strays from biology into psuedoscience.

"That's religious discrimination based solely on neo-Darwinist racism."

Nope, it is maintaining standards. Why don't you answer some of my questions on other instances, some hypothetical, of the religious possibly wanting to avoid standards everyone else must meet.

"That's a perverse presentation of the "issue here," since the issue obviously revolves around UC's new policy of selective religious discrimination on the basis of scientific rejection, discreditation and racism inherent in neo-Darwinist theories, teachings and practices of 'natural selection,' genetic mutation and 'adaptation' in human biology. "

Nope. It is insisting that those who claim to have taken biology to have really taken biology if they want to get in based on their grades.

"You are misrepresenting the plaintiff's case since there is no appeal for religious accomodation in the lawsuit but for equal treatment and opportunity in the eyes of the law for Christian students who have attended and graduated from schools with certified science classes."

Nope. They are asking for an exemption from the standards everyone else must follow. If you want in based on grades, there is a minimum requirement. They want to do something less than the minimum and still get in. Sorry. I hope they have good test scores or can play the flute or act or catch a ball or interview well.

"Should we go down the slippery slope, the slippery slope, the slippery slope?
Should we go down the slippery slope and pull everyone else behind us?"

Yes. Play word games rather than make a real response to a legitimate set of questions.

 

"First - No, the objections to evoluntionary science do not all hinge on "observation." There are series questions related to physics and more recently DNA involved."

If they are real objections then they should be able to be present in a logical manner complete with references. And they should present a better explanation for the wealth of observations which we have.

When someone claims they have the answer but they cannot be bother to give it, they likely do not have it.

"Second - UTEOW - No, I won't elaborate here .I've elbaorated on it before, I've even pointed people like you to quotes and websites. "

Everytime I have seriously examined a YE claim, it has pushed me further away from YE. I started YE and it was the incredibly poor scholorship of the YE material I read that pushed me away and even led me to consider anything else. The websites are misrepresentations or outright lies while the quotes are so far out of context for me to rightly question the honesty of those providing them.

"The bottom line is your faith is not in God, it is in Science."

Personal attack. Usually the tactic of those without an answer.

There are scores of Christian denominations, each with their own interpretations of Scripture. Is it reasonable tothink that any of them actually have every interpretation right? But you commonly run across those who will scream till their blue that you don't trust God if you doubt one of their views, as if they personally speak for God and every other Christian out there is wrong.

"Third - This is indeed discrimination. "

How? They are wanting credit for a class they did not take. Why don't you examine some of my other possible situtations and answer them?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/108/6.html#000082

"If your University starts telling you that you will not qualify for admissions until you study the teachings of WICCA or of SATANISTS or of Hindu's, will you object?"

If they require knowledge of these subjects and I refuse, then it is my choice. I am not sure I would want to go to such a school so no real loss.

"In no other University subject of study have I seen a college say, 'Don't even look at that theory or we won't admit you!' To say, 'Your studies must include some of this,'" is one thing. To say, 'It cannot include this,' is a whole other kettle of fish."

But if they ask that you have studied biology and you instead study something that says all of modern biology is hogwash, then you have not met their requirements.

"LAST - Ask yourself - do you, or do you not, believe the Bible is the Word of God? If you say you DO believe it is, then on SOME level you MUST accept that God is a creator."

I do and He is.

"Now, you MIGHT be one who says, 'He used some form of evolution to achieve that,' or you MIGHT say, 'He spoke the universe into existence.'"

False dilemma. I accept both statements.

"I do, though, know that science is theory, not fact."

You have been misled.

Evolution is an observed fact. The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the processes and history of the fact.

"And that to blindly accept everything science teaches as fact is a weakness of the ignorant."

That's why we should not remain ignorant but should instead learn all we can on the subject.

 

"Lubenow is not only a recognized expert on the human fossil record ..."

And on what basis do you make that claim? Can you cite for me where he has been published in the professional journals dealing with the human fossil record? I did a quick search both in PUBMED and Google Scholar and I could not find a single professional article written by Lub nor any citations of Lub in the professional literature. These are the characteristics that mark a recognized expert and he does not possess them. So just what qualifications are you asserting to put him in the category of "recognized expert?"

"On pages 156-157, Lubenow quotes Gould as confirming that evolution is intrinsically racist."

Could you please give us the original citation, you know the original Gould paper, where I can go read this for myself? Lack of a specific citation will be taken as evidence that the assertion is false.

"How is Dawkins an expert on the human fossil record..."

I am not sure if I would consider Dawkins an expert on the human fossil record specifically, but I would certainly consider him a recognized expert in the more general category of evolution. Here is a partial listing of his publications.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/biblio.shtml

If you look through there, you will see publications in professional journals. This is the mark of an expert in the scientific fields and what is lacking in the case of Lub.

"...what does he know about neo-Darwinist racism that makes him so 'essential' on your reading list?"

I was not naming him as an essential author to read. But I was giving an example of what would be considered a reasonable suggestion. You were the one that suggested that it was a good idea to have "a couple of essential textbooks available." Since Lub's book is neither a textbook nor by an expert, it fails to meet your qualifications. If you had suggested reading a book on the subject that was by an expert, it would have been a good suggestion.

Since it was, I took your advice and went out and picked up a copy of The Ancestor's Tale today. It's now in paperback.

"Their teachers just left out the neo-Darwinist racial theories about our common descent from African Eve and the 'natural selection' of African ape ancestors to genetically mutate into African people once upon a time in neo-Darwinist Africa."

They did not just leave it out. I think my high school biology teacher left it out. At least I cannot remember ever going over it. And since I was staunchly YE at that point, I think I would remember. No, these schools chose textbooks that actively portray the lynchpin of modern biology as false. That measn they are not teaching biology.

"Not when it comes to humans and chimpanzees."

There is plenty. There is a rich fossil, molecular and genetic set of observations. There is no other explanation. If there were, someone would have given it by now.

"At least I haven't seen any. Have you?"

Look above. I presented links to threads that support both human evolution and that of other animals.

"Oh, I know, you are trying to make monkeys out of people, but people can't devolve into monkeys, can they? If they can't then monkeys can't evolve into people either[.] "

Plunk.

That does not even make sense. Just where does evolution predict that you should be able to make a monkey from a human? But this is the kind of baseless logic that passes for "creation science."