Judge: Univ. Can Deny Credit to Christian Grads Taught W/ Creationism Texts

[Dos Equis]

Report: Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts
Wednesday, August 13, 2008

A federal judge has ruled the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, told the Chronicle that the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations."

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Evolution & Paleontology Center.

But a lawyer for the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students who brought about the initial lawsuit in 2005 told the Chronicle that the ruling would be appealed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk told the Chronicle.

The paper said rejected texts include a book for the course Christianity's Influence on America, published by Bob Jones University, which "instructs the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and "Biology for Christian Schools," whose first page says "if [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero wrote in his ruling.

• Click here to read more on this story in the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402761,00.html

[Deicide]

Report: Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts
Wednesday, August 13, 2008

A federal judge has ruled the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, told the Chronicle that the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations."

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Evolution & Paleontology Center.

But a lawyer for the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students who brought about the initial lawsuit in 2005 told the Chronicle that the ruling would be appealed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk told the Chronicle.

The paper said rejected texts include a book for the course Christianity's Influence on America, published by Bob Jones University, which "instructs the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and "Biology for Christian Schools," whose first page says "if [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero wrote in his ruling.

• Click here to read more on this story in the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402761,00.html

Great news. Keep it coming...

[OzmO]

Report: Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts
Wednesday, August 13, 2008

A federal judge has ruled the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, told the Chronicle that the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations."

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Evolution & Paleontology Center.

But a lawyer for the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students who brought about the initial lawsuit in 2005 told the Chronicle that the ruling would be appealed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk told the Chronicle.

The paper said rejected texts include a book for the course Christianity's Influence on America, published by Bob Jones University, which "instructs the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and "Biology for Christian Schools," whose first page says "if [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero wrote in his ruling.

• Click here to read more on this story in the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402761,00.html

I totally agree with this. 

[Dos Equis]

I'm undecided on this one.  Need to read the judge's ruling and the arguments on both sides. 

[MCWAY]

Report: Judge Says University Can Deny Course Credit to Christian Graduates Taught With Creationism Texts
Wednesday, August 13, 2008

A federal judge has ruled the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, told the Chronicle that the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations."

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Evolution & Paleontology Center.

But a lawyer for the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students who brought about the initial lawsuit in 2005 told the Chronicle that the ruling would be appealed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk told the Chronicle.

The paper said rejected texts include a book for the course Christianity's Influence on America, published by Bob Jones University, which "instructs the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and "Biology for Christian Schools," whose first page says "if [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero wrote in his ruling.

• Click here to read more on this story in the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402761,00.html

Exactly what are these “important” historical and scientific things, unmentioned in this particular curriculum, that led the court to this decision?

As for “critical thinking”, we’ve heard this tired line before. It’s the usual blather that critical thinking is only used when such is aimed at Judeo-Christian belief, with the end result being the rejection of such.

On the surface, it appears that this ruling is aimed more toward curriculum, specifically worded the way Bob Jones' curriculum is. If "critical thinking" is a big issue, then textbooks should be able to be critical of evolution, without such a reaction from the University of California.

[wavelength]

Critical thinking has nothing to do with it, I agree.
But in a science class, science should be taught, not fundamentalist motivated pseudo-science.

[Deicide]

Critical thinking has nothing to do with it, I agree.
But in a science class, science should be taught, not fundamentalist motivated pseudo-science.

There's my fellow European Wienerschnitzel, shining through....

[MCWAY]

Critical thinking has nothing to do with it, I agree.
But in a science class, science should be taught, not fundamentalist motivated pseudo-science.

I spent my high school years in Christian school, with the sole exception of one semester of my sophomore year. That particular year I took biology, using a Creation-based text book (first semester in Christian school) and an evolution-based textbook (second semester in public school).

For the most part, the material was the same. The differences mainly had to do with the usual aspects, in which Creationists and evolutionists disagree: origin and age of the earth (and certain organisms). Outside of that, I could have used either book to pass my class that I took in public school. The tests weren't loaded with questions age and origin questions.

Frog-dissecting's the same; catching butterflies is the same, etc.

[wavelength]

I spent my high school years in Christian school, with the sole exception of one semester of my sophomore year. That particular year I took biology, using a Creation-based text book (first semester in Christian school) and an evolution-based textbook (second semester in public school).

For the most part, the material was the same. The differences mainly had to do with the usual aspects, in which Creationists and evolutionists disagree: origin and age of the earth (and certain organisms). Outside of that, I could have used either book to pass my class that I took in public school. The tests weren't loaded with questions age and origin questions.

Frog-dissecting's the same; catching butterflies is the same, etc.

The point is not how big the differences are. The point is that in a science class, the currently accepted scientific theories must be taught. If there are other, conflicting theories, they can be mentioned of course, but it's unacceptable that you could pass a science class by choosing any scientifc theory that fits your ideology. Otherwise, every science teacher (or student) could just make shit up gathered from whatever obscure source he can find. That's not how science is supposed to work.

[Dos Equis]

The point is not how big the differences are. The point is that in a science class, the currently accepted scientific theories must be taught. If there are other, conflicting theories, they can be mentioned of course, but it's unacceptable that you could pass a science class by choosing any scientifc theory that fits your ideology. Otherwise, every science teacher (or student) could just make shit up gathered from whatever obscure source he can find. That's not how science is supposed to work.

McWay said "For the most part, the material was the same." 

[wavelength]

McWay said "For the most part, the material was the same."

I know, hence the first sentence of my last post.

[MCWAY]

The point is not how big the differences are. The point is that in a science class, the currently accepted scientific theories must be taught. If there are other, conflicting theories, they can be mentioned of course, but it's unacceptable that you could pass a science class by choosing any scientifc theory that fits your ideology. Otherwise, every science teacher (or student) could just make shit up gathered from whatever obscure source he can find. That's not how science is supposed to work.

Those theories are taught or, at least, they were in the books I used back in high school. I can't vouch for the books in the Bob Jones curriculum. Teaching those theories, along with the criticism of those theories (and the reasons behind it) fits right along with both the scientific method and with critical thinking.

That's the biggest issue, with regards to the whole Creation vs. evolution conflict in school. Evolutionists keep claiming that people want evolution taken out of public schools and replaced with Creation. From what I've seen, that's not the case. If anything is desired is that both tenets be presented, along with the scientific support behind them. And, let the chips fall where they may.

But, as it stands now, ANY criticism of evolution get billed as "imposing religion into public school".

[wavelength]

Those theories are taught or, at least, they were in the books I used back in high school. I can't vouch for the books in the Bob Jones curriculum. Teaching those theories, along with the criticism of those theories (and the reasons behind it) fits right along with both the scientific method and with critical thinking.

That's the biggest issue, with regards to the whole Creation vs. evolution conflict in school. Evolutionists keep claiming that people want evolution taken out of public schools and replaced with Creation. From what I've seen, that's not the case. If anything is desired is that both tenets be presented, along with the scientific support behind them. And, let the chips fall where they may.

But, as it stands now, ANY criticism of evolution get billed as "imposing religion into public school".

I agree that criticism of the currently accepted scientific theories must be allowed. That's how new theories arise (e.g. Newton -> Einstein -> Plank ...).

The case of evolution vs. creationism however is different. First of all, creationism is not scientifically motivated, it is ideologically (not even religiously) motivated. And second, there is no respected scientist out there who supports creationism over evolution theory (always only talking in a scientific context, of course).

In such a case, it is possible to mention creationism in a science class, along with other obscure, ideologiocally motivated theories, but you cannot present them as equal to the accepted theory of evolution and let students decide which answers they give in exams.

[MCWAY]

I agree that criticim of the currently accepted scientific theories must be allowed. That's how new theories arise (e.g. Newton -> Einstein -> Plank ...).

The case of evolution vs. creationism however is different. First of all, creationism is not scientifically motivated, it is ideologically (not even religiously) motivated. And second, there is no respected scientist out there who supports creationism over evolution theory (always only talking in a scientific context, of course).

In such a case, it is possible to mention creationism in a science class, along with other obscure, ideologiocally motivated theories, but you cannot present them as equal to the accepted theory of evolution and let students decide which answers they give in exams.

Evolution isn't scientifically motivated, either. Many of its early proponents have, in no uncertain terms, admitted that the reason that they accept evolution as fact (despite the lack of scientific evidence) is because, if they don't, they have no choice but to concede that a supernatural act was responsible for life on this planet. I've used the words of one George Wald and J.W.N. Sullivan to make the point (that's one of the reasons that evolutionists stay clear of the "spontaneous generation" thing).

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated.

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 1954   


The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan, "The Limitations of Science"

The words, "undesirable philosophic implications" (Sullivan) and "philosophical necessity" (Wald), scream of ideological motivation, that being: an explanation of the origin of life WITHOUT God.

[wavelength]

Evolution isn't scientifically motivated, either. Many of its early proponents have, in no uncertain terms, admitted that the reason that they accept evolution as fact (despite the lack of scientific evidence) is because, if they don't, they have no choice but to concede that a supernatural act was responsible for life on this planet. I've used the words of one George Wald and J.W.N. Sullivan to make the point (that's one of the reasons that evolutionists stay clear of the "spontaneous generation" thing).

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated.

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 1954   


The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.

But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan, "The Limitations of Science"

The words, "undesirable philosophic implications" (Sullivan) and "philosophical necessity" (Wald), scream of ideological motivation, that being: an explanation of the origin of life WITHOUT God.

That's why I said "scientifically speaking". Of course there will be "evolutionists" out there, who try to elevate what is nothing but a scientific theory to an ideology. What you describe there is nothing but a misunderstanding of some people who cannot see the difference between science, philosophy, and theology. Same as the creationists, who pervert spirituality into a scientific ideology. It's a misconception that one or the other scientific theory could ever prove or disprove the existance of God. A misconception on both sides of the fence.

If a teacher teaches the currently accepted scientific theory out of ideologic reasons, that's also wrong of course. A science teacher does not have the right to say "because of this theory, we see that there is no divine creation".

[Deedee]

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated.

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation" George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American, 1954   

The words, "undesirable philosophic implications" (Sullivan) and "philosophical necessity" (Wald), scream of ideological motivation, that being: an explanation of the origin of life WITHOUT God.

Hey MCWAY... thought maybe you might be interested in reading the whole (non-paraphrased  ) quote. Here is a more in depth example of what he actually wrote. 


    One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created. This is an understandable confusion of nature with terminology. Men are used to making things; it is a ready thought that those things not made by men were made by a superhuman being. Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural creation of life. Our own tradition provides such an account in the opening chapters of Genesis. There we are told that beginning on the third day of the Creation, God brought forth living creatures- first plants, then fishes and birds, then land animals and finally man.

    Spontaneous Generation

    The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more naturalistic view of the matter. One had only to accept the evidence of one 's senses to know that life arises regularly from the nonliving: worms from mud, maggots from decaying meat, mice from refuse of various kinds. This is the view that came to be called spontaneous generation. Few scientists doubted it. Aristotle, Newton, William Harvey, Descartes, van Helmont all accepted spontaneous generation without serious inquiry. Indeed, even the theologians- witness the English priest John Turberville Needham- could subscribe to this view, for Genesis tells us, not that God created plants and most animals directly, but that he bade the earth and waters to bring them forth; since this directive was never rescinded, there is nothing heretical in believing that the process has continued.

    But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries, this belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. First the Italian Francisco Redi shoed in the 17th century that meat placed under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops maggots. Then in the following century the Italian Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling, never develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke the seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began to rot. He could find no way, however, to show that the air inside the flask had not been vitiated. This problem was finally solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860, with a simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it out in a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of air could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria, and molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and only rarely reached the broth. In such a flask, the broth seldom was contaminated; usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.

    This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments.

    We tell this story to beginning students in biology as though it represented a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity". It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.

    I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.

It continues on page 47...

    With every event one can associate a probability - the chance that it will occur. This is always a fraction, the proportion of times an event occurs in a large number of trials. Sometimes the probability is apparent even without trial. A coin has two faces; the probability of tossing a head is therefore 1/2. A die has six faces; the probability of throwing a deuce is 1/6. When one has no means of estimating the probability beforehand, it must be determined by counting the fraction of successes in a large number of trials.

    Our everyday concept of what is impossible, possible, or certain derives from our experience; the number of trials that may be encompassed within the space of a human lifetime, or at most within recorded human history. In this colloquial, practical sense I concede the spontaneous generation of life to be "impossible". It is impossible as we judge events in the scale of human experience.

    We shall see that this is not a very meaningful concession. For one thing, the time with which our problem is concerned is geological time, and the whole extent of human history is trivial in the balance. We shall have more to say of this later.

And finally...

    The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at lest once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

    Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.


He isn't that great an example to use to illustrate your point. Also, if you wish, you might want to relook at what it is and isn't that Pasteur actually proved. 

A quick question... who is J. W. N. Sullivan?

[MCWAY]

Hey MCWAY... thought maybe you might be interested in reading the whole (non-paraphrased  ) quote. Here is a more in depth example of what he actually wrote. 


    One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created. This is an understandable confusion of nature with terminology. Men are used to making things; it is a ready thought that those things not made by men were made by a superhuman being. Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural creation of life. Our own tradition provides such an account in the opening chapters of Genesis. There we are told that beginning on the third day of the Creation, God brought forth living creatures- first plants, then fishes and birds, then land animals and finally man.

    Spontaneous Generation

    The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more naturalistic view of the matter. One had only to accept the evidence of one 's senses to know that life arises regularly from the nonliving: worms from mud, maggots from decaying meat, mice from refuse of various kinds. This is the view that came to be called spontaneous generation. Few scientists doubted it. Aristotle, Newton, William Harvey, Descartes, van Helmont all accepted spontaneous generation without serious inquiry. Indeed, even the theologians- witness the English priest John Turberville Needham- could subscribe to this view, for Genesis tells us, not that God created plants and most animals directly, but that he bade the earth and waters to bring them forth; since this directive was never rescinded, there is nothing heretical in believing that the process has continued.

    But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries, this belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. First the Italian Francisco Redi shoed in the 17th century that meat placed under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops maggots. Then in the following century the Italian Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling, never develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke the seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began to rot. He could find no way, however, to show that the air inside the flask had not been vitiated. This problem was finally solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860, with a simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it out in a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of air could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria, and molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and only rarely reached the broth. In such a flask, the broth seldom was contaminated; usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.

    This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments.

    We tell this story to beginning students in biology as though it represented a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity". It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.

    I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.

It continues on page 47...

    With every event one can associate a probability - the chance that it will occur. This is always a fraction, the proportion of times an event occurs in a large number of trials. Sometimes the probability is apparent even without trial. A coin has two faces; the probability of tossing a head is therefore 1/2. A die has six faces; the probability of throwing a deuce is 1/6. When one has no means of estimating the probability beforehand, it must be determined by counting the fraction of successes in a large number of trials.

    Our everyday concept of what is impossible, possible, or certain derives from our experience; the number of trials that may be encompassed within the space of a human lifetime, or at most within recorded human history. In this colloquial, practical sense I concede the spontaneous generation of life to be "impossible". It is impossible as we judge events in the scale of human experience.

    We shall see that this is not a very meaningful concession. For one thing, the time with which our problem is concerned is geological time, and the whole extent of human history is trivial in the balance. We shall have more to say of this later.

And finally...

    The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at lest once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.

    Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.


He isn't that great an example to use to illustrate your point. Also, if you wish, you might want to relook at what it is and isn't that Pasteur actually proved. 

A quick question... who is J. W. N. Sullivan?

I've read that before, Deedee, which is why I use Wald to make my point. The last paragraph only strengthens my take on the matter. Wald is relying on time to be the "hero". From what is the "hero" supposed to save Wald (and other folks)? Why is he hoping for the "hero" to perform the "miracles"?

It's for one reason, which he mentioned earlier: He wants to be saved from the concession that life on Earth is the result of supernatural creation. He doesn't like it; it don't float his philosophical boat. But, all of the evidence he has seen (including Pasteur's works) spells "game over" for spontaneous generation, the driving force needed for a godless origin for life.

This statement here, "Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." also shows that this is about ideology, not just science. They aren't just examining the facts, letting the chips fall how they may. They are looking for an answer, any answer....EXCEPT "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Wald is (for lack of a better term) "praying" that time brings another solution to their question, besides that which they deem undesirable.

As for Sullivan, Wikipedia describes him as "a popular science writer and literary journalist" He was also known as a mathematician, musician, and philosopher.

[Dos Equis]

I know, hence the first sentence of my last post.

Yes, you said the point isn't how big the differences are.  I disagree, based on what McWay said.  He said it was, for the most part, the same material.  Sounds to me like he pretty much learned the same thing as a kid going to public school. 

[Deedee]

I've read that before, Deedee, which is why I use Wald to make my point. The last paragraph only strengthens my take on the matter. Wald is relying on time to be the "hero". From what is the "hero" supposed to save Wald (and other folks)? Why is he hoping for the "hero" to perform the "miracles"?

It's for one reason, which he mentioned earlier: He wants to be saved from the concession that life on Earth is the result of supernatural creation. He doesn't like it; it don't float his philosophical boat. But, all of the evidence he has seen (including Pasteur's works) spells "game over" for spontaneous generation, the driving force needed for a godless origin for life.

This statement here, "Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." also shows that this is about ideology, not just science. They aren't just examining the facts, letting the chips fall how they may. They are looking for an answer, any answer....EXCEPT "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Wald is (for lack of a better term) "praying" that time brings another solution to their question, besides that which they deem undesirable.

As for Sullivan, Wikipedia describes him as "a popular science writer and literary journalist" He was also known as a mathematician, musician, and philosopher.

His writing style is a little flowery  but it also comes across that he must have been a kind person. I read his article completely differently than you do however. He hasn't asked to be saved, but seems to be saying there is no need for any scientist to ask to be saved.  That what we expect to occur within a lifetime, or five, will not yield anything, but that over the course of several billion years, is more than probable. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to I guess. 

[wavelength]

Yes, you said the point isn't how big the differences are.  I disagree, based on what McWay said.  He said it was, for the most part, the same material.  Sounds to me like he pretty much learned the same thing as a kid going to public school. 

That's what he wrote:
"The differences mainly had to do with the usual aspects, in which Creationists and evolutionists disagree: origin and age of the earth (and certain organisms). Outside of that, I could have used either book to pass my class that I took in public school. The tests weren't loaded with questions age and origin questions."

A science book, where

- the (scientific!) origin of the earth,
- the age of the earth,
- the existance / non-existance / timeline of certain organisms

does not conform to the scientific findings of today, can not be accepted as a legitimate science(!) book and must be abandoned for teaching in science (!) classes, simple as that. It doesn't matter if the tests were loaded with questions about these subjects or not, one single question is enough to disqualify the complete test, if the wrong answer is allowed.

A science book should not contain anything about topics that go beyond the scientific scope in general. If a book that promotes evolution would mention that it disproves divine creation, it is just as wrong in the spiritual sense as a creationist book is in the scientific sense.

[Deicide]

That's what he wrote:
"The differences mainly had to do with the usual aspects, in which Creationists and evolutionists disagree: origin and age of the earth (and certain organisms). Outside of that, I could have used either book to pass my class that I took in public school. The tests weren't loaded with questions age and origin questions."

A science book, where

- the (scientific!) origin of the earth,
- the age of the earth,
- the existance / non-existance / timeline of certain organisms

does not conform to the scientific findings of today, can not be accepted as a legitimate science(!) book and must be abandoned for teaching in science (!) classes, simple as that. It doesn't matter if the tests were loaded with questions about these subjects or not, one single question is enough to disqualify the complete test, if the wrong answer is allowed.

A science book should not contain anything about topics that go beyond the scientific scope in general. If a book that promotes evolution would mention that it disproves divine creation, it is just as wrong in the spiritual sense as a creationist book is in the scientific sense.

'Existenz' schreibt sich auf Englisch auch mit einem 'E' und keinem 'A'...

[wavelength]

'Existenz' schreibt sich auf Englisch auch mit einem 'E' und keinem 'A'...

Thanks, can't get rid of that mistake.