Posted on 08/13/2008 9:44:45 AM PDT by Sopater
A federal judge has ruled the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.
Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, told the Chronicle that the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
==Did nylon digesting bacteria DEVOLVE so that they could utilize a new food source?
According to Creation Scientists, bacterial plasmids seem to be adaptive elements built in by the creator so bacteria can adapt to many environments while “maintaining the integrety of the main chromosome.”
==Did citrate plus e.coli DEVOLVE so that they could digest citrate?
Has the ability of the e.coli to adapt to a new environment, such as constantly being exposed to citrate, been ruled out? Again, from what I have read, even the scientists who conducted the experiment aren’t sure what’s going on: “Lenski’s team is still working to understand ‘just what that earlier change was, and how it made the . . . mutation possible.’”
==Do populations subjected to the selective pressure of heat stress DEVOLVE such that they can better survive at higher temperatures?
Again, what’s your evidence that their ability to adapt is NOT built right in???
In the case of citrate plus e.coli it was a controlled experiment in evolution (you know, the Science that some idiots claim is not an experimental Science) and the original e.coli (and many populations of others that evolved independently) did not have the capability of digesting citrate.
A person has to be extremely lacking in critical-thinking skills not to understand that the mutations necessary for nylon-digestion did not only occur after the creation of nylon.
Those bacteria receiving the nylon-digestion mutations prior to the creation of nylon would have merely died.
Same w/ citrate.
How do you suppose I believe that mutations occur only when an opportunity for survival presents itself? They usually only PERSIST within a population (and perhaps rise to 100% presence in the population) when it confers some survival advantage.
Mutations happen all the time, there is no way to stop it as DNA replication is itself a mutagenic process. Mutations are usually selectively neutral, most mutations that are not neutral are detrimental (as the nylon digesting mutations would be until nylon was invented and available as a food source) and some are beneficial but only within a certain context (like mutations that make proteins that work better at higher temperatures).
This in no way suggest that mutations only HAPPEN when they would confer some advantage. Sheesh. Maybe if you understood even the rudiments of the theory you wish to criticize you wouldn't’ sound so ignorant.
The answer is, it ISN'T due to a mutation. This ability was already in the genome.
This conclusion is entirely consistent with observation.
The ability to adapt IS built right in! Wow. Finally you have stumbled upon the truth.
Living systems are capable of adapting to selective pressure by means of natural selection of genetic variation!
In the case of heat stress, a particular population of bacteria subjected to heat stress went through every possible single change permutation of a particular gene until it produced the high heat protein that eventually dominated the entire population. Now if every possible combination of a single change was attempted, how is evolution supposed to be “random”?
==I believe in both abiotic processes AND God. What is to prevent God from using abiotic processes when HE commanded the Oceans to bring forth life?
What is to prevent God from getting life started by creating each original life form fully formed and fully functional?
Thanks for the ping!
True, nor that it wasn't. But I can tell you based on my personal experience that graduates of Christian schools and home schools that I know can regurgitate evolutionary theory better than any graduate of public school.
Obviously, my personal experience is limited as compared to the total population of graduates from Christian or home schools. Nevertheless, for a college to simply dismiss a student because they went to a school that taught the bible was the arbiter of truth is to act not as a home for academic freedom, but as an agent of thought control.
Had to look that one up...
but it still bears out the hypothesis that the ability to adapt is inherent in the original organism,
and is not due to mutation or addition of information to the DNA sequence.
And, there has to be a LOT of added information to go from single cell to thinking man.
==The ability to adapt IS built right in!
Nice try. I’m talking about an ability to adapt that has been frontloaded into the organism, not blind, stupid random mutations that occasionally hit the jackpot and produce a beneficial mutation every couple of million years.
And this evidence is based on what assumptions?
That sedimentary layers form over periods of years and harden into layers?
Layers/strata of rock formed in a matter of hours during the Mt St Helens eruption, and there are places where you can see "bent" (over 1000's of feet) strata indicating movement while ALL the layers were still soft.
Check your assumptions.
Actually, epigenetics is showing that living organisms are frontloaded with the capacity to adapt. One might even call it directed mutation (and not just in the genes)/adaptation.
==Nothing is to prevent it, but if HE did so, apparently HE went through a lot of trouble to make it look like HE didn’t.
I would say that the Darwinists have gone through a lot of trouble to make it look like He didn’t.
Private Christian schools, and homeschoolers taught both ID and ToE are not that uncommon. This is the first time I’ve heard of this happening. If the University has a general policy of denying accreditation simply for inclusion of ID or creationist material, I’d have expected to have seen it go to court way before now.
And that’s the whole point of darwinism/evolution theory.
I remembered a certain ubiquitous car emblem that showed a footed fish with “Darwin” in it devouring the Christian icthus symbol.
Don’t tell me that Darwinism doesn’t have the purpose of refuting Christianity.
Back to your conspiracy theory garbage again then? Still fantasizing about Scientists frog marched to prison I see.
Try double ply tinfoil!
Here’s a good place to start re: epigenetics. Not only can an organism direct its own adaptations, it can do so without changing its genome, and even more amazingly, it can pass these adaptations on to its offspring!:
https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/b360905554fdb7d985256ec5006a7755?OpenDocument
Nothing is stupid about random mutation, especially after you consider the scope of life and time and that a limited heat stress evolution experiment on a limited population of bacteria went through EVERY POSSIBLE combination of single changes in a protein. Trying every possible combination is hardly random.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.