Christian schools lose appeal bid in UC case

Was it theology that brought about the modern age destroying the environment and our atmosphere? No, it was science. For all the talk about religion killing millions over thousands of years, how long did it take the age of science to catch up and surpass that... less than a century or two! If we reverted to the ways of theology, most scientific achievements would be done away with it's feared and millions would be killed in the name of God... remain on the path of science, most theological beliefs would be done away with and we will continue living in fear that one day science will destroy all life on Earth.

Charles Darwin is often regarded as one of the greatest pioneers of modern science and is held up as the founding father of almost everyone who opposes religion... Charles Darwin was to his dying day a Christian and many of his beliefs were extreme compared with many of todays Christians let alone he married his first cousin.

Then there is eugenics and many other scientific theories about purifying the human species which has gone so far that you have groups like Pro Choice at odds with itself as the founding principles of abortion in science are to eliminate undesirables, those with birth defects and even to selectively control the birth process so you can basically manufacture a child to be what you want... while at the same time teaching it's just a clump of cells and a parasite until after it's born.

The evils of science far outweigh the evils of theology but the promise of science for benevolent purposes is much greater than religion because to enjoy the benefits of religion, you have to be dead... then again, the Nazi's use of science revealed it's the perfect way to bring those benefits of religion about.

The argument about religion and science in the modern age is no different than the same arguments when religion prevailed over science. People who adhere to one belief system always trying to point out that theirs is better. In centuries past when religion prevailed, people who adhered to science never imagined how destructive science could be and were seen as the more benevolent choice. They based their beliefs on intellectual thought and foundation in the physical realm whereas religion did not require intellectual thought and based it's beliefs in the supernatural realm. As people became more educated, science eventually won the day because educating the mind leads people of intelligence to believe more in what they can see, feel and hear without having faith that it's there because they lack education to know any better.

But science isn't much better as much of science is based on theory and theory is an educated guess based on known facts... and yet, most of these known facts are little more than theory themselves in most cases.

One can look at the periodic table of elements and say how science revealed them to us... truth is, most of these elements were also known to men of religion but they never thought to create a table to index them nor care to investigate them further like men of science.

Alchemy is the foundation of science and alchemy was born of the fusion of religion. sorcery and science... in fact, the modern science of psychiatry derives heavily from the religious elements of alchemy and scientific theory likewise derives from religious faith as many alchemists were monks and other people who did not separate religious faith from science as we do today.

Charles Darwin would have been a man that alchemists could understand while most modern scientists who place their faith entirely in science would have been unknown to the alchemist way of thinking except to view them as another form of religion.

Scientists today have many flaws in regards to their intellect. They tell us there's life on a world thousands of light years away, but can't tell us there's life on Mars... they tell us there's water on these worlds, but can't prove there's water on the Moon even though they tell us it's there. These same men of science feel compelled to do things just because their intellect tells them it can be done... and they don't care about consequences so that some would risk all life on Earth just to prove their theories correct.

Only in the age of science has it become possible to kill so many in so little time or to destroy all life on Earth... people promoting all the evils and ignorance of religion rarely discuss the fact that science is more evil and can be far more ignorant because the simple fact that you believe something can be done does not mean you should do it when you also know the consequences.

Am I saying that religion is better than science... not by any measure. But in reading many of the comments here by people who put their faith in science, it's very clear that they are and that they are only viewing the merits of science forgetting that science is also far more destructive than religion doing in a brief amount of time what religion took thousands of years to do as well as devastating the environment and creating numerous ways to destroy all life on Earth in less time than it takes to grow a crop of tomatoes.

Men like Darwin using both religion and science created scientific principles which survive to this day and cannot be disputed except by ignorant minds... being a man of religious faith meant that his answers would also be accepted by others with religious minds unless they were ignorant. Men who only use science create theories that are always in dispute, rarely founded in fact beyond the belief in possibility and their theories are always being overturned even after being established as proven fact because new scientific research proves them wrong. The difference between men like Darwin and self professed Atheist scientists is that Darwin wasn't trying to disprove religion and he used his religious belief in God to temper and focus his mind so that while he too might imagine things like nuclear technology... he would foresee the consequences and not pursue it until he knew a way to harness the power could be found. In the modern era, he would see the discovery of Thorium to create clean nuclear energy but without the danger of killing people or creating weapons as worth the wait because he wouldn't have pursued nuclear energy knowing it could kill millions or all life on Earth... his religious beliefs would not have allowed him to do that.

The University of California was not being asked to replace science with religion... it was being asked to create courses in religion which would give college prep credits for college which denies anyone of religious faith even if these people actually also believe in science. Such courses would have been things men like Darwin would have taken part in if allowed to do so but because they don't offer college credits, he would have to ignore if he wanted a college education. Thus, the University of California is discriminating when it does this as the students involved are comparing what UC gives college prep credits for as much of it is based on belief and religion is in fact a founding block of science... as well as making some of the greatest scientific minds in history what they were as what these people discovered stands the test of time moreso than athiests whose theories and beliefs are always being challenged and proven wrong by other scientists like themselves.

As a note, Darwin was not a religious person, and was likely agnostic to the claims of religion. His work was part of the science-religion debate in his time.

... we will continue living in fear that one day science will destroy all life on Earth.
We are? Did I miss the memo?

Nazi's use of science ...
WOOP WOOP WOOP Godwin's Law alert! WOOP WOOP WOOP

But science isn't much better as much of science is based on theory and theory is an educated guess based on known facts ...
Not an entirely accurate assessment of scientific theory. You can make predictions with these theories, that is something more than an educated guess.

... many alchemists were monks and other people who did not separate religious faith from science as we do today.
It was a different time with different values. Direct comparison to modern times is marginally useful. Alchemists are also not the best comparison to a modern scientist. Alchemy, as you said, is steeped in superstition.

... and they [scientists] don't care about consequences so that some would risk all life on Earth just to prove their theories correct.
This appears to be a caricature of scientists rooted in films and other media.

Only in the age of science has it become possible to kill so many in so little time or to destroy all life on Earth ...
Or to cure so many diseases, or replace organs, or communicate globally in an instant. Scientific advancement has pushed humans to an unassailable level. The fact that we are the only threat to ourselves on this planet is remarkable.

... people promoting all the evils and ignorance of religion rarely discuss the fact that science is more evil ...
Science is a method. It is neither good nor bad, and it has been used to serve both ends.

But in reading many of the comments here by people who put their faith in science, it's very clear that they are and that they are only viewing the merits of science ...
Again, this appears to be a caricature. I espouse the scientific method because it works, and because the benefits outweigh the negatives. There is a potential for great destruction, but by being aware of it and preparing for it it can be avoided.

Darwin wasn't trying to disprove religion and he used his religious belief in God to temper and focus his mind so that while he too might imagine things like nuclear technology.. he would foresee the consequences and not pursue it until he knew a way to harness the power could be found.
In Darwin's time there was no concept of the atom. Nuclear technology is impossible without it. Also, we have harnessed that power.

The University of California was not being asked to replace science with religion... it was being asked to create courses in religion which would give college prep credits ...
According to the article, they were inserting religious bias into courses rejecting evidence that was not supported by the Bible. That seems like subverting science in favor of religion to me.

The belief that Darwin was an Agnostic came from the period after his daughter died where he had a crisis of faith but never abandoned his faith in Christianity.

Quote
"we will continue living in fear that one day science will destroy all life on Earth."
We are? Did I miss the memo?
End Quote

Yes you did... it's all over the place from the 50's with duck and cover where everyone was afraid the A Bomb was going to kill us all to modern day fears of science being used to create deadly diseases that will wipe us all out or even pollution created by advances in science as almost everything causing the destruction of our atmosphere is pointed out as being from modern discoveries... you may not know this but the entire cosmetics industry is driven by science.

Exactly where do you get your concept of science... Darwin writing on a chalkboard? Science and technology are essentially one and the same and until modern times with things like nuclear technologies, mankind destroying the world was not a reality people ever had to consider.

Godwins law in essence revolves around the use of Nazi fearmongering as a comparative analysis largely based in the field of politics where first someone like Bush is called a Nazi and then Obama is called a Nazi. One of the leading factors of Godwins Law was to use an accusation comparing someone to a Nazi to essentially end the topic because people not wishing to be compared to Nazi's would not wish to continue. Even Godwin himself, however, warned that Godwins Law itself can be abused to distract away from valid comparisons as even he states clearly that there are valid comparisons and areas where someone speaking of the Nazi's such as the actuality of what they did kept in proper context... and I did just that smartass by keeping it in the context that Nazi scientists did in fact commit atrocities in the name of science and I did not compare it to anyone in specific or compare it such as saying the nazi's use of science then is the same as our scientists now doing research on animals... that would apply to Godwins Law and yeah, I have dealt with this before even with scholars so I do know and understand it's meaning which you obviously do not leading to your ignorant abuse of the concept to try distracting people who might read your response from what I actually said.

Quote
"But science isn't much better as much of science is based on theory and theory is an educated guess based on known facts ..."
Not an entirely accurate assessment of scientific theory. You can make predictions with these theories, that is something more than an educated guess.
End Quote

Good God you are ignorant.... an educated guess can also be used to predict the future and scientists even tell you point blank that often their theories or predictions are educated guesses.

Quote
"... many alchemists were monks and other people who did not separate religious faith from science as we do today."
It was a different time with different values. Direct comparison to modern times is marginally useful. Alchemists are also not the best comparison to a modern scientist. Alchemy, as you said, is steeped in superstition.
End Quote

WHAT COMPARISON... I was telling you the origins of where the sciences come from!

Quote
"... and they [scientists] don't care about consequences so that some would risk all life on Earth just to prove their theories correct."
This appears to be a caricature of scientists rooted in films and other media.
End Quote

How is it a media distortion when scientists themselves in their own private little wars reveal this too us and where do you think these corporations get all these advances that do so much damage to the environment just to name one consequence? The people who created the atom bomb thought they were doing a good thing as a more specific issue when they didn't even fully understand what radiation was before they started finding ways to weaponize it... what about the Tuskegee airmen, I'm sure they would dispute your views as would many victims of science. Note the term usage Rusty as you latched on to part of what I said and took it out of the context it was used in...

Quote
Scientists today have many flaws in regards to their intellect. They tell us there's life on a world thousands of light years away, but can't tell us there's life on Mars... they tell us there's water on these worlds, but can't prove there's water on the Moon even though they tell us it's there. These same men of science feel compelled to do things just because their intellect tells them it can be done... and they don't care about consequences so that some would risk all life on Earth just to prove their theories correct.
End Quote

I was speaking about scientists who would tell us they know things about a world hundreds or thousands of light years from our world when they cannot tell us anything for a fact right here on worlds we can actually go to, send satellites to and view with powerful microscopes including the very technologies they use to view these distant worlds they claim to know so much about when they didn't even know they existed a few years ago. In that context, such scientists do not care about truth or consequences as in their fields they may not do harm... but in medical fields, that same mentality results in things like eugenics and no, they have not evolved past that point albeit that's why I added that "some" would risk all life on Earth to prove their theories correct... I was addressing the mentality of these people and gave more than enough examples to illustrate that.

Quote
"... people promoting all the evils and ignorance of religion rarely discuss the fact that science is more evil ..."
Science is a method. It is neither good nor bad, and it has been used to serve both ends.
End Quote

When a person does something they know puts people at risk or that their works will be used to do harm to others... the methodology is no different than a murderer or a criminal who know in advance that what they do or create will be used to do harm... that's what makes a scientist evil because in most cases, they will be found completely faultless even when without their creations, the consequences would not happen. Science as a method is what they teach you in college.

Little example for you Sherlock...

In 1982, two Australian scientists discovered that most peptic ulcers are actually caused by bacteria surviving in the stomach lining and near where they connect to the intestines. For over a century, scientists had promoted the belief that bacteria cannot survive in the stomach lining and through their "science" taught every doctor on the planet this and the reason for this wasn't real world science... they were paid to say this by pharmaceuticals. Even the scientists who found the cure were amazed because all they did was actually look at a stomach ulcer under a microscope and stated that science was either blind or working for pharmaceuticals covering it up. After the cure was revealed to the world... the later was pretty much proven to be true as scientists worked with pharmaceuticals especially in the US trying to disprove this until in 1992 a group of doctors themselves began a campaign to get the word out that the facts revealed by these scientists in Australia were in fact true and that they were actually using the cure successfully with over 90% of their patients making a full recovery... and even for that, many doctors still don't know about the cure because such a successful snow job was done to suppress the information.

Greed is one element of evil no one disputes and when scientists get caught up in greed... they do things which cost people their lives.

And look at the current scandals with global warming where people have been caught lying, falsifying data and now some of the one time believers in the movement are resigning because of all the lies and deception... oh no, not evil even though such things which deceive not just those opposed to the theory also deceive the believers taking what could have scientific merit and turning it all into a big joke on a global scale.

Quote
"Only in the age of science has it become possible to kill so many in so little time or to destroy all life on Earth ..."
Or to cure so many diseases, or replace organs, or communicate globally in an instant. Scientific advancement has pushed humans to an unassailable level. The fact that we are the only threat to ourselves on this planet is remarkable.
End Quote

True that and yet for all the good you just mentioned, every one of those people can be killed just like anyone else... you did not dispute what I said was true and while many lives have been saved by science, I never said that science didn't do good for people... I only said that "only in the age of science has it become possible to kill so many in so little time or to destroy all life on Earth"... show me where I said science hasn't done good for the world and where you said science doesn't have the ability to kill all life on the planet???

Quote
"But in reading many of the comments here by people who put their faith in science, it's very clear that they are and that they are only viewing the merits of science ..."

Again, this appears to be a caricature. I espouse the scientific method because it works, and because the benefits outweigh the negatives. There is a potential for great destruction, but by being aware of it and preparing for it it can be avoided.
End Quote

Read what I wrote again... I said "they are only viewing the merits of science" in the context which was...

Quote
Am I saying that religion is better than science... not by any measure. But in reading many of the comments here by people who put their faith in science, it's very clear that they are and that they are only viewing the merits of science forgetting that science is also far more destructive than religion doing in a brief amount of time what religion took thousands of years to do as well as devastating the environment and creating numerous ways to destroy all life on Earth in less time than it takes to grow a crop of tomatoes.
End Quote

In the proper context you took that from, I pointed out that you are putting your faith in the merits of science forgetting that science has done in a brief time what took religion thousands of years to equal in regards to destruction... in other words, you guys are slamming religion and attacking those who believe in it when they have done far less damage to humanity and the world over thousands of years than science has done in such a brief period of time which is what... less than two centuries? And how long would it have taken men before the advent of science to destroy all life on Earth? As I said... far longer than growing a crop of tomatoes.

Quote
"Darwin wasn't trying to disprove religion and he used his religious belief in God to temper and focus his mind so that while he too might imagine things like nuclear technology.. he would foresee the consequences and not pursue it until he knew a way to harness the power could be found."

In Darwin's time there was no concept of the atom. Nuclear technology is impossible without it. Also, we have harnessed that power.
End Quote

In his time Rusty, scientific theory did in fact conceive of atoms and developed theories about them log before Darwin. Bacteria were discovered in 1860 22 years before Darwins death leading scientists to theorize there was more to this discovery and an entire microverse of things we couldn't see with the naked eye so that while they might not have known what to call them, they did theorize about what was there and what would happen with these discoveries.

http://www.wowessays.com/dbas... In fact Rusty, the atom was theorized thousands of years ago by the ancient Greeks... do the research lol,this is in fact where they get the name for atoms and atomic research as it's one of the most ancient theories! Sheesh, where do you young people today get your education?

Ten years after Darwin died, viruses were discovered by a Russian scientist based on such theories and research... but the theories were there already just as many other concepts in science like time travel, ray guns, life on Mars... things we consider science fiction but which are also considered scientific theory. Thus, many of the things we have today and often take for granted actually came from science fiction because science fiction is fantasy created by writers but which is often based on scientific theory which may prevail in their time.

Harnessed nuclear power? Just because you harness a horse doesn't mean it won't throw you, kick you in the face or stomp you to death.

Let me show you what I know Rusty. Have you ever heard of Thorium? Go look it up. Thorium is a radioactive element which the US military and it's scientists experimented with back in the 60's. Their goal was to create an even more destructive weapon. Now to toss you a bone about the evils of science, when they couldn't turn Thorium into a weapon, all study was abandoned and scientists who knew about it refused to pursue further research with it. Thorium is safe to hold in your bare hands unlike Uranium, Thorium is plentiful, Thorium can be used in nuclear reactors and even if there was a meltdown, most life would barely be affected and it would disappear after two or three centuries... compare that with Uranium. Now, these non evil scientists knew about this element decades ago but did nothing with it. They could have provided a cheap, easily available, safe alternative for nuclear energy but didn't let alone taken us into a future where nuclear weapons by nations like Iran claiming they only want energy would not be a threat to instead use it to make weapons.

Not evil? How many nuclear meltdowns have happened and were narrowly averted? How many nations developed nuclear weapons under the pretense of creating nuclear energy where they could have been stopped from making weapons... or at least revealed as liars so their true intentions were clear from the start?

Quote
"The University of California was not being asked to replace science with religion... it was being asked to create courses in religion which would give college prep credits ..."

According to the article, they were inserting religious bias into courses rejecting evidence that was not supported by the Bible. That seems like subverting science in favor of religion to me.
End Quote

The article says these were high school students and that the University of California was rejecting students from these schools because they require certain courses (aka credits as the author of this topic correctly put it)... however, the point is they were rejecting the students based on the schools themselves rather than what the students know. The students completed the courses and while the schools may have inserted things UC doesn't like or agree with, the students were rejected not on merit such as seeing if they actually did know the materials they require... but on the specifics of the school adding religious texts.

Quote From Article
UC requires certain high school courses for admission and says it reviews their content to make sure they cover subjects that incoming students need. University officials said some of the Christian schools' classes in biology, history, English and religion didn't pass the test - a conclusion that the schools blamed on discrimination.

The association's 800 high schools in California teach "standard course content" and "add a religious viewpoint in each subject ... as an integral part of their reason for existence," the group's lawyers said in their Supreme Court appeal.
End Quote

Quote Two From Article
Biology texts, one professor concluded, teach students to reject any scientific evidence that contradicted the Bible. A history text declared the Bible to be the "unerring source for analysis" of past events, in the view of another expert, and gave short shrift to women, non-Christians and some ethnic groups.

Another UC evaluator said an English literature course did not require students to read novels or plays, but instead presented an anthology, "Classics for Christians," that "insists on specific interpretations" of excerpted works.
End Quote

According to the article they were inserting religious bias to you... so if the same texts inserted bias against religion you would be cool with that? I think you would be from everything you had to say. But let's look at it from a different pov and say instead of religion, they were using theories of science which might be controversial which teach students to reject established scientific principles which US endorses?

Would you feel the same way if UC rejected these students also?

If you wish to debate on these issues copy pasting and tossing comments at one another, I can do it all day just as I'm sure you feel you can. However, I can almost guarantee I know more about this than you do even on the topic itself let alone your poor dissection of my post and even poorer rebuttal to what I stated in my original comment.