PDA

View Full Version : Briefs filed in Univ. of Cali. court case.


Worldtraveller
28 Apr 2009, 02:15 PM
Brief filed (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/pepper_hamilton_files_brief_in.php) in support of UC school system.

For those who haven't been following this case, a xian school with YEC based curriculum is trying to sue the University of California school system because they wouldn't grant transfer credit to thier biology courses. The YECers lost the first round, and are now appealing to the ninth circtuit. Yeah, the ninth circuit. They have to know it's a losing cause, and they are only, IMO, trying to use this as an excuse to drum the persecuted xians card and generate income for their churches and schools indoctrination centers.

The link to the actual brief is provided at the Dispatches link above.

It appears to be just as much of a slamdunk as Kitzmiller turned out to be. The brief borrows liberally from Kitzmiller, Cobb County and a few other more recent cases, of course, and it illustrates nicely the power of the previously made arguments against this sort of incursion.
The quotes from those xian textbooks are stupefying in their ignorance and anti-science attitude. Behe actually argues that those should be adequate? Is he sliding further into YECism, or just that willing to whore himself out for a few pieces of silver?

From the brief, which quotes some sections of the material from the biology books (let's hope Oolon doesn't read this while drunk! :p)
Plaintiff's expert, Michael Behe, purported to challenge UC's determination by simply counting the number of times the textbooks make reference to certain basic scientific concepts, but he conceded that he did not address the detail, depth, or accuracy of the textbooks' references to those scientific concepts. The District Court concluded that Behe did not refute UC's evaluation of the textbooks (as confirmed by Kennedy's and Ayala's testimony) or even raise any "genuine issue of material fact as to this issue."
(“[T]he Bible is the source of all truth, and everything, not just science, must be evaluated based on Scripture. If a hypothesis or scientific model seems to make sense and all of the evidence points to an answer that is contrary to the Bible, then the evidence, not the Bible, must be reevaluated and the conclusions changed.”).
The textbook states unequivocally: “Questions asking how or why are not measurable and are therefore beyond the scope of science. The scientific method cannot explain a phenomenon.” Biology for Christian Schools, supra, at 15.
[E]volutionism poisons biology textbooks and distracts from God’s glory in creation. . . . The Christian teacher will find that the unique A Beka Book approach to biology eliminates the conflict which results when
evolutionary philosophy is combined with truth. Evolution is presented for what it is—a retreat from science. Students and teachers alike will feel more
comfortable when they realize that it is not biology that is in conflict with Scripture, but rather the ungodly philosophy of some biologists.
Have you stopped laughing yet? This is what happens when religion keeps trying to push their agenda onto others. They will lose this case, and lose bad, but they'll keep coming...

This should be popcorn worthy. :D

VoxRat
28 Apr 2009, 02:26 PM
...Plaintiff's expert, Michael Behe, purported to challenge UC's determination by simply counting the number of times the textbooks make reference to certain basic scientific concepts, but he conceded that he did not address the detail, depth, or accuracy of the textbooks' references to those scientific concepts. The District Court concluded that Behe did not refute UC's evaluation of the textbooks (as confirmed by Kennedy's and Ayala's testimony) or even raise any "genuine issue of material fact as to this issue."...What I wonder is: has Behe always been this batshit insane? Was he just pretending to be normal long enough to get tenure, at which point he felt free to "let his freak flag fly"?

Notta
29 Apr 2009, 08:11 PM
The A Beka curriculum is what Dave Hawkins used in his home school for his kids.

Mung Dynasty
29 Apr 2009, 08:25 PM
That's sort of like using videos of bestiality in a sex education class.

Steviepinhead
29 Apr 2009, 08:41 PM
Even the pinhead's few neurons cringe from exposure to this tripe.

Notta
29 Apr 2009, 09:17 PM
That's sort of like using videos of bestiality in a sex education class.Don't let the fundies catch you saying that. They don't 'believe in' sex education!

RBH
30 Apr 2009, 07:20 AM
That's sort of like using videos of bestiality in a sex education class.Don't let the fundies catch you saying that. They don't 'believe in' sex education!LOL!!

BWE
30 Apr 2009, 09:12 AM
Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

from http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm