Summary Judgment in California Creationist Lawsuit: Bottom Line, and What's Next (in 3 parts)

Great. It looks like another trial is almost inevitable. Behe will once again be put on the stand. Now, will he still claim not to have had enough time to read those fifty papers, or will he now claim that he has read them and that he is stil not convinced? Either way, all of the creationist "textbooks" in question will be entered as evidence. Then, the fireworks will start all over again. Wonder if Billy D. will chicken out again, or will he want to attend this Waterloo?

When the creationists lose again, as they inevitably will, and all their dirty laundry is once again displayed for all to see, no doubt they will start whining about being expelled again. Now I ask you, how can you be expelled when you weren't even admitted?

Why don't these good little boys and girls just go to Bob Jones University? If the textbooks were good enough for them, why not just get an entire "degree" there? What do you think would happen if they were enrolled in a real biology class?

"I put down GODDIDIT and you marked it wrong. See you in court, sucker".

The parents, the christian school, and Behe are all guilty of destroying the education of the children involved. Imagine how many children might be going to this 'school' and learning this nonsense? All of them are now faced with the obvious bad choice of their parents, they've crippled their chances at furthering their education.

Yeah, but they're going to Heaven.

With a bunch of other ignoramuses.

I'd love to have a day occupying the mind of Mike Behe - glancing at some of the links to the content of the books, I was stunned to see that the 'science' in them was ...shock, horror... completely compatible with the Genesis account of creation. [/sarcasm]

Given that the guy has an extensive biology education, and is on record as dismissing the idea as 'silly' when asked if the bible should be used as a scientific book, what precisely goes on in his mind that is causing him to think that long-debunked creationist nonsense is worth studying in a biology class? Also, why does his expert report include Physics, given that as far as I know, he has no expertise in Physics?

Just Bob: Yeah, but they're going to Heaven. With a bunch of other ignoramuses.

Rob: Given that the guy has an extensive biology education, and is on record as dismissing the idea as 'silly' when asked if the bible should be used as a scientific book, what precisely goes on in his mind that is causing him to think that long-debunked creationist nonsense is worth studying in a biology class?

They ruin your education, but save your soul.

what precisely goes on in his [Behe's] mind that is causing him to think that long-debunked creationist nonsense is worth studying in a biology class?

Biology for Christian Schools declares on the very first page: (1) 'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so' is the only position a Christian can take... (2) If scientific conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them. (3) Christians must disregard scientific hypotheses or theories that contradict the Bible.

I have not seen the syllabi of the courses that were rejected, so I cannot comment on whether the decision was correct, but the views of the peanut gallery are of no consequence to me; this is an internal matter.

Robert O'Brien: I have not seen the syllabi of the courses that were rejected, so I cannot comment on whether the decision was correct, but the views of the peanut gallery are of no consequence to me; this is an internal matter.

I am part of the UC system, so, if I had "a lot" to say, it would be warranted.

I have not seen the syllabi of the courses that were rejected, so I cannot comment on whether the decision was correct, but the views of the peanut gallery are of no consequence to me; this is an internal matter.

funny, but if you look at the actual decision, the UC WANTED the issue of the texts and materials for the courses, and the individual courses themselves to be reviewed at trial (no summary judgement). It was the issue of whether they could decided on ANY course as being being worthy of transfer credit that they wanted summary judgement on.
IOW, they wanted to preserve the ability to make choices on accepting courses as an internal matter. It's the individual courses and texts themselves they wish to debate on at trial.

glad to see you actually agree with the summary judgement, then, even if you are confused (what's new) about it.

I am part of the UC system, so, if I had “a lot” to say, it would be warranted.

what? as a fucking part-time student? as an athletic supporter?

LOL

yeah, you get a BIG say.

moron.

"The decision" was meant to refer to the decision to reject the courses, not the judge's recent decision.

I am part of the UC system, so, if I had “a lot” to say, it would be warranted.

Not much, although page 40 of the ruling makes me suspicious of one of the textbooks; from my quick perusal, it appeared to claim that strict literalism trumps all else.

Robert O'Brien: I have not seen the syllabi of the courses that were rejected, so I cannot comment on whether the decision was correct, but the views of the peanut gallery are of no consequence to me; this is an internal matter.

page 40 of the ruling makes me suspicious of one of the textbooks; from my quick perusal, it appeared to claim that strict literalism trumps all else.

this is an internal matter.

page 40 of the ruling makes me suspicious of one of the textbooks

Ah, I feel better now. For a minute there, I felt the ground shifting underfoot.

Great. It looks like another trial is almost inevitable. :d

What you've said makes lots of sense. I just pray others feel the same way.