Christian Schools Sue State University

"The only trouble is that your refutation and denunciation of Marvin Lubenow based on 'peer-review' reminds me of the Roman Catholic College of Cardinals refutations and denunciations of Martin Luther's muliple theses critizing the professional opinions of the predominant 'religious' community and 'peer-reviewers' of his day."

It really does not matter what you think. You said he was a recognized expert. I want to know on what basis we should consider him a recognized expert. I gave you the normal test which he fails. So what other test do you propose and how does he fit that test?

"Lubenow states on page 156 (paragraph 2) of his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" that Gould delivered a lecture at the College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, on "Evolution and Human Equality" in 1987. He says that there was little mention of this lecture for fifteen years until it was made available on videotape in 2002 by Natural History magazine. "

Well maybe you could tell us what he supposedly said. Here are a couple of descriptions of the tape.

http://osulibrary.orst.edu/video/anthro2.html

http://www.carleton.edu/cgi-bin/media/search/E

These descriptions make it sound as if he not only was saying just the opposite of what you claim, but that the entire lecture was opposed to what Lub claims. But these sorts of errors are quite common in YE "science."

 

Well, if you run your finger over the gums you can feel for yourself the outsized roots those teeth have. Its evidence, my friend, evidence.

Not that you ever personally had fangs, nor even Adam and Eve. It would have been a biological ancestor from back before God chose the body into which to enfuse the living soul.

It is, just as genetic similarity established paternity or maternity in a court of law.

There is no "evidence" of the evolution of one species of apes into another or into human beings in Africa in that observation.
</font>[/QUOTE]Dear readers: Please note the repetition of the mantra without a single piece of qualifying logic to justify the mantra. That is all he's got - a repititon of a mantra. The science side keeps citing evidence. The anti-science side keeps denying the evidence is evidence, that's all they can do.

Some "highly qualified scientists" can be elitist to the extreme point of claiming superiority and supremacy over other scientists. </font>[/QUOTE]It will take evidence, not mantra, to make your point in science. Scientists are just as human as the rest of us, they will speak from pride and feelings of superiority at times. That doesn't mean they aren't right. To say they aren't right in science one must use evidence.

 

Since this case is not a case of religious discrimination, that's irrelevant.

There's no violation of such here. None.

They're not.

Not at all. One cannot cry "religious discrimination" and then be selective about the criteria which qualify.

You can repeat that falsehood it over and over, but that doesn't make it any more true.

 

Which comments of mine do you consider to be condescending, TexasSky? Please be specific.

 

Do you have a citation that the students actually passed the state regent's biology exam?

It's wrong to say that the students are required to believe in evolution - they simply must understand what it is and why it is the prevailing theory.

I noticed that a couple other classes also were rejected - one in American history and one in American government.

 

They are suing the state regents.

Yes, necessarily. If the students are being taught "incorrectly" that is a different issue altogether.

Yes, I presume that, but I don't see that as germane to this particular issue.

Not at all - the students' speech is not being censored. They are not being rejected for what they say, but because they were deemed to have insufficient credits in required subjects.

 

Sorry. After running my fingers over my gums I couldn't detect any outsized roots my teeth have. No evidence of ape evolution there, my friend, outside of scientific claptrap and hogwash.</font>[/QUOTE](sigh) Well, there is one question before we continue that discussion - perhaps you've had your teeth removed?

Now you're mixing religion and science like creationists do. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I mix religion and science in my philosophy and theology. Don't we all? But its no longer science when we do that, that's all.

What, you mean you havn't noticed the citation of evidence from the beginning? Here's how it goes. I point to the enlarged roots of canine teeth in the human mouth as evidence left over from a time when the canine teeth were actually larger, real canines. You say its not evidence.

It is in that fashion, and that fashion only, there there is no evidence for evolution. It is all simply denied.

So tell me YOUR theory as to why dogs and cats were created able to make vitamin c in their own bodies while apes and humans cannot?

Well, there's the genetic simililarities, including the conserved flaws (the vitamin c gene) the conserved retroviral insertions and the conserved patterns of harmless mutations. Then there's the fossil discoveries of qualified intermediate forms. Then there's the vestiges we retain. Then there's the amount of genetic diversity in our species, which cannot have accumulated over a mere 10,000 years.

You know, I have the ability to actually wiggle my ears. The muscles for doing that do nothing else yet that function is utterly useless. In us, it is necessary for the ears to remain still so that the differences between sound waves arriving to the left and right ears can be compared and instant directional information be obtained.

Evolution theory explains to me why those muscles are there - they have remained. Seperate design theory fails that particular test.

It is not the only failure of seperate design theory.

 

You know what I meant. They're making a claim of religions discrimination, but there is none.

 

JC

And we are right back to a tautology ...

 

Then evolution should not be taught since it is not verifiable. You have a very simplistic view of science. This smacks of the politically correct science of the Nazi doctor, Josef Mengle.

Yet, it is an untenable explanation in light of the data. Your view, as expressed in this post, is highly unscientific. Science is the continual testing, inquiring and questioning of even the generally accepted theories. Obviously, you have locked into a mindset and are not willing to openly consider alternatives. This is not a scientific attitude at all. In science, we hold all theories as tentative and subject to refutation in light of later evidence. What you are saying is that this is the way it is because the majority of scientists accept it. Such attitudes reflect political correctness, not the scientific spirit. You are propagating a view of science bordering on a religious faith.

And do you have a corner on science? Is evolution science? The evidence has alternative explanations, you know. Or, do you? Creationism has just as much evidence supporting it as evolution. The difference lies in interpretation of the data and one’s own bias. Science is not a democratic process of polling the scientists and the view with the most votes wins. Rather, science is limited by verification. Even the most rabid evolutionary enthusiastic must agree that it is not verifiable if he is honest. If so, there goes his claim to scientific validity. So, what more do you have than the creationists?

There’s another side to this coin too. Are you afraid that someone might be persuaded to abandon evolution for creationism? A number of competent scientists have.

Straw man! Your analogy is incorrect and proves nothing. You are begging the question by assuming a priori that creationism is a blatant falsehood and evolution is truth.

I do know that creationist graduate students have been discriminated against because they were creationists. I can give you first hand anecdotes. For example, my microbial physiology professor in grad school hated my guts because I was a Christian and a creationist. When I registered for her course, she told me that I would probably not do very well because of my Christian college and creationist background. She hated me all the more when I was better than her students whom she had taught as undergraduates. My work was impeccable and she had to use my results from experiments when others failed to achieve creditable results. My research was good and solid, perhaps even brilliant. It was a large graduate class and I was at the top of the exam scores. I was very good in microbiology and my teacher despised me for it. She was a great scientist (tongue firmly planted in cheek). (BTW, I think it was justice when she missed several weeks of class due to Salmonella poisoning that she got from eating spoiled cottage cheese.)

On the other hand, I was courted and given perks by other professors who wanted me doing research for them because I was a good scientist. They didn’t care about my creationist beliefs—they just respected my scientific research and analytical skills. Does that clarify the question for you?

Engineering is more of an applied science. There is quick and real verification of engineering concepts. Either it works or it doesn’t work. As you move into the more basic sciences, there are more degrees of uncertainty. Furthermore, you are dealing with quantifiable items in engineering. The math is a little fuzzier in the biological sphere. Biological theories rise and fall more often than engineering concepts that are firmly planted in a physical reality. It appears that you do not understand that biology is a different type of science from engineering. You cannot apply the same rigor to biology. Therefore, there are lots of unscientific ideas by supposed intellectuals. Take the Gaia Hypothesis for example. You could put the scientific evidence for this bogus theory in a thimble and still have room for your finger. The only difference between the Gaia Hypothesis and evolutionary theory of whatever stripe, IMHO, is that it has been said enough times for people to believe evolution is scientific.

You may be a good engineer but your understanding of science and evolution is deficient for serious debate. Yet, you should know enough of thermodynamics as an engineer to question the basic premises of evolution as a workable hypothesis. Evolution will not work from the standpoint of entropy and energy. Apply what you do know rather than swallowing the swill offered in the trough for public consumption.

 

There are two strong parallels here that few people have seen.

First, this issue may be the place to apply the advice of a very wise, learned and respected Jewish Rabbi, Gamaliel. His principle may be parodied for the current case as follows: If creationism is true, then it is folly to fight against it but if it is not true, then it will fall on its own in time. All the creationists are asking is an open forum to articulate their teachings in their own schools. It has nothing to do with the scientific knowledge or competence of its graduates. No one can show that graduates of creationist schools do more poorly in scientific disciplines than students from evolutionary backgrounds. In fact, an old study by Dr. Bliss indicated that creationist students tended to have better analytical skills than students from evolutionary programs.

Second, it is sheer folly for the state to dictate what is science and what is not. We have the horrific example of Nazi science in WWII. Sure they produced rockets and advanced technology but they also did experiments on living human beings who were considered inferior to prove their race theories. Dr. Josef Mengle, an educated man, and his experiments are the prime examples of science controlled by the state. This is politically correct science that is comparable to the current rant by evolutionists.

Science is traditionally thought of as free and open inquiry. It is passingly strange that evolutionists, who claim scientific respectability, want to cut off debate, inquiry and alternative explanations. BTW, can anyone tell which evolutionary theory is the correct one to teach in school for certifible and creditable science training? Who can authoritatively say which theory is correct? Suppose we teach Lamarkian Evolution? Is this acceptable for the UC system?

 

Where shall we start? How about the end...

"Suppose we teach Lamarkian Evolution? Is this acceptable for the UC system?"

I thought you would be in favor of this since Jacob used just this in Genesis.

"Then evolution should not be taught since it is not verifiable."

Just what is verified in science? Any science? Hypothesis and theories are made and tested and imporved. But are they ever considered to be proven?

If you look at my point, you will see that it was this. In modern biology, evolution is considered to be the lynchpin that holds it all together. A class that teaches that this lynchpin is false is therefore not teaching biology. It is impossible. Yet these kids think they should recieve credit for having taken biology. Whatever it is that they may have taken, it most certainly is not biology.

While you may not be able to prove evolution, there certainly is an abundance of evidence for it while there is no evidence at all to support a young earth. A few of these line of evidence include the twin nested heirarchy, the convergence of independent phylogenies, the know transistional series, ontogeny, anatomical parahomology, molecular parahomology, past biogeography, present biogeography, molecular vestiges, anatomical vestiges, shared pseudogenes, and shared retroviral inserts.

" You have a very simplistic view of science."

Ad hominem.

"Your view, as expressed in this post, is highly unscientific."

Ad hominem.

"Science is the continual testing, inquiring and questioning of even the generally accepted theories."

Yes, a process which ToE has withstood and prospered from for well over a century.

"In science, we hold all theories as tentative and subject to refutation in light of later evidence."

Absolutely. There are many ways in which a new discovery could falsify evolution. Such possibilities have yet to be presented. Take one example from my list above: anatomical vestiges. If you were to find lactal nipples on a reptile, this would tend to falsify evolution. If you were to find a feathered mammal, this would be a great difficulty for evolution. But so far, vestiges have only been found in a manner consistent with evolution.

Perhaps you would share with us some ways in which you think YE could be falsified by the data.

"What you are saying is that this is the way it is because the majority of scientists accept it."

Not exactly. What I am saying is that if schools wish to teach something else than the current science, then they should not try and pretend that they have taught the current science.

On a broader note, theories are subject to change. The theories of how the observed fact of evolution works continue to be improved. But, if you are a gambling man, you are more likely to be closer to the truth if you take the opinion of hte majority of the experts of a given subject than if you go against them. This does not always hold, but it will hold much more often than if you offer opinions in subjects with which you are unfamiliar that go against the opinions of those who are experts.

"And do you have a corner on science?"

Nope. When did I claim to do so?

"Is evolution science?"

Yes. And so is geology and astronomy, two other sciences which disagree with your position.

"The evidence has alternative explanations, you know. Or, do you? "

I know only too well. I was once young earth myself. Then I started reading YE material. I was not YE for long after that.

But please, there are many active threads on this forum dealing with the evidence. Please offer for us those alternative explanations that do a better job of explaining the data. No one else has yet been able to do so. But maybe you will be the first.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/89.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/2.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/23.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/94.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/10.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/60.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/43.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/17.html

"Creationism has just as much evidence supporting it as evolution."

That is a bold assertion. A baseless assertion, but bold.

After you have refuted all the threads linked above, and more that will be flying out if you were to actually join in such debate, then you will need to actually support this assertion. What are your very best pieces of evidence for a young earth. (Please note that for this question, to merely post critiques of evolution is a fallacy of the false dilemma. YOu need actual evidence that supports a young earth.)

"Even the most rabid evolutionary enthusiastic must agree that it is not verifiable if he is honest."

Just because things in science cannot be considered to be absolutely proven does not mean that we cannot weight competing theories and choose the one that best explais the observations. In the case of biology and paleontology and related fields, evolution is the only theory that can handle the observations.

"If so, there goes his claim to scientific validity. So, what more do you have than the creationists?"

Data.

"There’s another side to this coin too. Are you afraid that someone might be persuaded to abandon evolution for creationism? A number of competent scientists have."

I am not afraid of any such thing. I only insist that those who claim to have taken a particular class to have actually taken that class.

This is strange. You criticize me above for appealling to the great majority of scientists who accept biology, especially those in related fields. Yet here you appeal to a tiny minority, most from fields unrelated to biology. This tactic defies logic.

"Straw man! Your analogy is incorrect and proves nothing. You are begging the question by assuming a priori that creationism is a blatant falsehood and evolution is truth."

Nope, my analogy stands.

If you were to be taught math that was not what others to be considered correct, you would not be accpeted. By the same token, what these students learned was s omething that it not accepted as biology.

"I do know that creationist graduate students have been discriminated against because they were creationists ... It was a large graduate class and I was at the top of the exam scores."

You make my point. You got good grades. You were not dioscriminated against. You may have been insulted or ridiculed, but she passed you with high marks.

And that is the question I was asking the other poster. If you were to have given the answers for which the instructor was looking and were failed anyway, that would be discrimination. If you gave the wrong answers, then you did it to yourself. That is what I was trying to get fro mthe other poster.

"Engineering is more of an applied science. There is quick and real verification..."

You seem to have missed the point again.

The poster was claiming a degree in engineering and claiming first hand knowledge that "a significant amount of the 'science' taught today is not a subset of Science." I was asking him to back up this claim. Again, you made my point by pointing out that engineering is largely an applied science. This implies that he was unlikely to have been personally exposed to material in his studies which allows him to make such a claim.

"You may be a good engineer but your understanding of science and evolution is deficient for serious debate."

Ad hominem.

I am not claiming these ideas as my own. They are what others, professionals, experts, have to say. If you doubt them, then respond to some of the other threads where the data is discussed.

"Yet, you should know enough of thermodynamics as an engineer to question the basic premises of evolution as a workable hypothesis."

This is quie an interesting statement.

I said before that it was because of YE writings themselves that I abandoned YE. Thermodynamics is what got the ball rolling.

When I first came across the whole assertions about entropy and evolution, it was the first YE material that I knew right away was false because of my own knowledge and education. Thermodynamics and YE's claims about it were the catalysts which set in motion my abandonment of YE.

 

Oh, come off it! Stop your whining! These statements attack your views, not your person. If you cannot handle an attack upon your ideas, then you ought not be posting on this board. When you express your opinions, you are hanging them out there for anyone to take aim and shoot. Obviously, you don't understand ad hominem.

 

Nonsense! Are you assuming that I believe this is Lamarkian Evolution? Or, do you believe this is Lamarkian Evolution? Such drivel! This was either an example of good animal husbandry (i.e. selective breeding) or a Divine miracle by God to grant favor to Jacob for God's own purposes. If you believe this is Lamarkian Evolution, then I can understand why you accept evolution.