Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts
Fox News ^ | August 13, 2008

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy; US: California
KEYWORDS: academia; atheismandstate; christianschools; confesstothestate; creation; creationism; education; evolution; heresy; highereducation; homeschool; judiciary; publikskoolz; ruling; uc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 751-794 next last
To: js1138
I would say that creation science is defined by its claim that phenomena are constantly being stirred by forces from beyond.

The assumption that phenomena are constantly being "stirred" by forces from beyond, does not, by itself, render such stirring as necessarily capricious, if capricious is defined as determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason.

For the naturalist, though, in a constantly changing, contingent universe, what is the rational basis for assuming the uniformity of nature, that the future is going to be like the past?

Cordially,

251 posted on 08/14/2008 12:14:03 PM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

You are right. That is why I don’t rely on the bible for scientific knowledge. So much of it is written as poetry. For instance, does God have a face or wings? There are people that feel he does. I’ve actually heard part of an old sermon where a preacher took an obscure verse that measured the span of God’s hand, and thereby inferred God was 6 foot 4 tall, or some such. And please, I don’t want to get into that conversation!

Now there are places that hint at science; for instance here, many people think the Bible is describing the water cycle years before scientists truly understood it.

“He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind” (Job 36:27-28).

And in many cases thinking men, pondering on verses like this, were inspired to look for the truth. So I guess if you like, you might look at some of these things like a starting hypothesis.


252 posted on 08/14/2008 12:14:33 PM PDT by I still care ("Remember... for it is the doom of men that they forget" - Merlin, from Excalibur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: js1138; ColdWater

Do you have a sense that your casino/dice/gambling metaphors/analogies may be incomplete or even false?

Maybe flesh those metaphors & analogies out a little more.


253 posted on 08/14/2008 12:15:40 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

What is your point?


254 posted on 08/14/2008 12:21:49 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I love the way you submit hyperbolic arguments that leave only one logical conclusion, and then distance yourself from that conclusion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The following is the only logical conclusion and action of a Christian who is living their faith:

1) They do not break the Commandment about stealing. They do not use government and its policemen to **force** their religion on other people. This would be stealing their freedom of conscience, and stealing their physical freedom as well.

2) Christians who live their faith do not take the Lord's name in vain. Using government and its police to **force** their religion on others is doing evil (stealing freedom) in God's name. That is the essence of using God's name in vain.

But...As well all know atheistic Secular Humanists have no such scruples. They use government threat of police action to steal freedom all the time.

Government compelled attendance at Secular Humanist government schools is a perfect example. Keeping Christians from earning their Ph.D. and getting professorships is another. Making illegal for the Catholic Church to work in adoption placement is a very good example. Forcing pharmacists, nurses, and doctors to assist with abortion is a freedom of conscience abomination. Blackballing Christian and conservative actors comes to mind.

Everything in the above paragraph is using the false god of atheist Secular Humanism to steal freedom from others.

Come to think of it the reason Secular Humanists break the commandment about stealing ( stealing freedom) is that they break the Second Commandment. They are worshiping the false god of Humanism, materialism, and atheism.

255 posted on 08/14/2008 12:27:49 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Your ramblings are why credit will not ever be given for creationist courses. That is dis-information of the highest degree. What evern happened to not bearing false witness? It’s OK to lie for the Lord?


256 posted on 08/14/2008 12:35:13 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Come to think of it the reason Secular Humanists break the commandment about stealing ( stealing freedom) is that they break the Second Commandment.

The Second Commandment is about idol worship - the make of graven images.

Before you're done I expect there's no Commandment that everyone except those people you consider "Good Christians" doesn't universally break on a daily basis.

257 posted on 08/14/2008 12:40:39 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
If you had an inking of biology, you would know that mutations are not random. As in the output of a dice that has sides numbered 1 to 6, ONLY 1,2,3,4,5,6 are possible outcomes. Nine is not a possibility.

That is pretty much the stupidest bit of mathematical reasoning I've ever seen. You failed to mention other possibilities. How about 1A, 1B, 1C, etc.

258 posted on 08/14/2008 12:43:15 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Mutation does NOT produce all possible combinations of change.

When point mutations are observed in actual experiments, they produce all combinations, favorable, unfavorable and neutral. Can you cite an experiment that contradicts this?

259 posted on 08/14/2008 12:45:45 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: js1138

No more so than you saying mutations are totally random when they are controlled by chemical processes which are NOT random.


260 posted on 08/14/2008 12:47:00 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

I used the word capricious to imply “at the whim of the gods.” Sorry if a literal reading has caused misunderstanding.


261 posted on 08/14/2008 12:47:37 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: js1138
When point mutations are observed in actual experiments, they produce all combinations, favorable, unfavorable and neutral. Can you cite an experiment that contradicts this?

Mutations are controlled by chemical processes, not randomness.

262 posted on 08/14/2008 12:49:32 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: js1138
When point mutations are observed in actual experiments, they produce all combinations, favorable, unfavorable and neutral.

Reference?

263 posted on 08/14/2008 12:50:33 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
No more so than you saying mutations are totally random when they are controlled by chemical processes which are NOT random.

Point mutations are errors in copying, and are most likely quantum events. There are mutagenic chemicals that may cause specific and repeatable copy errors, but that isn't what drives population change in general.

Any algorithm that fails to search all of the available change space would be a bit like a detective who puts a room off limits for the evidence search. The strength of evolution is its ability to find unanticipated solutions, and move in unanticipated directions.

264 posted on 08/14/2008 12:53:44 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Reference?

I already gave you references that observed point mutations covering the available search space.

265 posted on 08/14/2008 12:56:32 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Point mutations are errors in copying, and are most likely quantum events. There are mutagenic chemicals that may cause specific and repeatable copy errors, but that isn't what drives population change in general.

Wrong. Repeatable errors are reqired to drive population change!

266 posted on 08/14/2008 12:57:31 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: js1138

It would be nice if you gave a specific reference I could go to instead of having to search through an entire website for something that may or may not support your statement.


267 posted on 08/14/2008 12:59:26 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Wrong. Repeatable errors are reqired to drive population change!

Not at all. A single point mutation occurring in a single individual that is neutral or favorable can become fixed in a population. This is the point of the experiments I referred you to.

268 posted on 08/14/2008 1:00:46 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Any algorithm that fails to search all of the available change space would be a bit like a detective who puts a room off limits for the evidence search.

Of course, the cop that searches every room in the universe for his evidence wouldn't be very efficient.

269 posted on 08/14/2008 1:01:44 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Not at all. A single point mutation occurring in a single individual that is neutral or favorable can become fixed in a population.

Statement indicates that you are not schooled in the basics of genetic mutations and their effects on populations.

270 posted on 08/14/2008 1:03:18 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Of course, the cop that searches every room in the universe for his evidence wouldn't be very efficient.

Genes are not every room in the universe, just as dice don't go up to nine.

Now if you wish to cite an experiment that contradicts the findings of the ones I cited, feel free. Then we can continue this discussion.

271 posted on 08/14/2008 1:11:16 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Statement indicates that you are not schooled in the basics of genetic mutations and their effects on populations.

Then school me. Cite an expert on population genetics that argues a point mutation must recur repeatedly in order to become established. I might mention that this argument doesn't hold in the world of plant and animal breeders.

It's true that there is a phenomenon that occurs in plants called polyploidy, in which the chromosomes occasionally double. This can happen in more than one individual and may lead to a new species. Humans would be awfully hungry if this hadn't happened in historical times.

But chromosome mutations are unusual in animals and do not account for the bulk of evolution.

272 posted on 08/14/2008 1:18:10 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The Second Commandment is about idol worship - the make of graven images.

Tacticalogic,

Secular Humanists have atheist materialism as their religious philosophy that guides all of life's decisions. The God of Abraham is so far below this that He isn't even on their radar.

Exodus 20:3 "Do not have any other gods before me."

Atheistic Secular Humanist certainly put a **lot** ahead of Him!

Before you're done I expect there's no Commandment that everyone except those people you consider "Good Christians" doesn't universally break on a daily basis.

There is a big difference between **trying** to abide by The Commandments on a daily basis, praying for forgiveness, repenting, and resolving to do better,...and...what the Secular Humanists do.

The Secular Humanists mock them, reject them, consider them to be a human invention, ignore them, and feel that their own superior intellect is above the commandments. I suppose that is the same as "another god before them (me)".

By the way, I checked Wikipedia. Various religions separate the Commandments slightly differently. Some combine the First and Second and consider worshiping something other than God as the First Commandment. Some don't. This is a small and irrelevant matter

The Catholic and Lutheran churches list wrongful use of the name of God as the Second Commandment.

273 posted on 08/14/2008 1:32:14 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Are we talking about “secular humanists” or “cultures that don’t worship the God of Abraham”? You seem to go back and forth rather transparently without any consideration of the consequences.


274 posted on 08/14/2008 1:41:00 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: js1138

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html


275 posted on 08/14/2008 1:46:27 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: js1138

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Same-mutation-aided-evolution-in-many-fish-species—Stanford-study-finds-192-2/


276 posted on 08/14/2008 1:48:42 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Daemin

“It donest carry along with it the baggage and hall makes of a religion.”

LOL....ever heard of Michael Newdow?


277 posted on 08/14/2008 2:11:02 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Are we talking about “secular humanists” or “cultures that don’t worship the God of Abraham”?

In post #223 you stated, "Isn't it pretty well self-evident that anyone who doesn't worship the God of Abraham breaks the First Commandment?"

You are the person who brought up the idea of "anyone", and "who doesn't worship the God of Abraham" includes a lot of people in cultures in this country and around the world.

I responded to that question.

Did you want me address your question or was the question merely rhetorical?

278 posted on 08/14/2008 2:27:31 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

on the other hand, when we went to the Georgia aquarium, the guide told us the alligator gar we were looking at is a dinosaur.


279 posted on 08/14/2008 2:27:33 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

riiiiiight, and this is why so many Christians are sending their kids to private schools in the first place no doubt!

if only godless liberals were more worried about the algoreacle hot air cult global warming false science...but nope, they’re on board with that too...

so it really isn’t about false science, it’s about hating God.


280 posted on 08/14/2008 2:33:27 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing-----Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; Daemin
It donest carry along with it the baggage and hall makes of a religion. ( Daemin)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Supreme Court ruled that atheism has all the hallmarks of a religion.

I suggested to Daemin that he/she do a Google search on the words: Supreme Court atheism is religion.

281 posted on 08/14/2008 2:34:24 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Did you want me address your question or was the question merely rhetorical?

At 218 you said

"By the way, Secular Humanists break the same First Commandment with their religion when they oppress Christians."

That they break the First Commandment - "Thou shall have no other God before me" is self evident in that they are secular humanists, rather than Christians or Jews - anyone who doesn't worship that God is breaking that commandment. This should be quite obvious to anyone but apparently we need to have you explain it to us.

282 posted on 08/14/2008 2:42:05 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: tpanther; ColdWater
so it really isn’t about false science, it’s about hating God.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am willing to bet the farm that historically the graduates of these Christian schools have done ***wonderfully** well in the UC colleges and universities.

It isn't about the ability of these Christian students to take and pass courses. No!, No!, No!

It **is** about jamming an atheistic Secular Humanist finger right in the eye of Christians.

It **is** about power of the atheistic Secular Humanists to put pressure on these schools to conform their teaching to the anointed will of atheist Secular Humanist **PRIESTS**!.

In my opinion quite a few canaries have dropped dead in the mine shaft in recent years and Christians are not paying attention. The Secular Humanists want believing Christians to consigned to the catacombs of our culture.

**THAT** is what this is all about.

Yes! I am shouting. I am exasperated with the dullness of Christians.

283 posted on 08/14/2008 2:42:37 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

You agree that a science course that teaches that the earth is 6000 years old and can be proved since the constants of the speed of light and radioactive half-lifes are not really constant but have changes drastically in the last 8000 years should be certified?

You agree that a geology course that teaches that the entire earth was flooded about 5000 years ago when there is no scientific, archeological our historical record of such an event should be certified?


284 posted on 08/14/2008 2:46:42 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

You agree that a science course that teaches that the earth is 6000 years old and can be proved since the constants of the speed of light and radioactive half-lifes are not really constant but have changes drastically in the last 8000 years should be certified?

You agree that a geology course that teaches that the entire earth was flooded about 5000 years ago when there is no scientific, archeological our historical record of such an event should be certified?


285 posted on 08/14/2008 2:46:42 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
In post #223 you stated, “Isn't it pretty well self-evident that anyone who doesn't worship the God of Abraham breaks the First Commandment?”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is this merely a rhetorical statement or do you want me to address your question?

Your rhetorical(?) question above has **consequences**!

There are two ways a culture can not keep the First Commandment:

1) They can do so willfully. Most Atheistic Secular Humanist fall into this category.

2) Unknowingly.

In both cases the people of the culture are worse off!

In the U.S. we see:

**We have a Democratic candidate for **president** that voted to allow babies born alive after an abortion to **DIE** on the table or be deliberately **killed** through willful neglect!!!! ( Ugg!)

* partial birth abortion.

*Millions of babies aborted each year.

*We have homosexuality forced on kindergarten children by the government in its schools.

*There are orgy-like parades every year in cities around the nation to celebrate sodomy.

*The Catholic Church in Massachusetts can no longer help with adoption because **they** are called biased.

* Christians must hide their religion if they have any hope of being awarded a Ph.D. or secure a teaching post in a university.

*The divorce rate is higher and more children are in single mother homes.

*Government high schools have “Days of Silence” and week long “Vagina Monologue” festivals.

*The disabled subjected to a painful death by dehydration and starvation!

These are only a few ways that our own nation is worse off.

In other countries:

Have you read the book “Shogun”? There was a reason that the Indian tribes rose up to overthrew Montezuma. The “peaceful” Hawaiians used to kill people and bury their bodies under the posts of houses of their kings! They killed at birth the second born of twins. They did these awful things until the Christians **stopped** these ghastly practices.

What we see in cultures that don't worship the God of Abraham is slavery, gulags, concentration camps, women as chattel, killing of humans by the 100 millions, human sacrifice, infanticide of baby girls, abandonment of the elderly, war lords, torture, and violation of what we consider First Amendment human Rights... etc.

So!...Yes! The farther a culture ( in the U.S. or elsewhere) strays from the principles given to us by the God of Abraham, ( knowingly or unknowingly) the worse off is life for everyone in that culture. ( Everyone except the rulers.)

286 posted on 08/14/2008 3:16:37 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Your rhetorical(?) question above has **consequences**!

Have you finished replacing the word "secular" with "athiest" in all your historcal texts yet?

287 posted on 08/14/2008 3:21:30 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
You agree that a science course that teaches that the earth is 6000 years old and can be proved since the constants of the speed of light and radioactive half-lifes are not really constant but have changes drastically in the last 8000 years should be certified?

Get **government** out of the business of certifying education courses!!!

Education is **never** religiously neutral. No matter what the government does regarding education it **will** establish the religious worldview of some and trash that of others.

If government is using government schools to certify education courses, then the **only** solution is for government to begin the process of privatizing its schools.

In a private school situation there are **no** First Amendment establishment issues. These matters are freely and agreeably determined in a private setting.

If this case had been these Christian high schools vs. a **private** university it would never had gone to court. It is before the court because their are **government** First Amendment "establishment of religion" issues.

You agree that a geology course that teaches that the entire earth was flooded about 5000 years ago when there is no scientific, archeological our historical record of such an event should be certified?

If I ran a **private** university and the students from this school routinely did well in my university, I would ignore any certification issues. My bet is that the graduates of this Christian high school have a **long** history of doing **very** well in UC universities and colleges.

I would never accept a position in **any** government school of any kind. Why? Because it is impossible for any school to be religiously neutral, and I would not want to be in the business of establishing one citizen's religion and trashing that of another.

288 posted on 08/14/2008 3:28:04 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Have you finished replacing the word “secular” with “athiest” in all your historcal texts yet?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I most often use the expression atheistic Secular Humanism. The word “atheistic” is very likely redundant.

Definition from Merriam Webster:

Secular Humanism: “humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion”

289 posted on 08/14/2008 3:31:24 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
I most often use the expression atheistic Secular Humanism. The word “atheistic” is very likely redundant.

By your account it has to be. If there can only be "god-centered" or "godless", and "godless" means "atheist" then the classical definition of the word "secular" is destroyed.

Have you finished replacing "secular" with "atheist" in all of your historical texts yet?

290 posted on 08/14/2008 3:34:34 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The expression Secular Humanism is as different from the word “secular” as the expression “First Aid” is to the word “first”.

Secular Humanism does not mean “secular” ( not overtly religious)

First Aid does not mean “first” ( as the initial one or initial event).

291 posted on 08/14/2008 3:42:17 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

If there can only be “god-centered” and “godless” what is “secular”? There is nothing left that fits the definition of the word.


292 posted on 08/14/2008 3:45:30 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Did you bother reading your citation? It doesn’t address the question of whether the exact same mutation occurred more than once in th same population. In fact it says the exact mutation in the second group hasn’t been pinpointed.

The studies I cited followed the evolution of populations descended from a single cell, eliminating the question of multiple identical mutations.


293 posted on 08/14/2008 3:57:30 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The studies I cited followed the evolution of populations descended from a single cell, eliminating the question of multiple identical mutations.

single cell organisms don't have sex.

294 posted on 08/14/2008 4:30:07 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
single cell organisms don't have sex.

And how is that relevant to the discussion?

295 posted on 08/14/2008 4:32:15 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
single cell organisms don't have sex.

Actually, that pretty much wrong anyway. Lateral gene transfer is common.

296 posted on 08/14/2008 4:33:32 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
If I ran a **private** university and the students from this school routinely did well in my university, I would ignore any certification issues.

What if you ran a university that taught that the earth was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago and gave a final exam containing those questions. Would you mark them wrong if a student answered that the earth was over a billion years old?

297 posted on 08/14/2008 4:36:01 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Schools can only teach from two philosophical positions:

Godless or God-centered. Of course, there are subsets to these worldviews.

But...Music for instance can be religious or secular. Secular music can promote religion, be neutral to it, or be detrimental religious belief.

Ah!...But...Schools are either one or the other. They either promote and establish a child's religion or they are hostile to it. There is no middle ground.

A godless school does not pray to God daily or hourly, or before test, or when there is an accident. A school must make a decision. It has daily or hourly prayer to that child's specific God or it doesn't. The is no middle ground here.

A godless school does not refer to the child's religious teachings of his specific God to uphold or refute an argument.

A godless school does not read from the child's scriptures on a daily basis or use the child's scriptures to clarify a moral or ethical point.

In a godless school, the teacher will very likely **never** refer to the historical events in a child's religion to strengthen the moral and ethical values of a lesson.

Godless schools do not allow the child to freely refer to his religious beliefs or read from his religious scriptures as he wishes in class or even for most of the day.

A godless school does not allow the child to freely promote or discuss his religion, or freely hand out religious written material with other classmates.

A godless school will assign the child to work and play with children whose beliefs are hostile to the child's worldview, and allow those with hostile religious beliefs to undermine his family's religious traditions.

A godless school will schedule events such as theater, sporting competitions, and dances on days that the child considers holy: Sunday, Friday evening, and Saturday, and religious festivals.

A godless school will tempt even the youngest children with delicious looking and smelling foods that are proscribed by the child's religion: Coffee, caffeine, unKosher foods, pork, milk and meat together. A godless school will allow children to tempt each other with these foods.

A godless school will allow other children to wear highly fashionable outfits and allow them to tempt the religious child with clothing that will cause him to drift from his religion.

Will all godless schools do all of the above. All godless schools share a number of key items of the above that define them as godless. The other points may or may not be consistently shared by all godless schools.

All of the above teaches the child that his prayer, scriptures, holidays, foods, traditions, and customs are irrelevant to getting along in the world and unnecessary in evaluating anything or everything in his cultural environment. This is NOT a religiously neutral lesson.

God centered schools (that conform the religious subset of the child) will do none of the above. These schools are extensions of the religious teachings found at home.

This is why there must be complete separation of school and state. No matter what government does it will establish the religious worldview of some ( godless or God-centered) and destroy that of others.

Government schools are a freedom of conscience and First Amendment **nightmare**!!! This case of UC and the Christian school is merely one of **thousands** of similar conflicts.

We must begin the process of privatizing education in the U.S.

298 posted on 08/14/2008 4:39:23 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

What if you ran a university that taught that the earth was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago and gave a final exam containing those questions. Would you mark them wrong if a student answered that the earth was over a billion years old?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would refuse to work for a school like that. Thankfully, the atheistic Secular Humanist still allow us the freedom to choose are reject a jobs.


299 posted on 08/14/2008 4:45:23 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

If a government school must be either explicitly “god-centered” or explicitly “godless”, doesn’t that implicitly make that government subject to the same criteria?


300 posted on 08/14/2008 5:23:04 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 751-794 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson