ACSI v. Stearns, aka Wendell Bird vs. UC

I thought Behe defended ID. Doesn't he see the problem in defending an out-of-the-closet Literal Creationist text?

And that's just scary. Considering how these guys view the word "theoretical", that they call "biochemistry, subcellular structure, and genetics" theoretical...I just don't have any words.

"Conifers furnish us with soft lumber"- oh, so *that's* why they're there! To be exploited by the lumber industry! I thought it was 'cause God delighted in creating them, or maybe even that they fufill a specialized niche in the ecosystem. No, it's because the religious right that supports these beliefs also has to remember not to cheat on it's friend, big business.

Long live cannibalism.

OT http://sonic.net/bristlecone/Martyr.html

Late in the year of 1964 a young geographer, Donald R. Currey, a student at this university [University of North Carolina], who was working toward his doctorate, was in the Southwest searching for evidence of Ice Age glaciers. The Wheeler Peak glacier and related phenomena attracted him. When this student and his associate came upon the bristlecones at the timberline, they began to take core samples from several trees, discovering one to be over 4,000 years old! Needless to say they were excited, and at some point, their only coring tool broke. The end of the field season was nearing. They asked for and I still can't believe it!were granted permission by the U.S. Forest Service to cut the tree down. It was "Prometheus".
After cutting the trunk at a convenient level, which happened to be more than eight feet above the original base, 4,844 rings were counted. This student had just killed the oldest living thing on earth! Eventually, dendrochronologist Don Graybill determined the tree to be 4,862 years of age.

OT but I just received my Wollemi pine to plant in the garden. It sure is a weird looking pine, very cool.

Michael

After what Behe endured during the Kitzmiller v. Dover fiasco, I can only imagine how much the plaintiffs agreed to pony up in order for him to take another beating like that. Will he be charging per hour or per new a**hole?

The last page of the expert report says Behe is getting $20,000 for his participation...

The last page of the expert report says Behe is getting $20,000 for his participation...

(From the last page -- emphasis added)

The compensation to be paid for the study and deposition testimony, excluding trial testimony, is $20,000.

It looks like Behe *did* learn something from his Kitzmiller beating. :) :)

I've been teaching using the Miller and Levine "dragonfly" book over the past several months, and my estimation of the book has risen considerably. In the little things, it is accurate, accurate, accurate, and that makes things just a heck of a lot easier.

I've also looked at the Bob Jones books, and found them botanically challenged. In the little details, the ones where Mies van der Rohe said God lives (sorry, P.Z.), the Miller and Levine book holds up.

I hope the defendants will get into some of those issues. For example, in the ecology sections, going over the nitrogen cycle, good biology texts get into some detail, such as the fact that legumes are a key part of the cycle, with their arrangement with bacteria that convert atmospheric nitrogen to plant-usable nitrogen. So a kids asks about the reality of such application in the field: Can legumes really be all that effective, worldwide, considering that legumes examples offered are only a few plants, like peas, clover, and alfalfa? A dive into a decent botanical text reveals that legumes have 600 genera and more than 13,000 species, including acacia, cassia, loco weed, honey locust, etc., etc. Smart alec kid then asks about the probability that such diversity could evolve, and we look at the Hawaiian silver sword "alliance." Trees, peas and loco weed? Why not?

Now, I'm not sure exactly how the Bob Jones text treats the nitrogen cycle, but I'll bet it can't explain speciation that makes 13,000 different legumes over the face of the Earth, especially not with a flood thrown in in the past 200,000 years (and the book doesn't allow for such timespans). In short, Miller and Levine take Mark Twain's advice about not lying, so then not having to remember all the lies in order to try to spin a nearly-straight story later. Pick any aspect of biology and chase down the reality of it, especially in diversity and number of species. The Bob Jones books become cartoonish, misleading masquerades of a biology book. I took the nitrogen cycle, which is reasonably fossil free. The phosphorus cycle involves rocks and fossil sources, not to mention guano. Is there any possible explanation for the phosphates on Nauru that could be offered by a Bob Jones text? (http://www.un.int/nauru/economic_paradise.html) And if a kid comes in with a reference showing a few hundred different species of elephants are known from antiquity, how does the Bob Jones book suggest a teacher answer within the ethical standards of Christians?

It's possible to deliver a high school course without much detail, which might fuzz up enough of the problems of creationism so that kids could pass most state-mandated science tests, and not do so badly on the SAT that it would make them look like total fools. But I can't figure out how such a course could be delivered ethically. I'd like to see a year's set of lesson plans for the Bob Jones book.

After Pennsylvania, Nick, is there not a real possibility that the defendants are paying Behe to be the witness for the plaintiffs?

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the classification system that is predominantly used today? (Plants, Animals, ..... ?)

Table 5.3, by the way, asserts the the five-kingdom model of Plants, Animals, Protists, Fungi, and Monera is the "[s]ystem predominantly used today" (p. 90). If you believe that, I've got a covered bridge to sell you.

AJ:

See:

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

This definition--a created "kind" consists of organisms which interbreed and produce fertile young--seems to be the most commonly cited among creationists

The definition we have seen of a created "kind" is, moreover, unworkable in its own terms. A horse and a donkey are universally held by creationists to be one "kind", but a horse and a donkey cannot produce fertile offspring. They can breed and produce young, but this progeny, a mule, is completely sterile and cannot reproduce after its "kind". By the logic of their definition, the creationists would seem to be forced to conclude that horses and donkeys are separate "kinds". But, since horses and donkeys are so obviously related by evolutionary descent, the creationists cannot have this either, since it would establish "evolution between kinds", which is precisely what they are trying to avoid. (Remember that the creationists accept the existence of evolutionary descent as a mechanism for producing "variation within a kind".)

Hence, some creationists have now dropped the requirement of "interfertility", and have asserted that any organisms that can breed with each other and produce offspring, whether fertile or not, constitute a "kind": "Creationists have long felt a need for a classification that would include in one consistent category all organisms that interbreed under any conditions." (David Menton, "Species, Speciation and the Genesis Kind", Missouri Association for Creation, October 1994) This definition, however, also produces problems. In the northeastern United States, for example, are found two species of tree frogs, Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis. The two are absolutely identical in appearence, and the only way to distinguish them in the field is by their slightly differing mating calls. One of these species is a "polyploid" of the other, that is, it developed from the other species when a chromosomal abnormality left some individuals with twice the normal number of chromosomes. (Polyploidy is a very common means of plants to produce new species--in fact, most domesticated food plants like wheat and rye are polyploids--but is comparitively rare among animals.) There is no doubt that the two frogs share an ancestor/descendent relationship, and that one evolved from the other through polyploidy. For the creationists to consider these two virtually identical frogs as being of different "kinds" would be absurd on the face of it, since they are so alike they can be distinguished only in the lab, and they obviously share evolutionary descent. So naturally, the creationists would like to lump these two species together as "variations" within one "created kind". But there is a problem for the creationists--the two Hyla species do not, and, because of their chromosomal differences, cannot, interbreed. Not only do they not produce any fertile offspring--they are incapable of producing any offspring at all. Once again, the creationists must either admit the existence of evolution between "kinds", or they must change their definition of what constitutes a "kind". Thus, we are finally led to: "If two organisms breed, even though it is infrequent, they are of the same kind; if they don't breed but are clearly of the same morphological type, they are of the same kind, by the logic of the axiom which states two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." (Wysong, cited in Kitcher, 1982, p. 152)

but the science classes at issue make use of Bob Jones University textbooks which are full of fake fundamentalist "science."

Do they have a clause where payment for testimony is dependent on the testimony? I can see paying for the deposition, but what is Behe's testimony going to be worth when it all falls apart in the cross examination?

The plaintiffs may dance around the bogus parts of the textbooks, but they can't expect the defense to do that.

I do not think that Behe will make it to the witness stand. They would be stupid to put someone up that knows how bogus the science materials are. Can the defense make Behe testify as a hostile witness once he gives his deposition? If it is put into the court record they have to have their chance to rebut.

Just think what the fact that Behe doesn't deny that biological evolution happened and that he can testify to that fact and how this topic is distorted in the books. Does anyone think that Behe can give them a pass without perjuring himself on their YEC claims? What will he do, plead the fifth? Can he refuse to answer certain questions because it would make getting easy money like this harder to come by if he becomes a negative asset?

Remember when the creationists brought in Wichramasinge (spelling?) for the Arkansas trial and he ended up calling the YEC junk that they wanted to teach claptrap. They brought him in because he had some strange notions about evolution, but they got the whole package that included his weirdo notions that insects were more intelligent than humans, but they were just keeping it a secret. These rubes are going to get the whole package with Behe and the Dover testimony should have told them what to expect.

Incompetence or desperation?

I am not sure whether this reflects the stupidity or cruelty of evolutionists. I know they would relish limiting the employment prospects of young Christians by denying them admission, but they also deny themselves opportunity to convert young Christians to Darwinian debauchery by failing to admit them. Yet, there is a third possibility. They fear the presence of a single Christian armed with the truth of Jesus can take down the entire Darwinian establishment and its Satanic lies, just like Elijah on Mt. Carmel. He could convert so many of his fellow students that the evolutionist faculty could not expel them all, but would have to come to terms with the challenge Christianity poses to their fetid faith.

Pumpkinhead - I am curious. As you write your little hate-filled rants, do you really believe you are doing God's work? How do you reconcile it with commands like 'Love your enemy'?

In your last post you referred to Darwinian debauchery. I think I must have missed out on this. What is it exactly?

BTW the ID leadership are trying to keep it quiet that religion is central to their claims. People like you are not helping their cause.

Pumpkinhead said "...blah, blah, blah, fetid faith".
Fetid faith?
I fear not futile flatulence from a fool.

Pumpkinhead. Just for you, this is an intelligent rebuttal to your (unintentionally) funny post.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

You're not serious, are you? You're just having a laugh with us. Right?

Pumpkinhead - I am curious. As you write your little hate-filled rants, do you really believe you are doing God's work? How do you reconcile it with commands like 'Love your enemy'?

In your last post you referred to Darwinian debauchery. I think I must have missed out on this. What is it exactly?,

BTW the ID leadership are trying to keep it quiet that religion is central to their claims. People like you are not helping their cause.

I invoke Russell's Law on Pumpkinhead.

I am not sure whether this reflects the stupidity or cruelty of evolutionists. I know they would relish limiting the employment prospects of young Christians by denying them admission, but they also deny themselves opportunity to convert young Christians to Darwinian debauchery by failing to admit them. Yet, there is a third possibility. They fear the presence of a single Christian armed with the truth of Jesus can take down the entire Darwinian establishment and its Satanic lies, just like Elijah on Mt. Carmel. He could convert so many of his fellow students that the evolutionist faculty could not expel them all, but would have to come to terms with the challenge Christianity poses to their fetid faith.

— Pumpkinhead

Nick,

I have read several different news sources about this lawsuit and there are two things I cannot figure out. Can you help me?

1. I have examined the Bob Jones Biology text book for some of the home schoolers in our corner of Michigan and I gave it a grade of C for "crap." The book treats science as a list of facts to be memorized and does a remarkable job of quashing any interest a young enterprising student might have in science. Secondly, I completely agree with Ed Darrell's comment that the botany coverage in general is very weak and the ecology section is also poor (althought I am far from an ecologist, being a lab rat). Additionally, its coverage of evolution is very poor and if you add to this the book's glowing endorsement of creationism and rather biased deprecation of evolution, you get a book whose misery I can extinguish with a well-placed match. Having said that, there are some other secular textbooks out there that are pretty bad too. To the best of your knowlege, does the UC system (of which I am an alum) not accept courses which used some of these other less-than-desirable secular textbooks?

2. If these students are taking college-credit courses and passing standardized tests, does their choice of textbook really matter? One of the best courses I had as an undergraduate at UC Davis was a virology course where we had no textbook but spent all our time reading papers, reviews and abstracts from virology conferences. I learned more in that class than I did in any other class with a textbook. If these students are passing standardized tests, then they could have learned their biology of the back of a cereal box for all we care. Why are they being penalized for their teacher's lousy textbook choice? Do I have this wrong?

Michael Buratovich

Posted by Pumpkinhead on May 16, 2007 6:43 AM (e)

I am not sure whether this reflects the stupidity or cruelty of evolutionists. I know they would relish limiting the employment prospects of young Christians by denying them admission, but they also deny themselves opportunity to convert young Christians to Darwinian debauchery by failing to admit them. Yet, there is a third possibility. They fear the presence of a single Christian armed with the truth of Jesus can take down the entire Darwinian establishment and its Satanic lies, just like Elijah on Mt. Carmel. He could convert so many of his fellow students that the evolutionist faculty could not expel them all, but would have to come to terms with the challenge Christianity poses to their fetid faith.

The defense would like to call Pumpkinhead to the stand..

So, pumpkinhead. What do you say about those who believe in God AND accept evolution?

Michael --

1. I don't know what textbooks the UC accepts. I gather there is a rather elaborate procedure whereby high schools submit their course descriptions etc. to the UC and then get a reply as to whether or not the course will be accepted as satisfying requirement XYZ for admission to UC. The "standard" biology courses in public schools and probably many private schools use the state science standards and the state-approved textbook lists, I assume these get an automatic pass by the UC.

2. The courses the lawsuit is about are not exactly "college credit" classes, they are classes which might or might not fill an admission requirement for a prospective student. The UC requires prospective students to have X number of English, Math, Science, etc. classes in order to be admitted. However this requirement is not absolute, a student missing some of the classes can still be admitted if, based on test scores or other criteria, the admission staff decides their application merits it.

Nick:

Thanks for the post, I'm going to be eagerly following this case and congratulations on embarking on your Ph.D by the way. UC is clearly in the right here, and forcing them to lower their educational standards in order admit these students would be a huge mistake. I'm all for tolerance, but when it comes to issues like higher education the absurdity of reducing standards is patently obvious. I look forward to future updates.

So, wait... the ACSI wants the University of California to grant credit to students for learning information that is demonstrably false?

Why is this even an issue? If I teach a United States history class claiming that the South won the Civil War, should universities be required to acknowledge that as equally valid?

Nick wrote:

"The UC requires prospective students to have X number of English, Math, Science, etc. classes in order to be admitted. However this requirement is not absolute, a student missing some of the classes can still be admitted if, based on test scores or other criteria, the admission staff decides their application merits it."

Is there any evidence that students from these private schools do worse on the admission tests than students from schools using state-approved science standards? Is there any evidence that they do worse in classes after admission? Is there any evidence that they are less likely to graduate?

It seems to me that the fact that they come from schools that do not use state standards should be sufficient to deny them admission. If the standards are mandatory, that would simply mean that the school should not be recognized or accredited. Students should be aware of this when deciding to attend such schools.

But of course the issue is undoubtedly much more complicated than that. Any evidence that can be presented supporting the view that these students are not adequately prepared should be brought forward. Admission should based on standard requirements that adequately prepare students, not personal or religious beliefs.

This also raises the issue of whether a University education is a right or a privilege. But perhaps that is too far off topic.

OK, here's something to worry about.

Are UC enlisting the help of any groups experienced with fighting creationism in the courts? Yes, I know they have a fair fraction of the best scientists in the world at UC, but any scientist who's ever been tempted into debating a creationist knows that you can simply be dazed by the cascade of b.s. they throw at you. Their legal team needs to know the standard creationist gambits, and how those gambits have been most effectively handled in the past.

This case is important for every university in the country, and I hope they're taking it seriously enough.

Well, here is one example. Here is another. There are many more.

— pumpkinhead (re Darwinian debauchery)

Punkinhead: having violated that Commandment against bearing false witness, you are now an enemy of the God you claim to worship (but, clearly, not to obey), and by your own logic, you "deserve no love or mercy."

Unless, of course, you're too young to understand the error of your ways, which most of your posts strongly imply.

any scientist who's ever been tempted into debating a creationist knows that you can simply be dazed by the cascade of b.s. they throw at you. Their legal team needs to know the standard creationist gambits, and how those gambits have been most effectively handled in the past.

In the little details, the ones where Mies van der Rohe said God lives (sorry, P.Z.),

There is a larger picture going on here.

Both Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's law schools are preparing lawyers they hope will eventually get to be judges who interpret the law. According to some of the students in these schools (as seen on Anderson Cooper's reports about Christians), they believe in absolutes from their bible and think the laws should be interpreted in light of these "absolutes".

It looks like the fundamentalists are provoking these cases in order to sharpen their skills at debating the law and to provide future arguments for the judges they hope to put in place. At this time, it is not crucial that they win any cases (If the evidence really matters in this current case, they will lose.), but if they can gain experience along with political clout, then they have a shot at achieving their goals of turning this country into a theocracy.

It is interesting how they have now changed their stated goal. They now claim that "institutional separation of Church and State" is proper, but the "Law should not be separate from the Absolutes of the Bible".

I think we can expect to see additional challenges along these lines.

Michael Buratovich -

Not using a textbook at all, in a university level course, is a far cry from using a textbook which is demonstrably and deliberately wrong, for a high school level course.

If the textbook is full of crap, it's an extremely fair assumption that the student was taught the crap in the textbook, and not the material that the university requires.

If he wants to go to UC all he has to do is go to a normal school and take some real science courses.

If your religion forbids learning algebra, unfortunately, you can't enter a college that requires a basic course in algebra. If your religion forbids learning basic science, you can't enter a college that requires exposure to basic science. Note that nobody is requiring anybody to "believe" anything. All that's being asked is that the kids be exposed to what mainstream scientists currently view as the most accurate material, and why, at a grade-appropriate level. To use the algebra example, all he has to do is understand that if 10X = 50, in math, X = 5. He can "believe" whatever the heck he wants, but it's reasonable for a university to require exposure to basic mainstream academic material.

By the way, I don't consider myself an "atheist" and I am certainly not "against religion". I would be outraged if an educationally qualified student were denied entrance to a university on the basis of private religious beliefs. This is about whether the student is educationally qualified.

Of course it's that fault of adults, not the students themselves, whenever any elementary or high school students are denied a satisfactory education, but that doesn't change the fact that colleges need to have standards for entry.

"Why is this even an issue? If I teach a United States history class claiming that the South won the Civil War, should universities be required to acknowledge that as equally valid?"

Yes.

Just as you should be able to teach that the US was founded on Christian Principles and that the US Constitution is Biblically Based. You should be free to teach anything that your Faith dictates (but only if it is a True Christian Faith!), and to discredit anything that is in conflict with your Faith

How unfortunate that the plaintiffs did not engage Steve Fuller for a reprise of his Dover performance.

COPIES ATTACHED Copies are attached of hte follwing items, not publicly available or produced in discovery in this action: Appendix (if any) to report Sent by Federal Express 3 days delivery, separately: F001-626 Michael Behe, Ph.D., Darwin's Black Box Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Icons of Evolution

If the biology textbook in question does not accept biochemistry as part of biology, why is Behe an expert witness for the plaintiff?
Cannot he see the contradiction?
Oh, that's right you are not only lying for Jesus but you also have to be deaf, mute or blind for Jesus......
With supporters like that who needs enemies.

The trial judge, I believe is Judge Otero,--another conservative. My personal experience in appearances before him is that he strictly observes the letter of the law and has a tight view of "relevance." A George Bush apointee:

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2988

creationists can and have been shown to be systematically dishonest.

The enemies of God deserve no love or mercy.

I serve not the ID Leadership, but only my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Pumpkinhead doesn't know anything about ANY god and cannot provide verifiable evidence that he does. So it is not important to listen to him or feed his troll-like tendencies. His parents are not supervising him properly, and we shouldn't have to act a surrogate parents to him.

So don't feed the troll.

One of the best courses I had as an undergraduate at UC Davis was a virology course where we had no textbook but spent all our time reading papers, reviews and abstracts from virology conferences.

— Michael Buratovich

OT but I just received my Wollemi pine to plant in the garden. It sure is a weird looking pine, very cool.

Both Jerry Falwell's and Pat Robertson's law schools are preparing lawyers...

— Mike Elzinga

I found this good article about the case

— larry

In CA, every high school, even public schools, have to submit course descriptions and related documentation in order to have that course considered to be acceptable for satisfying an academic requirement for admission to UC or CSU (the so-called a-g requirements). If a course is rejected, they note why, and what the school needs to do to change or add to meet the requirement. Here's an example of what the school needs to submit:
< Url href="http://www.ucop.edu/a-gGuide/ag/course_submissions/course_submission_template.html">

You can cruise around that web site to find out more about the certification process.

Several years ago UC and CSU added a requirement for a year of arts education to the admission requirements (my daughter was a Junior then). There was quite a scramble to get the various arts classes qualified in time so that you could be assured that if you registered for, say ceramics, that this satisfied the requirement. Eventually, I think most of the arts classess were certified, but it was dicey for a while to know what to register for - you liked one of the arts the best, but weren't sure that that course would satisfy the requirement at the end of the day.

All schools are treated the same. There are minimum standards for a course to satisfy an admission requirement. Religeous schools aren't being singled out, their courses just have to meet minimum criteria to qualify for satisfaction of an admission requirement.

You really should stop the sock-puppet routine man.

And if, by some wild improbability, you are not Farfromsane, you have indelibly branded yourself a complete maroon for admiring his "brains."

Larry is an obnoxious idiot.

So these two books are going to be officially part of the trial?

So, pumpkinhead. What do you say about those who believe in God AND accept evolution?

From the last page of Behe's "expert" report: COPIES ATTACHED Copies are attached of hte follwing items, not publicly available or produced in discovery in this action: Appendix (if any) to report Sent by Federal Express 3 days delivery, separately: F001-626 Michael Behe, Ph.D., Darwin's Black Box Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Icons of Evolution So these two books are going to be officially part of the trial?

celdd,

Thanks for the information. It sounds like the entire process is legitimate and above board. It sounds like the high schools involved knew for a long time that their students would not be accepted. It sounds like it was a matter of public record that their courses were not recognized. It sounds like students should know better than to apply to UC if they choose to go to those high schools. It sounds like the schools had ample opportunity to conform to the standards if they wanted theor students to be accepted.

If that is the case, why don't the students just go to a school that accepts the courses? It sure sounds like they voluntarily gave up their "right" to attend UC.

I wonder what possible grounds the plantifs have for filing their action? Will they claim that the standards are discriminatory? Will they claim that the textbooks meet the standards and that they should be deemed acceptable? Either way it doesn't seem like they have a leg to stand on.

One thing is for sure, if these texts are allowed then state standards are in trouble across the country and college admission boards will be in big trouble.

What does Michael Behe, expert biology/physics witness for the creationists, say when reviewing these books? Nothing much except "[I]t is also important to keep in mind that being generally accepted by the scientific community is no guarantee that a concept or purported fact is correct [...]" (p. 28).

H. Humbert observed: They [the new agers] have almost nothing in common with one another, yet they are united under the shared perception that the mainstream scientific community is somehow wrong.

So, pumpkinhead. What do you say about those who believe in God AND accept evolution?

Sorry, but I searched both of those articles for "Darwin*" and didn't find a single mention.

Are you saying there was no debauchery prior to Darwin? If I thought for more than a nanosecond, I could probably come up with cases of homosexual rape and cannibalism that occurred pre-Darwin.

And why do you think that you are qualified to decide who your god's enemies are?

After all, you just broke the commandment to not bear false witness.

I'm sure I speak for all the intelligent, non trolls here who have seen Punkin' chunkinhead bleat before when I say: Who frickin' cares WHAT this nutter has to say?

Darwinism has been with us ever since the serpent beguiled Eve.

IMHO, this guy Pumpkinhead seems like a fish out of water here. Being completely off target, he looks more like the kind of ignorant, arrogant Christian creationist we love on the talk.origins newsgroup. I hope he will show up there to join forces with Ray Martinez, T. Pagano and the rest. They are just the crowd he would enjoy mingling with. He most likely also would draw some heavy flak, but his kind have elephant skin and just love to come back for more.

Pumpkinhead, YOU don't get to decide who is and who isn't an enemy of God and you don't get to decide who is and who isn't a "Real Christian". You have no more religious authority than any other person on the planet and your opinions are no better than anyone else's. So please excuse us if we just dismiss you as just another crazy person.

"Darwinism has been with us ever since the serpent beguiled Eve."

So uh, it's been with us before, uh, Darwin was even born?

By the way - was that the uh, TALKING serpent you're talking about? (snicker, giggle)

(sounds of cuckoo coming from somewhere)

I thought Behe defended ID. Doesn't he see the problem in defending an out-of-the-closet Literal Creationist text?

— Jedidiah Palosaari

Ye shall know them by their stupidity and dishonesty.

Speaking of which ... Jerry Falwell rots at last.

"After all, you just broke the commandment to not bear false witness." How? Where?

Darwin was inspired by his father the devil to write his books

Darwinism is something of a misnomer. Darwinism has been with us ever since the serpent beguiled Eve.

Comment #175831 Posted by Pumpkinhead on May 16, 2007 6:43 AM (e) I am not sure whether this reflects the stupidity or cruelty of evolutionists. I know they would relish limiting the employment prospects of young Christians by denying them admission, but they also deny themselves opportunity to convert young Christians to Darwinian debauchery by failing to admit them. Yet, there is a third possibility. They fear the presence of a single Christian armed with the truth of Jesus can take down the entire Darwinian establishment and its Satanic lies, just like Elijah on Mt. Carmel. He could convert so many of his fellow students that the evolutionist faculty could not expel them all, but would have to come to terms with the challenge Christianity poses to their fetid faith.

Can someone in Panda's block the absurdities that PumpkinIdiot is posting. His posts are completely irrelevant to the topic. To the rest of the posters, Stop feeding the troll.

That Toejam guy seems like an obvious case!

I'm just wondering how many distortions would be found in a strickly materialistic textbook about biology and physics. I bet it would be on par with the Christian textbook

"The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" by Lynn Margulis.

Many times, naturalists parade examples of reproductive isolation between close sub-species (i.e. Horse, Donkey; Lion, Tiger) as stunning proof of evolution. Yet, the hard evidence of exhaustive experimentation indicates that the information for variation was already "programmed" into the parent species's genetic code and the sub-species, or what is sometimes known as the pure breed, becomes devoid of much of the variety that was present in the genetic code of the parent species of the sub-species. This fact is made especially clear in mans extensive breeding history of domesticated dogs and thorough-bred horses. Thus, even though a sub-species, or pure breed, may sometimes be demonstrated to become reproductively isolated, it still has reached a wall in which its possibilities for variation are severely limited in its genetic code when compared to its parent species variability. In fact, from the best evidence we have so far, reproductive isolation is due to the fact that genetic information is being lost, not gained, in the genes of the pure breed or the sub-species. Indeed, the lack of genetic variability, in major food crops, is a major concern facing scientists today since variability gives protection from diseases. This fact is totally contrary to what we would expect to find if the variation found in the sub-species were truly wrought by random mutations in the DNA generating novel information for variability! And this result is to be totally expected if the parent species were indeed created with a certain amount of flexibility for adaptation, to differing environments, already programmed in its genetic code! Yet, naturalists conveniently ignore the hard conclusive fact that the variation in the sub-species is severely limited when it is compared to the much larger variability that is found in the parent species.

Heck, even young-earth creationists enthusiatically accept mere speciation, why should we believe you? Margulis is grinding an axe about symbiosis, she thinks symbiosis plays an important role even in speciation, basically based on some studies in insects where bacterial symbionts are involved.

On the list of plaintiff expert witnesses, I did some hunting
* Derek Keenan (of ACSI) --- standardized tests
He is apparently vice-president of Academic Affairs for ACSI

* Donald Ericson --- various education issues
I think this is actually Donald Erickson, professor emeritus in Education, UCLA. He seems to be a veteran expert witness at least according to his website

* Paul Vitz --- psychologist, History and Government textbooks
Professor Emeritus of psychology, New York University. his website

* Sandra Stotsky --- the American Literature anthology
a member of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel and a columnist at EdNews. A brief look would seem to imply she would be in favor of the UC's requirement of the English class reading complete novels (one of the reasons for denial the UC system had was that the English class listed no lengthy complete texts to be read). One can look up the reviews of her book "Losing Our Language: How Multicultural Classroom Instruction Is Undermining Our Children's Ability to Read, Write, and Reason".

* Daniel Guevara --- Religion and Ethics Policy
Possibly the Associate Professor of Philosophy at UC Santa Cruz

* Michael Behe --- Biology and Physics textbooks
I'll leave Behe for the rest.

PC2, PC, realpc, Philip Cunningham (whatever you are calling yourself this time around):

Speciation is a well-documented process. Genetic divergence occurs following reproductive isolation. Genetic evidence allows reconstruction of events where direct observation of the process is not possible. And anyway Nick is right, even YECs admit speciation occurs, even if they claim it only produces species within individual families. Of course that still means that the over 25,000 species of weevils evolved in only 6,000 years. Here are a few references for you:

Apple Maggots Nature 336:61-64 (1988)

Anopheles Mosquitos Science 289:115-117 (2002)

Fruit Flies Nature 230:289-292 (1971)

Maidenhair Ferns Am. J. Botany 79:701-707 (1992)

Goatsbeard Am. J. Botany 76:1119-1124 (1989)

yeah PC2,

You realized that selection reduces variation in individual populations. However, you are comparing apples to oranges. If you want to determine the effect of speciation has on genetic variation you have to look at the variation of all of the daughter populations, and not just one. Take for example dogs. While each of the individual breeds of dogs might lack variation, taken as a whole the genetic variation present in all dog breeds most likely exceeds the genetic variation in the original population of dog ancestors.

bob

ps But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared." Guess what, reproductive isolation means that a new species formed. Species don't have to look different to be different. Anyone who has tried to identify willow/alder flycatchers in the field can attest. Nor when things look different does than mean that, as in the case of white admiral/red-spotted purple butterflies.

To Nick - Thanks for clearing that up. The press coverage of this lawsuit has not been all that informative and has left me with more questions than answers.

To Celdd - the website was a great help. Now I think I have a better picture of why the UC campuses refuse to accept these classes. The Christian school in Jackson, MI, near where I live and work simply has students take the Biology CLEP exam. This way the problem is solved.

To Harold - Yes this is a matter or whether or not students are qualified. It was my understanding, based on the information in hand, that these students had already passed standardized tests, but were being denied admission for other reasons, which did not sound right. If that was the case, then you must admit that it sounds more than a little nefarious. Since this is a case of accepting high school courses that act as college preparatory classes, this is a different story altogether. Certainly colleges and universities must have their standards. At my institution, if a student scores lower than a 16 on the math section of the ACT exam, then they MUST take algebra and lower than 17 on the English section of the ACT, then they must take the basic writing class. If they are somehow adverse to studying such subjects, then our institution is not for them.

MB

Heck, even young-earth creationists enthusiatically accept mere speciation, why should we believe you?

— Nick Matzke

Pumpkinhead said:
"I serve not the ID Leadership, but only my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!"

Thus violating the first and (perhaps) the second commandment. Tell us, have you actually read the Bible?

Your theology appears to be as weak as your knowledge of science.

I would like to emphasize that though biology is the central issue for this site, that the history/social science courses are also important. Their textbooks are distorting or falsifying history as much as the biology textbook is distorting or falsifying science. I note the history course also misuses biology; it calls 'Social Darwinism' only 'Darwinism' and probably confuses it with the theory of Natural Selection and the neo-Darwinian synthesis (at least judging by the course outline).

My own guess is that the history and biology courses are going to be the main battlegrounds as the other two failed the mechanics (among other things, the English course failed to list the actual required readings and apparently failed to include any lengthy complete works to be required reading; the government course was two semesters instead of one without justification).

Note that nothing requires that the courses be approved by the UC in order to be taught only that they must be approved to be accepted as college prep and as partially fulfilling one way of getting into the UC system.

PC2,

It might be worth mentioning that intermediates in the process of speciation have also been found. Work in Fracisco Ayala's laboratory at UC Irvine have shown that reproductive isolation mechanisms (RIMs) can consist of simple geographical distance. Since a species is defined as a reproductively isolated group, the question of how a species is formed is really a question of how reproductive isolation occurs. In general reproductive isolation seems to occur as a byproduct of genetic diversification. The completion of speciation seems to be directly promoted by natural selection. Even though speciation can occur in a variety of ways, there are usually two main stages to species formation.

According to Ayala, the first stage or Stage I requires the interruption of gene flow between two populations. This interruption can be complete or partial. The absence of gene flow allows the two populations to genetically diversify, as they become adapted to their own local conditions. Genetic drift may play a greater or lesser role in this process. The interruption of gene flow is necessary, since the failure to do so would prevent the two populations from becoming genetically different. The diversification of these two isolated populations will cause hybrids between them to show reduced viability or fertility. This is the first appearance of a postzygotic RIM and this postzygotic RIM is not the result of natural selection, but is merely the byproduct of genetic diversification.

Stage II encompasses the completion of reproductive isolation. At this point if the hybrids show good viability and fertility, then removal of the barriers between the two populations might cause the two populations to fuse and the gene pools to merge. However, if hybrids are neither properly viable nor fertile, natural selection favors the development of a prezygotic RIM, which causes further reproductive isolation between the two populations. This event completes the formation of a new species.

The first stage of speciation is reversible. It is entirely possible for two isolated populations to fuse and become one gene pool as they were before. However, if matings between individuals of these two formerly isolated populations produce poorly adapted individuals or poorly viable or fertile individuals, then it is unlikely that these two populations will merge. Natural selection favors the creation of prezygotic RIMs that will complete the formation of new species.

In some cases, extensive isolation of one population from another allows speciation without Stage II. Organisms that have been isolated on islands are a good example of species that have genetically diversified to the point where prezygotic RIMs are unnecessary. Even in this case it must be admitted that prezygotic RIMs accelerate speciation. In the case of islands where species are isolated from their mainland ancestors, the formation of such RIMs is probably unnecessary.

If Stage I of speciation involves the geographical separation of two populations, then these two populations are in the process of geographic speciation. Water, mountains, deserts, or some other barrier may separate terrestrial organisms. Freshwater organisms may be kept separate if they live in different river systems or unconnected lakes. Marine organisms may be separated by land, water of greater or lesser depth or water of different salinity or temperature.

Natural selection allows local organisms to become well adapted to their own local conditions. This aids in the genetic differentiation of populations, as does random genetic drift particularly if local populations are small. Incipient reproductive isolation may appear if geographic separation continues for some time, particularly in the form of postzygotic RIMs. The second stage of speciation begins when previously separated populations come into contact at some point. Topographic changes on the earth's surface may cause this or ecological changes in the intervening territory that make it habitable by the populations, or by migration of members of one population into the territory of another (transportation by humans in some cases). Matings between individuals from different populations may then take place and the strength of the pre-existing RIMs and the extent of hybridization will determine if the populations will fuse or develop additional prezygotic RIMs and become separate species.

The two stages of geographic speciation are easily illustrated by a group of closely related species of Drosophila that live in the American tropics. This group, which is called the Drosophila willistoni group, consists of 15 species, 6 of which are sibling species. Sibling species are morphologically indistinguishable. One of these siblings is D. willistoni, which consists of two subspecies, D. willistoni quechua, which lives in continental South America west of the Andes and D. willistoni willistoni, which lives east of the Andes. These two subspecies show incipient postzygotic hybrid sterility. If D. willistoni willistoni females are mated to D. willistoni quechua males, the cross produces fertile females and males. However, if female D. willistoni quechua flies are mated to male D. willistoni willistoni flies, then the resultant females are fertile but the males are sterile. If these two subspecies were to come into contact in nature and intercross, natural selection would favor the development of prezygotic RIMs to prevent the waste of reproductive efforts.

A similar situation is also seen in another species of this Drosophila group. Drosophila equinoxialis consists of two geographically separated subspecies, D. equinoxialis equinoxialis, which inhabits continental South America and D. equinoxialis caribbensis, which inhabits Central America and the Caribbean islands. Laboratory crosses between individual flies from these two subspecies always produce fertile females but sterile males, regardless of the direction of the cross. There seems to be a greater reproductive isolation between the subspecies of D. equinoxialis than between the two subspecies of D. willistoni

We should note that prezygotic RIMs do not exist between the subspecies of D. willistoni or of D. equinoxialis. Reproductive isolation between the subspecies, in this case, is far from complete and they are not considered distinct species.

Stage I of the speciation process is observed in another member of the D. willistoni group. Drosophila paulistorum is a species that consists of six semispecies. Semispecies are incipient species and two of the three semispecies are sympatric in many localities. The semispecies exhibit hybrid sterility similar to that found in D. equinoxialis - crosses between males and females of two different semispecies produce fertile females but sterile males. Two of the three semispecies have come into geographical contact in several places and behavioral isolation between these semispecies is either complete or nearly complete. When females and males from two different semispecies are placed together in the laboratory the success of the matings depends on the geographic origin of the flies. If semispecies from the same locality are used, only homogamic matings are successful. Homogamic matings are matings between members of the same semispecies. If the matings are between flies that are not from the same geographic locality, then heterogamic matings, or matings between members of different semispecies, and homogamic matings are successful. Thus, D. paulistorum provides a remarkable example of natural selection in operation during the second stage of speciation. Reproductive isolation has been completed where the semispecies are sympatric, but not elsewhere, because the genes involved have yet to spread fully throughout each semispecies.

Mind you there are plenty of cases where speciation occurs faster, seemingly without the two stages. Quantum speciation, as in the case of polyploidy, which occurs largely in plants. Harlan Lewis studied quantum speciation in Clarkia biloba and Clarkia lingulata. Both plants are native to California but C. lingulata has a limited distribution to only two sites in the Sierra Nevada at the southern periphery of the distribution of C. biloba. These two species are similar in morphology, but the shape of their petals differs. They are also capable of self-fertilization, but usually outcross. The chromosomal configurations of these two species differ by one translocation, several inversions, and an extra chromosome in C. lingulata, which is homologous to parts of two chromosomes in C. biloba. Thus, the narrowly distributed C. lingulata seems to have arisen from C. biloba by a rapid series of events that involved gross chromosomal rearrangements like translocations, fusions, inversions and fissions. Since such events can greatly reduce the fertility of heterozygotes, the formation of a homozygous species was highly favorable and apparently occurred rather quickly. Self-fertilization probably facilitated the propagation of the rearrangements. Once there was a population of individuals exhibiting some reproductive isolation from the rest of the population because of the chromosomal rearrangements, natural selection favors the development of additional RIMs.

Rapid speciation initiated through chromosomal rearrangements has also occurred in animals. Michael J. D. White has studied particular flightless Australian grasshoppers, Moraba scurra and Moraba viatica, which show incipient species that differ by chromosomal translocations. A translocation establishes itself by means of genetic drift in a small colony and if the members of this colony show high fitness, they may subsequently spread and displace the ancestral form from a certain area. The ancestral and the derived species can exist in contiguous areas and the low fitness of the hybrids formed in the contact zones prevents the overlap of either species in the territory of the other. Thus, the first stage of speciation has occurred very rapidly and natural selection favors the development of additional RIMs.

Other animals groups seem to have undergone this type of speciation. Specifically, the underground rodents or mole rats of the group Spalax ehrenbergi in Israel show this type of quantum speciation. The pocket gophers of the southern Rocky Mountains of the United States, Thomomys talpoides also show such speciation.

RealPC: By classifying lions and tigers as close subspecies you differ from every biologist on the planet. That should give you a hint as to why we consider your views to be ludicrous.

Richard,

He didn't mean real lions and tigers, just some other ones. Just like he didn't mean domesticated dogs, just undomesticated ones. Speciation doesn't violate the known laws of physics, just the unknown ones. You should really try to pay closer attention to the arguments, otherwise you might get confused. I'm sure the whold mess will be cleard up when PC explains his Matrix theoty for us.

The whole idea or theory of macro-evolution is contingent on the generation of meaningful information in the DNA. The following book makes it obvious neo-darwinists or on the verge of empirical bankruptcy. Here is a review of that book.

"Genetic Entropy" was written by Cornel University Professor of Genetics, John Sanford. In his 25 years as a research scientist at Cornell he was granted 25 patents, the most well known one for the gene gun, better known as the ballistic process. It is as a result of this development that I first learned of his important work (I have used this technology in my molecular biology research). I agree with much in this book partly because I have come to the same conclusion as Dr Sanford, only by a very different route. This work for me only further solidified the case for evolution, only evolution the wrong way, downward instead of upward, i.e. the genome is degenerating. Even if half of Dr Sanford's well documented arguments turn out to be incorrect, he has still made his case in this well written, yet packed full of insight, easy to read, book. He makes his case in 10 chapters, any one of which stands alone as clear evidence for genome degeneration. One point that impressed me was the fact that most mutations are not neutral, as commonly believed, but near neutral. As a result, they are not selected out by natural selection. Consequently, they accumulate in the genomes of all life forms so that, as a set, they reduce fitness for the entire species, eventually producing genetic meltdown. This may be one reason for animal extinction. The harmful mutations are not the problem because those that are nt are usually soon selected out by natural selection. This, as is well documented in this book and elsewhere, is the main role of selection, to help maintain the stability of the genome by reducing the effects of deleterious mutations. Neo-Darwinist today believe that the major means of producing new genetic information is mutations and selection. As Sanford documents, the problem is not the survival of the fittest, though, but the arrival of the fittest because mutations as a whole clearly reduce usable information, not increase it. All other theories of the source of new genetic information, such as Darwin's pangenesis, and acquired traits as developed by Lamarckism ideas, have been discarded. The only viable theory left is mutations. This book will be important in showing that mutations are not only not the answer to the arrival of the fittest problem, but are clear evidence against Neo-Darwinism.

OK, Phil. Now we know that either: 1. you write reviews on Amazon as "The Professor", and enjoy the sound of your own crackpot gibberish so well that you can't help re-posting bits of it here, or 2. You admire the aforementined screeds so well that you can't help but be a dishonest plagiarist.

Give it up.

To everyone else: just take a snip and Google it. Isn't the 21st century wonderful? (Unless you're a crackpot or a plagiarist, in which case, I bet it kinda sucks.)

The whole idea or theory of macro-evolution is contingent on the generation of meaningful information in the DNA. The following book makes it obvious neo-darwinists or on the verge of empirical bankruptcy.

PC2,PC, realPC, Phil Cunningham quoted:

"...most mutations are not neutral, as commonly believed, but near neutral. As a result, they are not selected out by natural selection. Consequently, they accumulate in the genomes of all life forms so that, as a set, they reduce fitness for the entire species, eventually producing genetic meltdown."

If they are "near neurtal" and not "selected out by natural selection" then how do they "reduce fitness"?
Actually, they provide a wealth of genetic variation on which selection can act when the environment changes.

Of course even if they did "reduce fitness for the entire species", the species would simply go extinct eventually. Now let's see, is there any evidence that any species have gone extinct? But, but, but, that means that every species will eventually go extinct! So what, that has been the fate of every species that has ever lived. Why should currently living species be any different?

This is just another example of the old argument for the "conservation of information". As has been pointed out many times before to this individual, there is no such thing. If random mutations occur and deleterious mutations are selected against, then there is information in the mutations that remain. As has been pointed out many times to this individual, new information can arise in duplicated genes not subject to direct selection pressures. As has been pointed out many times to this individual, oh I give up.

If species' genomes did accumulate so much junk that it would eventually make the species die off, what would purge the junk from offshoots of that species? The occasional genetic bottleneck, maybe?

Henry

Henry J,

Actually, many deleterious mutations do accumulate and are passed on even to descendant species. That is why retroviral transposons are so useful for phylogenetics. This is termed the mutational load. It is important for every species, but especially for humans, since we are currently under relaxed selection for many traits.

Eventually, an equilibrium is reached between new mutaitons and selection. If the mutations are recessive, they may persist for significant periods before selection even acts to any great extent. But, if allele frequencies of recessives iincrease due to mutation or drift, selection will eventually act to reduce the frequencies.

Needless to say, none of this really poses any problem for evolutionary theory. The point is that our genomes are really a mess. This is exactly what one would expect from more than three billion years of random mutation and selection. It is hard to see how this is at all consistent with a special creation of humans 6,011 years or so ago by an intelligent being of any kind.

There is an error in Lenny Flack's statement that diploid and tetraploid treefrogs cannot interbreed and produce progeny. Such progeny would be triploids and there is no reason to believe they would be less viable than tetraploids. They would, however, produce almost entirely aneuploid gametes and thus be essentially sterile. Due to triploid sterility, frequent crosses between diploids and triploids would threaten one or the other with extinction. One would expect this to lead to strong behavorial resistance to interbreeding, i.e., the reason diploid and triploid treefrogs don't interbreed isn't because they can't but because because they don't want to.

Sojac

You also might require Astronomy classes to question whether or not the Sun goes around the Earth.

I'm most interested in how the creationists expect their religious bible science to stand up to real science when given a fair presentation as in court.

Even their complaint is that they are being denied freedom of religion, when UC is questioning the validity of their pseudo-science.

As Nietzsche said:

To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.

It is unfortunate that there is so much fussing over the content that is presented by certain textbook makers. I believe that this fight is far more significant than simply over a few textbooks. It appears that some people at UC colleges and universities are seeking a more significant prize. Creationism is not well accepted as a theory or as education in many public institutions. Eradicating it completely seems to be the goal. By making admission to universities dependent on teaching curriculum that is approved by the UC colleges and universities, then those schools are effectively dictating what they believe effective education is. They're saying educate students our way or are you cannot come. There was a day when education meant exploring and learning about all sorts of possibilities. But this seems to be restrictive on you can find a site I have a nagging woman bothering me is not a Private as great a general Christian schools typically will teach about evolution and creation as theories. But it appears that there is a concerted effort to control this type of education by not allowing students from Christian schools access to public higher education. It almost looks as though some colleges and universities will only be satisfied if the idea of teaching creation theory is completely eradicated from our educational systems. I have heard some people say that students who go to Christian high schools should simply go to Christian colleges when they graduate. For most that would be the preference. Unfortunately, private colleges are very expensive so that is not a great option for many families.

If the colleges and universities pursue this successfully I think they will come to see it as a mistake. Higher educational institutions are looking for people who are successful learners. Do they really care this much about the curriculum being taught if the students are successful in their schools? I would suggest that most colleges and universities do not have much regard for a great deal of what is being taught in high schools regardless if they are public or private. They want their students to have a mastery of their subjects and they are dependent on their Typically students from private Christian schools such as Calvary Christian will produce students who are far more likely to succeed in college than the average student from a public high school. Typically, the private school kids are prepared to be excellent students. The content of what students have learned in individual schools varies between high schools regardless if they are public or private. Colleges and universities want individuals who are prepared to be excellent students. But the content of what is taught at different high schools is less significant than determining if pupils have learned how to be successful students. That seems to be more significant in determining whether or not there is some question over the content of some textbook.

If a student is denied access to UC colleges because the textbook used invalidates a subject, would a UC College truly deny enrollment to such a student if that student also had a 2400 on their SAT? It seems to defy logic. Yet that seems to be the course of action that is being sought.

I am concerned that this seems to be more of an attack upon religion and keeping creationist thinking out of college and universities than a genuine concern about the educational well-being of students. I hope I am wrong but I do not understand why the colleges and universities would make this kind of stand. I am confident that must be divided thought among them as well.

I suppose a reasonable solution for this would be to allow any individuals who do not support the idea of UC schools evaluating private school curriculum to have the option of not paying any taxes or fees to support UC schools. I think UC schools should have the freedom to make decisions that they think are best for them. But I also think that if the UC system makes the decision to discriminate in admission based on what they preceive to be acceptable curriculum coming from high schpools, then those who disagree with the colleges should not have to pay for their thinking. I propose that if they want to discriminate in this way then taxes and fees designated towards the colleges and universities should be optional. They can have their opinion. I just don't want us to be required to pay for it.

It is unfortunate that there is so much fussing over the content that is presented by certain textbook makers. I believe that this fight is far more significant than simply over a few textbooks. It appears that some people at UC colleges and universities are seeking a more significant prize. Creationism is not well accepted as a theory or as education in many public institutions. Eradicating it completely seems to be the goal. By making admission to universities dependent on teaching curriculum that is approved by the UC colleges and universities, then those schools are effectively dictating what they believe effective education is. They're saying educate students our way or are you cannot come. There was a day when education meant exploring and learning about all sorts of possibilities. But this seems to be restrictive. Private as great a general Christian schools typically will teach about evolution and creation as theories. But it appears that there is a concerted effort to control this type of education by not allowing students from Christian schools access to public higher education. It almost looks as though some colleges and universities will only be satisfied if the idea of teaching creation theory is completely eradicated from our educational systems. I have heard some people say that students who go to Christian high schools should simply go to Christian colleges when they graduate. For most that would be the preference. Unfortunately, private colleges are very expensive so that is not a great option for many families.

If the colleges and universities pursue this successfully I think they will come to see it as a mistake. Higher educational institutions are looking for people who are successful learners. Do they really care this much about the curriculum being taught if the students are successful in their schools? I would suggest that most colleges and universities do not have much regard for a great deal of what is being taught in high schools regardless if they are public or private. They want their students to have a mastery of their subjects and they are dependent on their Typically students from private Christian schools such as Calvary Christian will produce students who are far more likely to succeed in college than the average student from a public high school. Typically, the private school kids are prepared to be excellent students. The content of what students have learned in individual schools varies between high schools regardless if they are public or private. Colleges and universities want individuals who are prepared to be excellent students. But the content of what is taught at different high schools is less significant than determining if pupils have learned how to be successful students. That seems to be more significant in determining whether or not there is some question over the content of some textbook.

If a student is denied access to UC colleges because the textbook used invalidates a subject, would a UC College truly deny enrollment to such a student if that student also had a 2400 on their SAT? It seems to defy logic. Yet that seems to be the course of action that is being sought.

I am concerned that this seems to be more of an attack upon religion and keeping creationist thinking out of college and universities than a genuine concern about the educational well-being of students. I hope I am wrong but I do not understand why the colleges and universities would make this kind of stand. I am confident that must be divided thought among them as well.

I suppose a reasonable solution for this would be to allow any individuals who do not support the idea of UC schools evaluating private school curriculum to have the option of not paying any taxes or fees to support UC schools. I think UC schools should have the freedom to make decisions that they think are best for them. But I also think that if the UC system makes the decision to discriminate in admission based on what they preceive to be acceptable curriculum coming from high schpools, then those who disagree with the colleges should not have to pay for their thinking. I propose that if they want to discriminate in this way then taxes and fees designated towards the colleges and universities should be optional. They can have their opinion. I just don't want us to be required to pay for it.

So Nick, should the UC just abandon all standards of academic quality? Abandon the idea that there are right answers and wrong answers to scientific questions on tests? Because that is what your position directly implies. With your position, the UC would be forced to accept classes that taught that Bigfoot was real or the earth was flat, if those happened to be someone's religious view. You can be sure that people would be submitting courses on crystal power and psychic ability for credit if they thought the UC would accept those.

PS: Also, these course requirements were always just one of several tracks for a student getting accepted to the UC, and the ACSI schools typically had multiple courses e.g. for biology, so a serious student who really wanted to maximize her chances for the UC could take a serious biology class instead of some weird biology-except-where-it-contradicts-a-literalist-reading-of-the-Bible class.

Nick Sweeney said: If a student is denied access to UC colleges because the textbook used invalidates a subject, would a UC College truly deny enrollment to such a student if that student also had a 2400 on their SAT? It seems to defy logic. Yet that seems to be the course of action that is being sought.

[notme]

Ah, but those GRE's and MCAT's were designed by evilutionists!!111!!one!!!

[/notme]