The Questionable Authority

Given that today really is April 1st, let me start by saying that although Behe is a fool, this post isn’t a joke. Everything you’re about to read is real. This is the third part of my post on the summary judgment decision in the California Creationist Case. Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.

It would seem that Mike Behe has, once again, managed to shoot an own goal in the courtroom. The last time that he was an expert witness, during the Dover case, the judge quoted extensively from Behe’s testimony, but not in a way that he particularly liked. Ultimately, it seems that he scored more points for his opponents than he did for his friends. He’s also an expert witness in the California Creationism Case, and he seems to have once again managed to put the ball right through the wrong goal.

Behe’s contribution to the pro-science side of the case appears on page 40 of the written order:

Plaintiff’s evidence also supports Defendants’ conclusion that these biology texts are inappropriate for use as the primary or sole text. Plaintiffs’ own biology expert, Professor Michael Behe, testified that “it is personally abusive and pedagogically damaging to de facto require students to subscribe to an idea. . . . Requiring a student to, effectively, consent to an idea violates [her] personal integrity. Such a wrenching violation [may cause] a terrible educational outcome.” (Behe Decl. Para. 59.)

Yet, the two Christian biology texts at issue commit this “wrenching violation.” For example, Biology for Christian Schools declares on the very first page that:

(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.” (Phillips Decl. Ex. B, at xi.)

Based on the facts, I’m confident that the judge would have been able to reach the decision that the books used by the Christian schools were inappropriate even without Behe’s able assistance. Nevertheless, we should probably thank him for (accidentally) helping us out again.

Comments

#1 Eamon Knight
April 1, 2008

Gods, I love Michael Behe. Never fails to shoot his own side in the foot, in an amusing way. Let’s all chip in and send him flowers.
#2 Quidam
April 1, 2008

Actually Behe IS on our side. And he doesn’t hide it. Whenever he’s pushed, he affirms that evolution is an accurate statement of reality and that he agrees with an ancient earth, common ancestry and evolution. In the meantime he milks the creationists every decade with another book that recycles tired old arguments. When he gets pulled in front of a judge, he make a token effort and either takes a dive or carefully points out the flaws in his own token argument.

His faint support is brilliant. He manages to make a career and good money from creationists while subtly castrating them. If he didn’t show up someone else might.
#3 Reginald
April 1, 2008

Other choice moments from the decision – seriously if folks have got the time peruse it, it’s basically “Plaintiffs argue A and A is proven to be completely totally false and also plaintiffs dont really know what they’re doing.”

On page 16, lines 17-19:

{
Finally, Plaintiffs futilely attempt to distinguish Forbes by incorrectly characterizing the decision as one involving “a public school prescribing its curriculum.” Forbes did not involve a public school, it involved a public television station…
}
#4 Flint
April 1, 2008

It wasn’t clear to me that the judge quite understood what Behe was trying to say. The first page of the quoted text is most emphatically NOT a “wrenching violation” of the ideas trained into the students bringing the suit. It is not only entirely consistent and congenial with those ideas, but embodies them as comfortably as one might imagine. It is the judge’s understand of science that is violently wrenched by these (quoted) prerequisites.

So contrary to the judge’s interpretation, Behe was not offering testimony *against* this text. Behe was saying that IF you believe these things, your belief should not be discomforted by exposure to observed reality, evidence, facts, and other pesky violations of your integrity. Otherwise, you will suffer the “terrible educational outcome” of actually LEARNING something.

What emerges only obliquely from the judge’s careful wording, and very little from Dunford’s commentary, is that without exception the texts used in these Christian schools had preaching the faith as their primary goal, and only incidentally touched on their nominal subject matters – and then only as leverage to illustrate the sermons.

And so the “science” texts only alluded to “scientificial” illustrations of biblical passages. History texts focused on the glory of the righteous believers of the past and the evil of those who believed differently. Historical events that couldn’t be used to underscore the bible didn’t make the textbooks. English texts were excerpts of sermons. Comparative religion texts were howlingly doctrinaire extolling of creationism and fulminations against the godlessness of anything else.

Across the board, through and through, these students were exposed to pure religious indoctrination, to which all other topics were subservient and illustrative only. The entire goal was preparation for heaven, not college. The kids lived Jesus Camp 24/7. I fully understand UC’s reluctance to remediate these kids into reality.
#5 Joe McFaul
April 1, 2008

I know Judge Otero. Another very conservative judge. The Christian Schools Association couldn’t have done better. If they lost here, they’d get creamed in any other court.
#6 Gerardo Camilo
April 1, 2008

We should take a collection and send him a VERY NICE gift (think Elliot Spitzer).
#7 ERV
April 1, 2008

Gerardo– We should take a collection and send him a VERY NICE gift (think Elliot Spitzer).

… Lindsay Lohan?
#8 John Marley
April 1, 2008

You want to send Elliot Spitzer to Behe as a gift?
#9 Frank J
April 1, 2008

John Marley,

You of all should appreciate that Behe figuratively found another horse head in his bed.

For those of you who haven’t a clue of what I mean, check the cast of The Godfather.
#10 Ichthyic
April 1, 2008

His faint support is brilliant. He manages to make a career and good money from creationists while subtly castrating them. If he didn’t show up someone else might.

there is a rather large hole in your idea:

ERV has castrated Behe himself on several occasions for spewing utter nonsense about the evolution of various aspects of HIV that if you were correct, Behe himself already would have known none of his target audience would have cared about or understood anyway.

He just made himself look intractable and stupid.

In fact, one can’t even make the case he intended to use this episode to play the “victim” card, since he horribly insulted ERV at every turn.

nope.

he’s just an intractable old coot that hasn’t forgotten EVERYTHING he learned, but whose cognitive dissonance has broken much of his brain.

much like Egnor.
#11 RBH
April 1, 2008

I think this is just another instance of the crafty ID creationist plot to make people feel sorry for them because they’re so incompetent.
#12 Ichthyic
April 1, 2008

I think this is just another instance of the crafty ID creationist plot to make people feel sorry for them because they’re so incompetent.

Incompetence Apologetics?

yeah, that works.
#13 ellazimm
April 1, 2008

Is Dr Behe saying that you should never attempt to teach someone a concept that contradicts their religious notions? What’s the point of going to school then? Does he grade his students based on how well they defend the beliefs they already have?
#14 Walt
April 1, 2008

It looks like Judge Otero decision indicated that UC’s admission policies were Intellegently Designed. I noticed the judge’s Nixplanatory Filter weeded out every single argument made by the plaintiff.
#15 Science Avenger
April 2, 2008

It’s amazing how bad these guys can be in court. Absolutely amateurish. I have a list a lot of laughable quotes from the decision if any one is interested that doesn’t want to wade through 50 pages.

My personal favorite:

“UC is under no duty to employ only those individuals whose religious beliefs coincide with the Plaintiffs”
#16 Larry Fafarman
April 2, 2008

(http:// prefixes removed from links to prevent comment from hanging up. Comments with more than one link are apparently treated as “spam.” Links must be cut and pasted)

This blog has three separate current comment threads on this subject, so I am not sure where to post my comment. I could post it in all three threads, but then I may get responses in different threads, which would further complicate things. For the time being, I will just post in this thread.

~~I am not sure yet that this whole story is not an April Fools Day hoax.~~ Your link to the decision does not work for me (correction — I finally got the link to work after trying all day) and I could find neither hide nor hair of the decision on the websites of ASCI, UC, or the court. In particular, the court is supposed to post decisions immediately if not sooner, and here it is Tuesday evening and the decision was supposedly issued on Friday and is still not in the court’s list of decisions. That’s unforgivable, particularly in a case as closely watched as this one. See
http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/Recently+Issued+Opinions+and+Orders?OpenView

My blog has several articles about the case, e.g.,
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/03/hearing-held-in-acsi-v-stearns-fundy.html

One of my blog articles says that the fundies reported that at a meeting with UC representatives, the UC representatives admitted that “UC did not have any objective evidence that students from religious schools are deficient in science when they arrive for their freshman year of college”:

An article titled “Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?”, by the Association of Christian Schools International, said the following about a meeting between UC personnel, Christian school personnel, and attorneys on both sides of the issue (page 3):

When asked whether poor college performance by students from religious schools prompted the rejection of the textbooks, UC representatives responded negatively. They also acknowledged that UC did not have any objective evidence that students from religious schools are deficient in science when they arrive for their freshman year of college …..
As the discussion continued about the biology books, it became evident that they were rejected because they appeared to state the perspective that the Bible is revelation and along with faith is more authoritative than the observations of science, especially if there were a conflict over a “factual scientific issue.”

Has UC ever presented any objective evidence that the fundy students are deficient in science when then arrive for their freshman year of college?

UC apparently does not always enforce the general education requirements. For example, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy blog received a UCLA BS degree in computer science at the age of 15. Some general education requirements were almost certainly waived in his case.

A lot of the issues in this case have already been covered in the following post and comment thread: scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/09/viewpoint_discrimination_and_t.php

As for Behe and the other expert witnesses, the judge here is making the same mistake that Judge Jones made in Kitzmiller v. Dover: holding a “Monday-morning battle of experts” who advised neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the courts refused to hear such a battle.

Here is a summary of my views so far as the fundy biology text is concerned:

Since the approach of the fundy biology text is unorthodox, students claiming admissions credit for courses using this text should be required to either (1) get a satisfactory score on a standardized biology test such as the SAT II AP biology test or (2) pass a general college course in biology. Requiring these students to apply through special admissions (top 2-4% of high school grads) instead of general admissions (top 12.5-15% of high school grads) is unreasonable.

The courts waste too much time on high-profile cases, with the result that (1) decisions on these cases are greatly delayed (this lawsuit was filed in August 2005), (2) court costs are driven up, and (3) low-profile cases are given short or no shrift. ACSI told me that UC submitted 350,000 pages of materials! So much for the bullshit that ACSI is solely responsible for complicating the case.
#17 Sam C
April 2, 2008

Gosh Larry Fafarman, you are full of it!

Yes, courts waste a lot of time on high-profile cases. So the kretinous kristian kreationist kooks should stop initiating them.

UC submitted so much evidence because christian manure makes flowers grow. It requires a mountain of truth to cover a dungheap of lies.

If you were paying attention, you’d realise that the case is nothing to do with whether fundy students are individually adequate for UC courses (although one would hope they might have broken their programming by college age). It’s about whether doctrinaire courses centred around textbooks full of haranguing anti-rational drivel can be judged to be OK for the “short’n'sweet” entry path. What UC is saying is this: if it a high school course appears to be a religious course with a splash of abused science when assessed on its description, we don’t consider it to be prima facie a proper science course, so students must demonstrate their fitness some other way.

Why do christians lie so much? Life would be so much easier if they started to respect the truth occasionally!
#18 MartinM
April 2, 2008

He just made himself look intractable and stupid.

Well, were he really just trying to blend in with the ID crowd for his ownfinancial gain, that would be the perfect disguise.
#19 Richard Eis
April 2, 2008

Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible…

If you are going to put that in a science book, why are you even trying to do science. It’s laughable. If someone had been taught from that book, i wouldn’t trust them to tie their own shoelaces never mind hold a test tube.
#20 Flint
April 2, 2008

Since the approach of the fundy biology text is unorthodox, students claiming admissions credit for courses using this text should be required to either (1) get a satisfactory score on a standardized biology test such as the SAT II AP biology test or (2) pass a general college course in biology. Requiring these students to apply through special admissions (top 2-4% of high school grads) instead of general admissions (top 12.5-15% of high school grads) is unreasonable.

According to my reading of the decision, there are multiple ways that an applicant can demonstrate competence in a given subject area. Taking an orthodox, standard high school curriculum and performing adequately is only one way. In fact (concerning Volokh), simply convincing the applications committee that you have a reasonable likelihood of being able to handle the coursework (being a certified genius is persuasive) can itself be sufficient.

However, studying exclusively from texts where the subject matter is ancillary to the goal of religious indoctrination, and where the content of that subject matter is presented totally inadequately (omitted, misrepresented, or plain wrong) to force it to meet religious litmus tests, is what’s at issue here. UC is saying that students who suffer this mental crippling MUST use one of the other avenues to demonstrate the development of knowledge and critical thinking skills to qualify for admission.

It’s important to emphasize that credit was not denied on religious grounds, and in fact UC grants credit for a great many courses where a single religous viewpoint is emphasized (and the decision lists several of them). Credit was denied when the ONLY “exposure” to the necessary skills and knowledge could not reasonably be expected to impart either one.

I think Larry’s religious puppet strings are being pulled here, as usual. UC has many many more applicants than spaces available. They have to apply SOME means of selection. Failure to demonstrate minimally necessary qualifications is surely one such means. I think Larry would have no problem with this, EXCEPT in cases where the students were kept in obvious ignorance for religious reasons. Then he wants to change the rules.
#21 SLC
April 2, 2008

Re Larry Fafarman

Hey Mr. Fafarman, how’s your campaign to get Ed Brayton expelled from scienceblogs going? Apparently not well as he’s still there.

How about your campaign to join the plaintiffs team suing Mr. Brayton going? Apparently, their threats to file such a law suit are just that, threats.
#22 Larry Fafarman
April 2, 2008

(http:// prefixes removed from links to prevent comment from hanging up. Links must be cut and pasted.)

Flint said ( April 1, 2008 4:44 PM ) –

It wasn’t clear to me that the judge quite understood what Behe was trying to say. The first page of the quoted text is most emphatically NOT a “wrenching violation” of the ideas trained into the students bringing the suit. It is not only entirely consistent and congenial with those ideas, but embodies them as comfortably as one might imagine.

Right on. Unscrupulous Judge Otero quote-mined Behe. Judge Otero had no business twisting Behe’s statement to help the defendants. Behe obviously did not intend that his statement be misused in that way, and he had no opportunity to clarify his statement to prevent it from being misused in that way. It could be argued that students who find those statements in the fundy biology text to be a “wrenching violation” of their “personal integrity” do not belong in a fundy school in the first place. Also, there is a fair possibility that the students at Calvary Chapel have the option of taking biology courses that use non-fundy textbooks. A 2006 USA Today article says, “UC has certified 43 Calvary Chapel courses and has admitted 24 of the 32 applicants from the high school in the past four years.” — from
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-12-christian-school_x.htm

No, Darwinists, you didn’t “score.” That was a foul.

Flint continued,

What emerges only obliquely from the judge’s careful wording, and very little from Dunford’s commentary, is that without exception the texts used in these Christian schools had preaching the faith as their primary goal, and only incidentally touched on their nominal subject matters — and then only as leverage to illustrate the sermons.

I disagree. When UC rejected the biology texts, UC apparently did not claim that these texts do not present the core material adequately. Apparently it was only later that UC made a feeble effort to claim that the textbooks have some factual errors — see
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/05/dover-aint-over-iii-update-on-fundies-v.html
#23 Larry Fafarman
April 2, 2008

Correction — I said,

Apparently it was only later that UC made a feeble effort to claim that the textbooks have some factual errors — see
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/05/dover-aint-over-iii-update-on-fundies-v.html

Those objections were raised by the Panda’s Thumb blog — not by UC.
#24 Ravilyn Sanders
April 2, 2008

Larry is a holocaust denier. Why would anyone take him seriously. Just laugh at him.
#25 Stephen Wells
April 2, 2008

It’s almost cute that Larry thinks people are listening to him ramble on.
#26 Stephen Wells
April 2, 2008

Behe: “it is personally abusive and pedagogically damaging to de facto require students to subscribe to an idea…”

Shorter version: It’s wrong to teach people anything.

Okaaaaayyyyyy (backs away slowly).
#27 Flint
April 2, 2008

Unscrupulous Judge Otero quote-mined Behe.

No, I wrote that Otero didn’t understand Behe’s point. Behe’s point was, to be kind, rather unexpected – Behe was literally arguing that students undergoing education should not be exposed to facts, knowledge, or thinking skills which might be contrary to their religious indoctrination. In other words, Behe was arguing that “students” should be deliberately kept ignorant, rather than run the risk that education might upset their delusions.

Otero (as I read it) didn’t expect a supposedly expert witness (and tenured professor!) to take that position. Otero mistakenly treated Behe as SANE! Big mistake, but understandable.

When UC rejected the biology texts, UC apparently did not claim that these texts do not present the core material adequately.

Interesting interpretation of a decision that explicitly states that UC put together a committee of qualified people to evaluate the texts, which reported that the texts were inadequate on the merits. The decision goes on to quote several of the evaluators to that effect. And a key part of the decision itself was based on this well-documented evaluation. Which Larry somehow missed. How very typical.
#28 Robin
April 2, 2008

Stephen Wells:
Behe: “it is personally abusive and pedagogically damaging to de facto require students to subscribe to an idea…”

Shorter version: It’s wrong to teach people anything.

Okaaaaayyyyyy (backs away slowly).

No…Behe made a valid point here. Requiring someone to subscribe to something is quite different from teaching something since someone can, presumably, debate a taught subject and present an alternate concept. Further, I *taught* concept is one wherein an explanation and examples on why and how something is valid is presented. Requiring someone to subscribe to something on the other hand is dogma. Seems the Judge Otero understood the difference too.

(And yes, Stephen, I realize that your tongue was fully planted in your cheek here, but I thought I’d elaborate a bitt for the noodles like Fafarman).

Indeed the whole problem with the Christian schools’ approach was noted by the judge –

(2) “If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.”

This is not teaching, by definition, and UC is under no obligation to accept such “personally abusive[d]and pedagorically damag[ed]” students.
#29 Flint
April 2, 2008

“Shorter version: It’s wrong to teach people anything.”

This misses the key point, and misses it badly. Behe is NOT saying it’s wrong to teach people anything, he’s saying that it’s wrong to teach people stuff that undermines that part of their religious indoctrination that Behe happens to agree with.

Maybe this is obvious, but I think it should be made explicit. The fight here isn’t for education, the fight here is for souls. Every sentence in every educational text must be vetted for doctrinal purity. The goal isn’t really to keep the kids ignorant, but rather to keep them blind members of the creationist flock.

So Behe, like all creationists, is two-faced. He’s all for knowledge, critical thinking, good education, EXCEPT when he feels his religious delusions are threatened. Suddenly out comes the non-negotiable double standard.

I suggest that Otero has little exposure to how creationists think; he lacked the context to understand the encodings. He took Behe at his word.
#30 Flint
April 2, 2008

“No…Behe made a valid point here. Requiring someone to subscribe to something is quite different from teaching something”

Here’s exactly the place where we went through the looking glass. In creation-land, 24/7 indoctrination, with punishment for failure to swallow it sincerely enough, is deemed by the creationists to be “well-rounded exposure” and good education. Conversely, neutral and non-judgmental exposure to a wide range of viewpoints, especially those based on solid mountains of verifiable evidence, are deemed “requiring someone to subscribe to an idea”.

On the creationist side of the looking glass, there is right (their doctrine) and there is WRONG (everything else). There is no useful differentiation possible among different wrong ideas – wrong is wrong. Exposure to wrong ideas may confuse, upset, or even mislead the properly-educated creationist.

Sheer exposure, then, is “requiring someone to subscribe to something” in creation-land. Narrow indoctrination, embedded deeply in all academic subjects including lunch and athletics, isn’t “requiring” them to accept anything, it’s just saving their immortal souls. Different thing, see?
#31 Robin
April 2, 2008

Robin: “No…Behe made a valid point here. Requiring someone to subscribe to something is quite different from teaching something”

Flint: Here’s exactly the place where we went through the looking glass. In creation-land, 24/7 indoctrination, with punishment for failure to swallow it sincerely enough, is deemed by the creationists to be “well-rounded exposure” and good education. Conversely, neutral and non-judgmental exposure to a wide range of viewpoints, especially those based on solid mountains of verifiable evidence, are deemed “requiring someone to subscribe to an idea”.

On the creationist side of the looking glass, there is right (their doctrine) and there is WRONG (everything else). There is no useful differentiation possible among different wrong ideas – wrong is wrong. Exposure to wrong ideas may confuse, upset, or even mislead the properly-educated creationist.

Sheer exposure, then, is “requiring someone to subscribe to something” in creation-land. Narrow indoctrination, embedded deeply in all academic subjects including lunch and athletics, isn’t “requiring” them to accept anything, it’s just saving their immortal souls. Different thing, see?

Oh yes. I’m well aware of the creationist understanding of “teaching” and I’m pretty sure I understand what Behe *thought* he was saying. Thankfully the Judge apparently understands that the “real-world” is not creation-land and that “teaching” Christian doctrine is not education.
#32 Donnie B.
April 2, 2008

***”(And yes, Stephen, I realize that your tongue was fully planted in your cheek here, but I thought I’d elaborate a bit for the noodles like Fafarman)”***

Calling Larry a noodle is an insult to the FSM and thus to all Pastafarians.

I know noodles. I’ve worked with noodles. Larry Fafarman is no noodle.
#33 JonnM
April 2, 2008

Have the IDiots no pride?
It certainly confirms that ‘Gegen Dummheit k�mpfen G�tter selbst vergebens!’
‘Professor’ Behe, – my ass.
#34 Rev. BigDumbChimp
April 2, 2008

Right on. Unscrupulous Judge Otero quote-mined Behe.

That didn’t take long. Already it’s the Judge’s fault. I figured Otero would get the “Judge jones” treatment soon enough. It’s never the fault of the creationists utter incompetency, it’s always the Judge.
#35 J. Biggs
April 2, 2008

That didn’t take long. Already it’s the Judge’s fault. I figured Otero would get the “Judge jones” treatment soon enough. It’s never the fault of the creationists utter incompetency, it’s always the Judge.

That is Larry’s M.O. He hates any judge that has a lick of sense. It must be pretty hard to take the fact that even conservative judges hand picked by G.W. Bush see through the Fundamentalist charade.
#36 Rev. BigDumbChimp
April 2, 2008

That is Larry’s M.O. He hates any judge that has a lick of sense. It must be pretty hard to take the fact that even conservative judges hand picked by G.W. Bush see through the Fundamentalist charade.

Yeah, you’re right. I’m sure as we sit here the rest of the rationally challenged crowd is feverishly typing away their indignation at Judge Otero completely ignoring his credentials, just as they did with Jones.
#37 Robin
April 2, 2008

Robin: ***”(And yes, Stephen, I realize that your tongue was fully planted in your cheek here, but I thought I’d elaborate a bit for the noodles like Fafarman)”***

Donnie B: Calling Larry a noodle is an insult to the FSM and thus to all Pastafarians.

I know noodles. I’ve worked with noodles. Larry Fafarman is no noodle.

Apologies to all the noodley enlightened for my insensitivity towards your faith. I will choose my terminology more carefully in the future and avoid terms relating to mein, udon, pasta, or other such delights.
#38 WetLabMonkey
April 2, 2008

Nevertheless, we should probably thank him for (accidentally) helping us out again.

Perhaps you meant unwittingly?
#39 DavidK
April 2, 2008

These creationists (ID’ers) are the Osama Bin Laden’s of the christian world and terminators that will never stop until science, particularly evolution, is laid to rest.
#40 Marcus Ranum
April 2, 2008

Larry is a holocaust denier. Why would anyone take him seriously. Just laugh at him.

Really?? Are there actually people that stupid that are willing to speak up in public?

Larry? Is it true?
#41 Larry Fafarman
April 2, 2008

Flint said (April 2, 2008 10:09 AM) —

Unscrupulous Judge Otero quote-mined Behe.
No, I wrote that Otero didn’t understand Behe’s point. Behe’s point was, to be kind, rather unexpected – Behe was literally arguing that students undergoing education should not be exposed to facts, knowledge, or thinking skills which might be contrary to their religious indoctrination. In other words, Behe was arguing that “students” should be deliberately kept ignorant, rather than run the risk that education might upset their delusions.

You are reading too much into Behe’s statements. You are putting words in his mouth.

AGAIN:
Otero should not have twisted Behe’s statements to help support an argument in favor of the defendants. That’s quote-mining. Behe had no chance to clarify his statements. That was a very snide thing that Judge Otero did.

Interesting interpretation of a decision that explicitly states that UC put together a committee of qualified people to evaluate the texts, which reported that the texts were inadequate on the merits.

AGAIN:

An article titled “Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?”, by the Association of Christian Schools International, said the following about a meeting between UC personnel, Christian school personnel, and attorneys on both sides of the issue (page 3):

When asked whether poor college performance by students from religious schools prompted the rejection of the textbooks, UC representatives responded negatively. They also acknowledged that UC did not have any objective evidence that students from religious schools are deficient in science when they arrive for their freshman year of college.

– from
http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_1.%20Overview%20of%20ACSI%20Law%20Suit.pdf

AGAIN:
What is wrong with my proposed solution:

Since the approach of the fundy biology text is unorthodox, students claiming admissions credit for courses using this text should be required to either (1) get a satisfactory score on a standardized biology test such as the SAT II AP biology test or (2) pass a general college course in biology. Requiring these students to apply through special admissions (top 2-4% of high school grads) instead of general admissions (top 12.5-15% of high school grads) is unreasonable.

===================================

“Larry is a holocaust denier. Why would anyone take him seriously. Just laugh at him.”

“Really?? Are there actually people that stupid that are willing to speak up in public? Larry? Is it true?”

“It’s almost cute that Larry thinks people are listening to him ramble on.”

“(And yes, Stephen, I realize that your tongue was fully planted in your cheek here, but I thought I’d elaborate a bitt for the noodles like Fafarman).”

“That is Larry’s M.O. He hates any judge that has a lick of sense. It must be pretty hard to take the fact that even conservative judges hand picked by G.W. Bush see through the Fundamentalist charade.”

“Yeah, you’re right. I’m sure as we sit here the rest of the rationally challenged crowd is feverishly typing away their indignation at Judge Otero completely ignoring his credentials, just as they did with Jones.”

“I’m always kicking their butts — that’s why they don’t like me.”
– Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
#42 RAM
April 2, 2008

“These creationists (ID’ers) are the Osama Bin Laden’s….”
I personally see them mirrored to the fundimentelist Talaban. Luckily for Americans, they don’t have the political power they crave to carry out their twisted agenda that their favored sky fairy demands. It’s all about power over others, always has been. History amply demonstrates what happens when these nutcases come to power.
#43 Mike Dunford
April 2, 2008

AGAIN:
What is wrong with my proposed solution:

Since the approach of the fundy biology text is unorthodox, students claiming admissions credit for courses using this text should be required to either (1) get a satisfactory score on a standardized biology test such as the SAT II AP biology test or (2) pass a general college course in biology. Requiring these students to apply through special admissions (top 2-4% of high school grads) instead of general admissions (top 12.5-15% of high school grads) is unreasonable.

If you want to know what’s wrong with your proposed solution, you’re going to have to ask the people who filed the lawsuit. UC’s policy on the A-G course requirements has allowed students to demonstrate proficiency in the subjects by passing SAT II or AP exams since before the suit was filed.

You would have known this if you’d ever bothered to actually read any of the legal documents that you moan and whine about on a regular basis.
#44 Larry Fafarman
April 2, 2008

Larry is a holocaust denier.

Larry? Is it true?

No, it is not true. I am a holocaust revisionist, not a holocaust denier. One of my main arguments is that a “systematic” holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.
#45 Rev. BigDumbChimp
April 2, 2008

No, it is not true. I am a holocaust revisionist, not a holocaust denier. One of my main arguments is that a “systematic” holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.

Yeah, that explains all the dead Jews.
#46 Flint
April 2, 2008

Larry:

You explicitly wrote (and I quoted): “UC apparently did not claim that these texts do not present the core material adequately.”

This statement is prima facie false. The decision shows that you are lying in detail, taking several pages doing so. When I pointed out that you were lying, you now try to change the subject. This is known as “lying”.

When asked whether poor college performance by students from religious schools prompted the rejection of the textbooks, UC representatives responded negatively.

Yes, you have twice presented this, which you claim is a quote from a creationist source you do not link to. But even if it’s accurate (you will surely understand that since creationists cannot help lying, this is a dubious assumption), it is a different topic. Now the (creationist) complaint is that UC has not accepted enough people who can show no evidence of exposure to education, to demonstrate that uneducated people underperform! To correct this, I would suppose, your creationist source would demand that UC accept everyone who passes their religious litmus test, a few of whom would very likely be able to graduate, who could then be used to demonstrate that selection criteria to eliminate low-probability applications are without merit, provided the applicant adheres to the One True Faith. If he does not, then he has unacceptable ignorance, right? Your religious double standard shines through everything you write.

What is wrong with my proposed solution

Only that the UC has already published guidelines laying out alternative means of qualifying, and accepts 18% of their entering class via these alternative means, which remain open to those subjected to academically useless or dangerous indoctrinaton *instead* of education.

The creationists are NOT suing UC because these other avenues don’t exist. They are suing in the hopes that applicants uneducated for reasons of religious doctrine not be required to demonstrate compentence by any means whatsoever.

Really, Larry, if you could only take of your religious blinders, you’d see that you are being an idiot. Pretend, just for the exercise (if critical thinking is still possible in there) that there are schools which exist to convince kids that the moon is made of green cheese. The Cheesists might examine every sentence of every (self-published) “textbook” to make sure every one adheres strictly to Cheesist doctrine. In fact, the text might explicitly say “Where reality is perceived to conflict with Cheesism, reality is wrong by definition”

Now, imagine that you are charged with deciding whether Cheesist students have received a well-rounded education and are capable of critical thinking. How can you tell? By interviewing them and being told in no uncertain terms that the moon is made of cheese and reality is irrelevant? By reading texts that make this point to the exclusion of all others?

I would hope you could see that to anyone but a devout Cheesist, these schools would be graduating mobs of ignoramuses. Perhaps a Cheesist would defend his delusions the same way you do: by lying.

But UC is in the business of educating students, not remediating those whose parents refused to give them the necessary academic grounding.

So we finally get to the core issue here: To the UC, the core issue is academic – how to provide the best education they can to those applicants best able to gain it. Religion has nothing to do with UC’s position here – they also refuse to accept applicants who dropped out of 9th grade, and applicants who fared dismally on standard tests.

To the creationist, religion is the ONLY issue. Their entire claim hinges on UC using religion, and ONLY religion, as an excuse to persecute them. Academics are entirely irrelevant to the plaintiffs. If their faith requires them to keep their kids as stupid as you, they then attempt to blame someone else, for “reasons” irrelevant to their demands.

Judge Otero is offending you and the other religiously blind victims of the same sort of child abuse, by accepting UC’s framing of the issue – that it is academic and not religious. And on academic grounds, schools that don’t educate don’t qualify. The REASON they don’t educate, UC doesn’t care about.
#47 J. Biggs
April 2, 2008

Flint, if you expect Larry to change his argument just because you obliterated it. Think again. Larry will just repeat the same argument ad nauseum regardless of how thoroughly you refute it, and claim victory when you tire of the game. Debating Larry is enjoyable the same way that hitting your head against a brick wall is enjoyable. It feels so good when you stop.
#48 Rick Schauer
April 2, 2008

Sheesh, Mike, I just got back to Minnesota from Oahu Monday…I was looking for someone knowledgeable to snorkle with and discuss the humuhumunukunukuapuaa I observed while snorkling at Ko Olina and Electric Beach! We could have had a few beers and some chuckles about Behe’s idiotic references, too! Maybe next time.
#49 RAM
April 2, 2008

“Pretend, just for the exercise (if critical thinking is still possible in there) that there are schools which exist to convince kids that the moon is made of green cheese.”
Flint, great point, but many of them are already doing exactly that at so many other levels. They just hate evolution the most. I personally love the “the earth is 6000 years old” example, which is silly at any level.
Does ANYBODY really think that IF the creationists somehow won the evolution debate, “cause reality hurts my ears” it would stop there? Their stated goal is to revise ALL science to agree the bible, right?
#50 CJColucci
April 2, 2008

the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.

Funny, I don’t have any trouble, and I’m not even trying to hurt them. The Nazis were probably more motivated than to identify them than I am, and they could be pretty efficient when they were motivated.
#51 Phoca
April 2, 2008

“No, it is not true. I am a holocaust revisionist, not a holocaust denier. One of my main arguments is that a “systematic” holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.”
-Larry Fafarman | April 2, 2008 3:43 PM

Everyone knows that Nazis would never stoop to using subjective or unreliable methods!
#52 Flint
April 2, 2008

The important point here is that UC is a large diverse organization, composed of members of every major religion and a good many minor ones. Their goal is to teach universal, common human understandings of every subject from language and literature to math and science to sociology and psychology to comparative religion. They aren’t out either to convert or deconvert anyone, only to impart both information and the ability to think about it. Religious faith is simply outside their academic frame of reference.

But for the plaintiffs, religious faith is the only possible frame of reference, through which all information must be filtered, and with respect to which all behaviors must be judged. And this striking contrast of orientations explains why Behe’s testimony worked against him – because Behe was testifying within the creationist context, and Otero was interpreting his testimony within the academic context.

And so it’s amusing to see the plaintiffs “discovering” either support for, or antagonism to, their One True Faith in all of UC’s guidelines and policies. Just like they construct or evaluate textbooks, science, history, and every other subject. Compounding this, of course, is the conviction that there is no neutral – that which does not praise and ratify their narrow and irrational, reality-defying superstitions, is ipso facto out to get them, explicitly The Enemy. (And I suppose once a set of delusions gets weird enough, reality can seem pretty damn hostile. Which explains the existence of these schools and texts in the first place. They’re an escape out of sheer desperation lest reality erode their childrens’ souls.)

So Otero’s decision is truly fascinating reading. He points out, on almost every page, that the plaintiffs’ claims are inaccurate, inappropriate, or present untenable interpretations of the facts on the ground. Almost like the plaintiffs don’t live in the same reality as the rest of us. And he’s quite right, as Larry consistently demonstrates. What reality is permitted to pass their demons bears only surreal, nightmarish resemblance to what lies beyond them.
#53 Voice in the Urbanness
April 2, 2008

It is nice that there is somewhere where we can debate Larry openly. His own blog which is headed “My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs — there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged.”

Larry’s blog is heavily censored, is now moderated, and if loaded with ad-hominem attacks, mainly by Larry himself. He also claims to be the founder of the “Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers”, an association of which he is the only member and whose principles he does not practice.

Larry’s claim is that he is censoring “gossip about his personal life”, but few of the posts that have been censored even mention him. They are only posts that point out his hypocrisy and inconsistency.

He does a better job of debate here than on his own blog where his only answer seems to be insults and attack towards anyone who takes an opposing side and repetition of the original failed arguments. He invariably ends up with merangue pie dripping off his face while proclaiming “See. You missed me.”

They are always kicking his ass. That’s why he doesn’t like them.
#54 Jud
April 2, 2008

This is the second time I’ve seen Mr. Fafarman insist his view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard is correct, and that two Republican appointees to the Federal bench have got it wrong. What are the chances? (IAAL, have read the Edwards decision, and can tell you there is no chance at all that Mr. Fafarman’s interpretation is correct.)

Mr. Fafarman wrote:

I am a holocaust revisionist, not a holocaust denier. One of my main arguments is that a “systematic” holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.

To make such an argument in the face of the evidence, mere stupidity or thickheadedness will not do; it takes motivation.

For that motivation, sir, on behalf of myself and all the people I have known with concentration camp tattoos on their arms (there have been many, several of whom I have known quite well), may I say that you must be a particularly vile excuse for a human being.
#55 Larry Fafarman
April 2, 2008

Mike Dunford said,

If you want to know what’s wrong with your proposed solution, you’re going to have to ask the people who filed the lawsuit. UC’s policy on the A-G course requirements has allowed students to demonstrate proficiency in the subjects by passing SAT II or AP exams since before the suit was filed.

So why hasn’t UC been emphasizing that solution that I proposed?

Darwinists are more interested in finding fault with the fundy biology texts than in finding a solution to the dispute.

There is no question that the approach of the fundy biology texts is unorthodox, so my proposed solution is an obvious one. Why can’t the judge just impose this solution on the parties, instead of wasting everyone’s time and money? The time the courts waste on high-profile cases takes time away from low-profile cases — I know that from sad personal experience.
#56 Q
April 2, 2008

Larry: Darwinists are more interested in finding fault with the fundy biology texts than in finding a solution to the dispute.

The premise of that claim seems to be built on a false assumption. It isn’t the university’s responsibility to find a way to compromise with any group. It is the university’s responsibility to educate students, and before doing so, to assure that the students have a suitable foundation to receive such education.

Using test scores, as you suggest, is but one means to assess their foundation. A very limited means, in fact. Reviewing the curriculum the students studied under provides other informative data points. That information can be much more valuable, especially if the curriculum didn’t provide the information and foundation that the university is interested in for their entering students.

It is, I’m suggesting, up to those wishing to enter the university to meet the requirements.
#57 Larry Fafarman
April 2, 2008

Jud moans,

This is the second time I’ve seen Mr. Fafarman insist his view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard is correct, and that two Republican appointees to the Federal bench have got it wrong. What are the chances? (IAAL, have read the Edwards decision, and can tell you there is no chance at all that Mr. Fafarman’s interpretation is correct.)

The chances are excellent — in fact, they are 100%. The Edwards v. Aguillard decision expressly rejected a “Monday-morning battle of experts.”

Being a federal judge does not mean that one is smart — Judge Jones is one of the dumbest jerks I have ever seen.

For that motivation, sir, on behalf of myself and all the people I have known with concentration camp tattoos on their arms (there have been many, several of whom I have known quite well), may I say that you must be a particularly vile excuse for a human being.

The holocaust is off-topic here, dunghill. If you want my views on the subject, I invite you to visit my blog, where the sidebar has post labels for holocaust revisionism and Darwin-to-Hitler –
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/
#58 zoltan
April 2, 2008

To follow up what Q said, colleges and universities also award more points for the intensity of a course (weighted/AP/Honors). Most of that is based on the rigor of the course materials, whether the books are more difficult or if they are explored in more depth. These students should probably be negatively scored the way “Content Mastery” students should be.

CM, or other alphabet soup phrases generally refer to the students who are underperforming and consistently need help in a certain area.
#59 Leni
April 3, 2008

Larry wrote:

One of my main arguments is that a “systematic” holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.

Impossible doesn’t mean they couldn’t, and didn’t, try.

Do you think actions are only possibly f they are rational?

Also, Larry, it’s not really impossible to know your neighbor’s religion. I imagine people withhold such information from you, because you’re an obnoxious creep, but for the rest of us it’s pretty much common knowledge.

If there were a sudden pogrom against Catholics it would not be a difficult task find and “reveal” the whereabouts of a great many of them. Including my friends, neighbors and relatives. I could provide employers, addresses and phone numbers within minutes. I couldn’t pick them out of a crowd unless I knew them. In which case I could pick them out of a crowd.

To think that Nazis wouldn’t be able to ask around is beyond stupid. Identifying a Jew was probably as simple as asking the neighbors. Just as easy as it would be for us to point to you when and if a government agent were to ask about the presence of annoying jackass holocaust deniers.
#60 Mike Dunford
April 3, 2008

So why hasn’t UC been emphasizing that solution that I proposed?

UC knew about their policy. I knew about their policy. The judge knew about their policy. The people who filed this idiotic suit, believe it or not, know about this policy. Your stupendous ignorance in this matter is not in any way the fault of the University of California.

There is no question that the approach of the fundy biology texts is unorthodox, so my proposed solution is an obvious one.

Larry, “your” proposal is something that the University of California has been doing since long before the lawsuit was first filed. It’s part of their policy. It’s part of the policy that the Christian schools are challenging in the lawsuit. What part of this don’t you get? You didn’t come up with anything that is in any way, shape, or form new.

Why can’t the judge just impose this solution on the parties, instead of wasting everyone’s time and money?

Larry, you do understand that all that the judge would have to do to make that happen is dismiss the Christian schools case, yes?
#61 Interrobang
April 3, 2008

One of my main arguments is that a “systematic” holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.

Apparently the existence of census data that identified religious affiliation isn’t good enough for Mr. Fafarman. When someone claiming to be a “revisionist” anything conveniently overlooks reams of available and documented data, what you’re really seeing is a denier. (Five gets you ten we now hear the whooshing sound of goalposts being moved by a parsec or two.)

In other words, treat Mr. Fafarman’s further points with some skepticism, since he’s obviously willing to conveniently miss large chunks of factual evidence in order to continue making claims.
#62 Mike Dunford
April 3, 2008

That Larry is a holocaust denier/revisionist is certainly evidence that he has problems that go well beyond his views on this issue.

However, I do have to agree with Larry on one – and only one – point. The subject is well and truly off topic here. I would appreciate it if that aspect of the discussion is dropped by everyone.

This includes you, Larry. I would also suggest that you refrain from referring to people as “dunghills”, even if they refer to you as a sorry example of a human being first. I just lifted your ban here a couple of days ago, and I won’t hesitate to toss your comments into the junk folder in the future if I find it necessary. You have no goodwill to spend here, and I won’t warn you a second time.
#63 Larry Fafarman
April 3, 2008

(http:// prefixes removed to prevent comment from hanging up. Links must be cut and pasted)

Mike Dunford said,

I would appreciate it if that aspect of the discussion is dropped by everyone.

Yes, but you had to get in one last potshot at me before dropping the subject, didn’t you.

UC knew about their policy. I knew about their policy. The judge knew about their policy. The people who filed this idiotic suit, believe it or not, know about this policy.

There is a big difference between “knowing” about a policy and doing something about it. This “policy” is usually not part of the discussion — I am the one who brought it up here. Usually the discussion is just about whether the fundy biology textbook is good or bad — there is never going to be any agreement on that issue (BTW, even I think that the textbook’s philosophy about science v. religion is bad). Also, a lot of people believe that the university is forcing fundies to apply under the special admissions program (top 2-4% of high school grads) instead of under the general admissions program (top 12.5-15% of high school grads).

UC’s previous motion to dismiss did call special attention to this policy and even the original complaint suggested the use of standardized tests as an alternative, but I am not seeing much about this alternative now. In the previous motion to dismiss, UC said,

There is a significant additional option — not mentioned in the Complaint — for an applicant who wants to become eligible for admission based upon standardized test scores and a-g coursework but who has not, for whatever reason, completed all of the a-g- requirements: The applicant may instead take an SAT Subject Test in any subject for which the applicant has not taken the required a-g class. (pages 3-4 of original document or pages 11-12 of pdf file). — from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/ucmotiontodismiss1005.pdf

And the plaintiffs’ original complaint said,

Far less burdensome means are available to ensure that graduates of Christian schools, and applicants to University of California, are sufficiently educated using texts and viewpoints of their choice — those are the means that are already used for out-of-state applicants who do not attend schools with approved a-g courses. Those means are standardized tests (without discriminatory score requirements), which actually demonstrate that the graduates of Christian schools are on average better educated than their public school counterparts who apply to University of California, and study of the academic progress of students at University of California from Christian schools compared to other schools in order to see whether they are sufficiently educated. Such methods would not involve or require regulating the viewpoint and content of Christian schools and texts or disqualifying their graduates from eligibility for the University of California. In addition, far less burdensome means are available to ensure that any deficiency is corrected — those are the remedial courses or tutoring that the University already offers students in a wide range of subjects such as English and mathematics, which do not involve or require regulating the viewpoint and content of Christian schools and texts or excluding their graduates. — page 43 from http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_2.%20ACSI%20CA%20Complaint.pdf

Under UC’s Subject A English requirement, students are allowed to take remedial English courses after enrolling.

This and other issues were discussed under one of your previous posts on the subject:

scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/09/viewpoint_discrimination_and_t.php

Why can’t the judge just impose this solution on the parties, instead of wasting everyone’s time and money?

Larry, you do understand that all that the judge would have to do to make that happen is dismiss the Christian schools case, yes?

Well, the lawsuit is not just over the biology textbooks or science textbooks — it is also over other textbooks for courses that might not be covered by standardized tests.

Anyway, so far as the fundy biology textbooks are concerned, he wouldn’t have to dismiss the lawsuit completely — he could rule that otherwise-qualified fundies who flunk the SAT biology test (i.e., get an unsatisfactory score) be admitted upon the condition that they must pass a general college biology course to graduate (similar to the Subject A English requirement). Evolution is a part of the SAT AP biology test — albeit a relatively small one — and not studying evolution could cause someone to flunk the test. Here is the breakdown of the SAT AP biology test:

I. Molecules and Cells (25%)

A. Chemistry of Life (7%)
Water
Organic molecules in organisms
Free energy changes
Enzymes

B. Cells (10%)
Prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells
Membranes
Subcellular organization
Cell cycle and its regulation

C. Cellular Energetics (8%)
Coupled reactions
Fermentation and cellular respiration
Photosynthesis

===============================

II. Heredity and Evolution (25%)

A. Heredity (8%)
Meiosis and gametogenesis
Eukaryotic chromosomes
Inheritance patterns

B. Molecular Genetics (9%)
RNA and DNA structure and function
Gene regulation
Mutation
Viral structure and replication
Nucleic acid technology and applications

C. Evolutionary Biology (8%)
Early evolution of life
Evidence for evolution
Mechanisms of evolution

=====================================

III. Organisms and Populations (50%)

A. Diversity of Organisms (8%)
Evolutionary patterns
Survey of the diversity of life
Phylogenetic classification
Evolutionary relationships

B. Structure and Function of Plants and Animals (32%)
Reproduction, growth, and development
Structural, physiological, and behavioral adaptations
Response to the environment

C. Ecology (10%)
Population dynamics
Communities and ecosystems
Global issues

– from
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/biology/topic.html
#64 Jud
April 3, 2008

My apologies for the off-topic and as part of that, the personal remarks about another commenter.

Back on track: Having read the court’s ruling, I actually think it is unfair to give Dr. Behe even partial blame/credit for the decision in favor of UC. Behe’s statements, though a bit overwrought (“personally abusive,” “wrenching violation,” “terrible…outcome”) are not in and of themselves incorrect or unreasonable.

The fault, IMO, lies with the plaintiffs and their lawyers, whose responsibility it is to adequately prepare their expert witnesses. Part of that preparation is to give the expert an accurate idea of the relevant evidence and legal contentions of each party, i.e., the context for the expert’s evidence.

In this case, the plaintiffs contended they wanted to stop “viewpoint discrimination” by UC, whereby the school would allegedly not accept courses as preparation for admission if the primary texts put forth a religious viewpoint, no matter how academically acceptable the texts were otherwise. However, as the court found, citing numerous examples of courses that UC *had* accepted where the primary texts put forth a religious viewpoint, this contention was simply not supported by the evidence.

It is not Behe’s fault that he was given the impression he was supposed to testify against the defendants’ “viewpoint discrimination” when in fact it was plaintiffs who wished to use materials that practice such discrimination (as the court’s excerpts from these materials show).
#65 Flint
April 3, 2008

It is not Behe’s fault that he was given the impression he was supposed to testify against the defendants’ “viewpoint discrimination” when in fact it was plaintiffs who wished to use materials that practice such discrimination (as the court’s excerpts from these materials show).

Another illustration of how the issue is to be framed. Very clearly, the plaintiffs have positioned “viewpoint discrimination” to mean “presenting viewpoints other than ours”. This is why Otero felt it necessary to point out that UC is not obliged to adhere to the plaintiffs’ faith.

Ultimately, the case boils down to the question of whether inaccurate and inadequate texts, combined with an educational environment that prohibits rather than teaches critical thinking, nonetheless renders its victims sufficiently well prepared for college to be selected in preference to applicants who in fact HAVE been well educated and have demonstrated this.

When fundy parents have stunted their childrens’ minds, the solution isn’t to try to sue the world into pretending they didn’t do it. If you want to prepare your kids for college, what you need to do is clearly presented in the guidelines. If you refuse to do it, it’s nobody else’s fault.
#66 Robin
April 3, 2008

To think that Nazis wouldn’t be able to ask around is beyond stupid. Identifying a Jew was probably as simple as asking the neighbors. Just as easy as it would be for us to point to you when and if a government agent were to ask about the presence of annoying jackass holocaust deniers.

Forget for a moment that Larry is an idiot, finding a subgroup of people within a society is ridiculously easy – one need only create paranoia, which was already in place and (if you check actual history, not Larry-esque rehistory) was what got Hitler into office and total authority in the first place. Indeed, all the Nazi propaganda machine had to do was instill the paranoid idea that the economic problems in Germany at the time could be traced to Jewish interests and 50 – 75% of the population would immediately begin turning in their neighbors. Funny…that’s exactly what happened too.
#67 Robin
April 3, 2008

However, I do have to agree with Larry on one – and only one – point. The subject is well and truly off topic here. I would appreciate it if that aspect of the discussion is dropped by everyone.

My apologies Mike. I didn’t see your statment until after I posted. Please remove my post if that is possible.
#68 Mike Dunford
April 3, 2008

There is a big difference between “knowing” about a policy and doing something about it. This “policy” is usually not part of the discussion — I am the one who brought it up here.

I’m not surprised that nobody but you brought that portion of the policy up here, given that it is entirely irrelevant to the lawsuit. The Christian schools knew about the alternative paths for admission when they filed suit. Their entire position is that UC’s refusal to accept their courses is unfair and unconstitutional anyway.

Anyway, so far as the fundy biology textbooks are concerned, he wouldn’t have to dismiss the lawsuit completely — he could rule that otherwise-qualified fundies who flunk the SAT biology test (i.e., get an unsatisfactory score) be admitted upon the condition that they must pass a general college biology course to graduate (similar to the Subject A English requirement). Evolution is a part of the SAT AP biology test — albeit a relatively small one — and not studying evolution could cause someone to flunk the test.

No, Larry, he can’t. As he already ruled, the University of California has the right to set admissions standards. These standards can require that the students have taken certain sorts of class, or otherwise demonstrated a grasp of the material typically covered in those courses. The judge can’t simply decide that evolution isn’t important enough, and waive or modify that portion of the requirement. He’d be inappropriately substituting his judgment for UC’s.
#69 Arden Chatfield
April 3, 2008

The holocaust is off-topic here, dunghill. If you want my views on the subject, I invite you to visit my blog, where the sidebar has post labels for holocaust revisionism and Darwin-to-Hitler –

So evidently Larry thinks Hitler couldn’t possibly have killed all those Jews, but ASSUMING HE DID, it was all Darwin’s fault.

Wow.
#70 Flint
April 3, 2008

No, Larry, he can’t. As he already ruled, the University of California has the right to set admissions standards.

The judge has the power to declare UC’s behavior legal or illegal – NOT to dictate to them some new set of policies. OK, the ruling is that UC can legally set their own standards. Now, whether or not the standards themselves are legal is another issue. UC is requesting that each disallowed application for credit be considered separately, each in its own trial. This request was granted. The fundies can STILL argue their points on a case-by-case basis. They just can’t make it illegal for universities to have admissions policies.

I sincerely doubt that Larry would care to have any individual judge attempt to set admissions policies for all schools (including private religious schools). I should think it would be obvious that having judges attempt to micromanage academic policies and their detailed application is both inappropriate and dangerous. To whom would Larry appeal if he didn’t like the way the judiciary was managing and administrating the California school system?
#71 Larry Fafarman
April 3, 2008

Jud said (April 3, 2008 7:34 AM) —

The fault, IMO, lies with the plaintiffs and their lawyers, whose responsibility it is to adequately prepare their expert witnesses. Part of that preparation is to give the expert an accurate idea of the relevant evidence and legal contentions of each party, i.e., the context for the expert’s evidence.

Behe’s statements were written, not oral. It is possible, even probable, that the plaintiffs and their lawyers reviewed and/or approved Behe’s statements prior to release. The problem is that the judge quote-mined Behe.

However, as the court found, citing numerous examples of courses that UC *had* accepted where the primary texts put forth a religious viewpoint, this contention was simply not supported by the evidence.

All the evidence showed was that UC did not invariably discriminate on the basis of religion — the evidence did not show that UC did not ever discriminate on the basis of religion.

It is not Behe’s fault that he was given the impression he was supposed to testify against the defendants’ “viewpoint discrimination” when in fact it was plaintiffs who wished to use materials that practice such discrimination.

What is inherently wrong with materials that practice viewpoint discrimination? Teaching Darwinism and official holocaust history dogmatically is practicing viewpoint discrimination.

Flint said (April 3, 2008 8:27 AM) –

Another illustration of how the issue is to be framed. Very clearly, the plaintiffs have positioned “viewpoint discrimination” to mean “presenting viewpoints other than ours”.

See my preceding statement.

Mike Dunford said (April 3, 2008 10:44 AM) –

I’m not surprised that nobody but you brought that portion of the policy up here, given that it is entirely irrelevant to the lawsuit. The Christian schools knew about the alternative paths for admission when they filed suit.

My proposed solution is — or should be — a central issue in the lawsuit. As I said, a lot of people may have the impression that UC is excluding the fundy students entirely or is forcing them to apply under the much more demanding special admissions programs.

Their entire position is that UC’s refusal to accept their courses is unfair and unconstitutional anyway.

It is natural that the plaintiffs would prefer to have the fundy courses accredited, but the plaintiffs’complaint suggested that they would find my proposed solution acceptable (see my comment of April 3, 2008 6:20 AM).

No, Larry, he can’t. As he already ruled, the University of California has the right to set admissions standards.

Of course UC has the right to set admissions standards — UC sets admissions standards all the time. Duh. But the judge said that those admissions standards are subject to court approval.

The judge can’t simply decide that evolution isn’t important enough, and waive or modify that portion of the requirement.

There is no evolution “requirement” — there is not even a biology requirement. Students can take other lab sciences instead.

The judge would not have to say anything at all about evolution — he could just say that the fundy texts’ approach to the science v. religion issue is unorthodox, and that that alone justifies requiring the fundy students to either pass a biology test or take a college biology course.

He’d be inappropriately substituting his judgment for UC’s.

The courts have the authority to substitute their judgment for UC’s.

As for evolution, the courts should rule that the evolution issue is non-justiciable.
#72 Arden Chatfield
April 3, 2008

Poor Larry. He’s such a legal expert and reality keeps refusing to confirm his brilliance.

Teaching Darwinism and official holocaust history dogmatically is practicing viewpoint discrimination.

Discriminating against extreme stupidity (and antisemitism) is a good thing, Larry.
#73 michaelf
April 3, 2008

Only an irrational individual would conclude that viewpoint discrimination is not a good thing for educational institution to practice.
#74 Joe Mc Faul
April 3, 2008

“As for evolution, the courts should rule that the evolution issue is non-justiciable.”

Just stop practicing California law, Larry. You don’t ocmprehend the concept of justicability.

It may come as an odd surprise to you that science in many forms is adjudicated daily in courtrooms across the nation.

Evolution, AKA DNA evidence, both acquits people and sends people to death row in courts in every state in the union.

I can’t imagine you saying a more stupid thing, but my imagination has its limits.
#75 Flint
April 3, 2008

All the evidence showed was that UC did not invariably discriminate on the basis of religion — the evidence did not show that UC did not ever discriminate on the basis of religion.

And the effort to mis-frame the issues here marches on. What the evidence showed was that UC accepted course material that met minimum standards even if that material was clearly organized around a religious viewpoint, and that UC did NOT accept course material that failed to met minimum standards even though such material may have no religious content at all.

So UC’s argument was, religious content or lack of it was irrelevant to the merits of the material. Bad material, no credit. Good material, credit. Yes, UC surely discriminates. But the basis has never been religious, it has been pedagogical. The a-g guidelines spell it out pretty plainly. Religion is irrelevant.

But Larry is just like the plaintiffs – religion isn’t everything, religion is the ONLY thing. I imagine Larry interprets ball and strike calls in baseball games pretty much strictly on the grounds of the religions of the ump, batter, and pitcher. WHERE the pitch was located (the UC focus) simply cannot penetrate…
#76 Larry Fafarman
April 3, 2008

(http:// prefixes removed to keep the comment from hanging up. Links must be copied and pasted)

Flint said (April 3, 2008 3:16 PM) —

The judge has the power to declare UC’s behavior legal or illegal — NOT to dictate to them some new set of policies.

Well, duh, if the judge declares UC’s behavior to be illegal, isn’t that dictating to them a new set of policies?

Joe Mc Faul said ( April 3, 2008 6:59 PM ) –

Just stop practicing California law, Larry.

This is not just California law — this is the law, period.

You don’t ocmprehend the concept of justicability.

Wrong — you are talking to an expert here. My following blog articles discuss the issue of the justiciability of scientific questions –

im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/12/justiciability-of-scientific-questions.html

im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/01/justiciability-of-scientific-questions.html

im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/09/there-is-no-constitutional-separation.html

im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/12/cornelia-dean-on-scientific-disputes.html

It may come as an odd surprise to you that science in many forms is adjudicated daily in courtrooms across the nation.

No, it is no surprise to me, odd or otherwise.

Evolution, AKA DNA evidence, both acquits people and sends people to death row in courts in every state in the union.

DNA evidence has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Flint said ( April 3, 2008 8:35 PM ) –

And the effort to mis-frame the issues here marches on. What the evidence showed was that UC accepted course material that met minimum standards even if that material was clearly organized around a religious viewpoint . . . . .

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The court has not yet determined whether the fundy biology texts meet minimum standards. What the opinion says is,

Defendants have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their rejection of the Plaintiffs’ biology courses was reasonable. (page 40 of original, page 42 of pdf file) — from

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/msjruling_033108.pdf

But Larry is just like the plaintiffs — religion isn’t everything, religion is the ONLY thing.

More bullshit. I previously said in this thread, “even I think that the textbook’s philosophy about science v. religion is bad.”
#77 michaelf
April 4, 2008

Larry is a retired mechanical engineer according to his blogger profile… and that makes him an expert on the law, science and biology… I can’t make any comments on the law – I don’t have a law degree – I do know something about science and biology and it is clear he knows little about either. What do you propose to replace evolution, Larry?
#78 Larry Fafarman
April 4, 2008

michaelf said,

Larry is a retired mechanical engineer according to his blogger profile… and that makes him an expert on the law, science and biology

If we are going to talk about credentials, let’s talk about Ed Brayton. He is a blogger on ScienceBlogs (this blog is a ScienceBlogs blog) and a co-blogger on science blog Panda’s Thumb but he has no credentials in any technical field. By his own admission, he is not even a college graduate. He is always blogging about the law and science on his own blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars. He is just a fast-talking storyteller. He gives the appearance that he is always right by censoring comments that rebut him.

You obviously know nothing about the training of mechanical engineers. We take several years of college — and sometimes postgraduate — courses in science, mathematics, computer science, and, of course, engineering, most of which is science-related.

I can’t make any comments on the law — I don’t have a law degree

To have a general knowledge of the law, one generally needs to be a lawyer or have extensive formal legal training, but practically anyone can quickly become an expert in a narrow area of the law. The term “jailhouse lawyers” refers to prisoners — sometimes having little formal education — who have become quite good at representing themselves in court. My own blog has dozens of articles on legal subjects under post labels such as “Expert opinions about Kitzmiller,” “Kitzmiller v. Dover,” “Establishment clause,” and “Selman v. Cobb County,” and reading these articles would give you good backgrounds in these subjects. So saying “IANAL” (I am not a lawyer) is often no excuse.
#79 Flint
April 4, 2008

Well, duh, if the judge declares UC’s behavior to be illegal, isn’t that dictating to them a new set of policies?

No, of course not. If you rob a bank and the court says it’s illegal, does that dictate to you what you must do for a living instead? Nope, not at all. It simply says that robbing banks is one of the things you must NOT do.

The number of possible UC policies is essentially infinite. The number of different legal policies is also infinite. The court isn’t dictating any one of them, by disallowing any other. Do you ever THINK?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The court has not yet determined whether the fundy biology texts meet minimum standards.

The court said, in this case, that UC has the right to set minimum standards. It doesn’t say that UC must apply for standards guidance with some judge for every standard. UC set standards saying some of the fundy texts failed to meet the standards UC legally crafted.

Yes, any particular standard’s reasonableness can be challenged. But UC’s standards are, by this decision granting them the right to create them, presumed to be reasonable.

Wrong — you are talking to an expert here.

And Larry is saying this to a professional lawyer! Come to think of it, it’s exactly this flavor of chutzpah that is causing Larry all his heartache – he presumes himself Lord High Infallible Authority on anything he knows so little about that he can’t realize how little he knows. Most of us outgrow this sort of thing in elementary school.
#80 michaelf
April 4, 2008

Larry I knew you would rant about Ed – did I bring him up? is he relevant? No. I am not very impressed with libertarians and don’t read Ed. I do know plenty about engineers and science – if you understood science you wouldn’t be backing creationism and intelligent design. Plus you gave no answer to my question – evade, evade, evade.
#81 Voice in the Urbanness
April 4, 2008

Larry says “Wrong — you are talking to an expert here. My following blog articles discuss the issue of the justiciability of scientific questions –”

These articles actually show that Larry doesn’t understand what he is talking about (as usual).

michaelf says “Larry is a retired mechanical engineer according to his blogger profile…”

It is true that he claims to be a retired mechanical engineer. If being fired from every job makes you retired, he definitely is retired. His state engineer’s license has been cancelled, no doubt he will have an explanation of how the state is conspiring against him. As for law, he has an unblemished record in his many lawsuits. Every one has been laughed out of court at the earliest possible opportunity. This he ascribes to “crooked judges” and the lawyers and judges conspiring against him. He also says that they feared his legal genius.

I often wonder what color the sky is on Larry’s planet?
#82 Larry Fafarman
April 4, 2008

Flint said ( April 4, 2008 10:10 AM ) –

If you rob a bank and the court says it’s illegal, does that dictate to you what you must do for a living instead? Nope, not at all. It simply says that robbing banks is one of the things you must NOT do.

That is a bad analogy. The correct analogy is this:
The court is going to decide whether or not it is OK for UC to rob these particular banks (i.e., reject these particular textbooks). The court is not going to decide whether or not it is OK for UC to rob other banks (i.e., reject other textbooks).

And I have suggested a way that the court could avoid ruling on whether or not it is OK for UC to rob these particular banks: require the fundy students to pass a standardized biology test or take a college biology course after enrolling.

And Larry is saying this to a professional lawyer!

I don’t give a shit whether or not he is a professional lawyer — he is going to have to argue his points here like everyone else. He can’t declare automatic victory just because he is a lawyer and I am not. He did not give any reason why the courts should not declare evolution to be nonjusticiable and I referred him to my blog articles which give lots of reasons why the courts should declare evolution to be nonjusticiable.

michaelf said ( April 4, 2008 10:20 AM ) –

Larry I knew you would rant about Ed – did I bring him up?

You brought him up indirectly by attacking my qualifications — I would not have otherwise brought him up. And you admit that you knew that attacking my qualifications would cause me to bring him up.

if you understood science you wouldn’t be backing creationism and intelligent design.

Whether or not I back them is irrelevant here. What I am saying is that because the fundy biology textbooks’ approach is unorthodox, there is a question as to whether the fundy students adequately learned the core material, particularly considering that these were the sole or primary textbooks and not companion or supplemental textbooks. Therefore, the fundy students should be required to either pass a standardized biology test or take a college biology course after enrollment.

ViU driveled,

It is true that he claims to be a retired mechanical engineer. If being fired from every job makes you retired, he definitely is retired.

Here we go again with Mike Dunford’s double-standard — he is going to allow other commenters to attack me personally with malicious gossip while denying me an opportunity to respond.

“I’m always kicking their butts — that’s why they don’t like me.”
– Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
#83 Q
April 4, 2008

LArry says Therefore, the fundy students should be required to either pass a standardized biology test or take a college biology course after enrollment.

Should be? No. They should meet the requirements that were in place, including preparation with approved curricula, and not be requesting to skate by from using inferior materials.

Passing a test is a weak measure of one’s skills. The materials being used provide a much more valuable measure of the set of things the people could have even learned.

The “should” lays clearly on the backs of those using mythological books as science textbooks. They “should” have at least used approved materials for their science preparation, even if they used mythological-based texts to get what they want to believe is the “true” story.
#84 Q
April 4, 2008

BTW, Larry, you are arguing that they should be allowed enrollment and then take biology courses.

Why not encourage them prove their mettle by entering a community college, passing the courses with approved materials, and then entering the university? Hell, if they already know the material, let them challenge the courses and get credentials with almost no additional work.

They really would learn that biology stuff using accepted materials well enough to pass those tests you want them to take, wouldn’t they?
#85 Joe Mc Faul
April 4, 2008

Me: “I can’t imagine you saying a more stupid thing, but my imagination has its limits.”

Larry F.: “DNA evidence has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.”

Congratulations, you exceeded my imagination yet again.
#86 Voice in the Urbanness
April 4, 2008

“Here we go again with Mike Dunford’s double-standard — he is going to allow other commenters to attack me personally with malicious gossip while denying me an opportunity to respond.”

Stating the easily verifiable truth http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllqryna$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=ENG&p_qte_pgm_code=7500 is not “malicious gossip” and unlike the situation at your arbitrarily censored and heavily moderated blog, you do have the opportunity to respond.
#87 Larry Fafarman
April 4, 2008

Q said,

Passing a test is a weak measure of one’s skills. The materials being used provide a much more valuable measure of the set of things the people could have even learned.

Nonetheless, the UC rules allow applicants to substitute satisfactory SAT subject test scores for courses that they have not taken.

BTW, Larry, you are arguing that they should be allowed enrollment and then take biology courses.

As I pointed out in my comment of April 3, 2008 6:20 AM, evolution is part — albeit a small part — of the SAT AP biology test, so not studying evolution could cause a student to get an unsatisfactory score on the test. Maybe teaching or learning about evolution is against the religious beliefs at some fundy schools — I don’t know. The Bob Jones U. texts have about 15 pages on evolution and I don’t know what the A Beka Book texts have. Anyway, allowing fundy students who flunk the SAT test to take a biology course after enrolling could be considered to be just a way of accommodating their religious beliefs. This would in principle be no different from UC’s Subject A English requirement, where students deficient in English skills are allowed to take remedial English courses after enrolling.

Maybe the disputes over the other fundy textbooks could be handled in the same way — I don’t know. That is a whole other subject. For example, the fundy students can’t claim that it is against their religion to learn about non-Christian factors in American history. The fundy schools’ obsession with Christianity has created a real mess. If the fundy students’ religious sensibilities are so easily offended, they should not even attend a public university.

Also, my proposal is a permanent solution, at least so far as the fundy biology courses are concerned. If the courts handle this on a case-by-case basis, the same problem may arise in the future in other states and/or with other textbooks.

Why not encourage them prove their mettle by entering a community college, passing the courses with approved materials, and then entering the university?

Where there is a constitutional conflict, the government is supposed to choose the least-burdensome alternative. Requiring the fundy students to attend a community college first is not the least-burdensome alternative so far as the fundy biology courses are concerned.

Joe McFaul said,

Larry F.: “DNA evidence has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.”
Congratulations, you exceeded my imagination yet again.

You still have not explained how evolution has anything to do with DNA evidence. Similarities of DNA between species are used to support evolution theory, but that does not mean that evolution theory supports the principles of DNA testing.

I am still waiting to see what Mike Dunford is going to do about the comments that attack me personally.
#88 Q
April 4, 2008

Larry mentions Anyway, allowing fundy students who flunk the SAT test to take a biology course after enrolling could be considered to be just a way of accommodating their religious beliefs.

Not to be snide, but that is simply a woulda, shoulda, coulda argument. Instead of meeting the admission requirements after admission, as you suggest, perhaps the students could meet the admission requirements before admission.

Larry mentioned Where there is a constitutional conflict, the government is supposed to choose the least-burdensome alternative.

There’s no need to accomodate beliefs in a mythology, if the existing accomodations can pass the Lemon test.

Larry says Requiring the fundy students to attend a community college first is not the least-burdensome alternative so far as the fundy biology courses are concerned.

No? It is not UC’s responsibility to offer remediation to the fundy students. It is their burden and their responsibility to have a foundation suitable for the university they want to attend. Or, it is their responsibility to attend a univerity suitable for their foundation.

For instance, the students can start a college career at a different university that has different admission requirements – such as at a community college. Then, after they successfully acheive their remediation, they could apply to UC and argue that they do meet the admission requirements.
#89 Voice in the Urbanness
April 4, 2008

Larry said: “I am still waiting to see what Mike Dunford is going to do about the comments that attack me personally.”

Perhaps you could lead by example and stop attacking everyone else personally on your own blog? There is hardly a post by you there that doesn’t include the word that Mike has already asked you to stop using here.

The bottom line is that your “solution” is the most burdensome suggested so far so you fail your own test. Instead, why not just encourage those who want to mix science and mythology to enroll at Oral Roberts University, or many others that do not have UC’s requirements?

I have another suggestion. Why not drop the arbitrary censorship and heavy handed monitoring on your own site and perhaps you can have a few of the reasonable discussions that you see here migrate to your own blog? If not, I would encourage you to drop your “Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers” as it has no practicing members.
#90 Scott
April 5, 2008

Larry does have one good point (Apr 2, 1:35am). I also can’t find the ruling/order anywhere on the Central District web site, or anywhere else except the UC site. Now, it’s not likely that anyone at UC would make up something like this, but it does seem odd not being able to locate it. Then again, the Court site only seems to post “selected” rulings, which suggests that it’s normal practice to not post all of them. Maybe??
#91 Q
April 5, 2008

Scott, would this resolve your queries?

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/msjruling_033108.pdf
#92 Larry Fafarman
April 5, 2008

Q said,

There’s no need to accomodate beliefs in a mythology

If you consider religions to be mythology, then the Constitution says that the government must accommodate beliefs in mythology.

if the existing accomodations can pass the Lemon test.

The Lemon test sucks. The Supreme Court has long since ceased requiring lower courts to use it.

It is not UC’s responsibility to offer remediation to the fundy students.

UC offers remediation to students with deficient English skills, so why not offer remediation to the fundy students? Actually, UC would not have to offer remediation to the fundies — the fundies could just take regular college courses in biology, history, or whatever subjects they are deficient in because of the fundy orientation of their high school courses.

Then, after they successfully acheive their remediation

UC might not even require biology remediation for transfer students — the entrance requirements for transfer students may be different from the entrance requirements for freshmen — I don’t know.

This lawsuit was filed way back in Aug. 2005 and is finally getting rolling. ACSI told me that UC submitted 350,000 pages of materials! ACSI told me that the case will likely go to a jury now. Time that courts spend on high-profile cases takes time away from low-profile cases. If you ever had your lawsuit totally ignored by the courts (obviously you haven’t), and it takes a hell of a lot of time, effort, and sometimes money (if you hire a lawyer) to sue in court, you would know what I mean. When I sued California and the US EPA in federal court over the flagrantly unconstitutional $300 smog impact fee on incoming out-of-state federally certified vehicles (this fee was eventually thrown out by the state courts), I argued that California had lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity by “leaving the sphere that was exclusively its own” (Parden v. Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks Dept.) by basing the fee entirely on the state’s special status under federal auto-emissions laws. California did not even attempt to rebut that argument. My lawsuit was thrown out by Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter without an oral hearing and without a written opinion! I was later vindicated when a top former California auto-emissions agency official testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA! So I am not interested in listening to your crap about how to complicate the ACSI v. Stearns case.

Voice in the Urbanness said,

Larry said: “I am still waiting to see what Mike Dunford is going to do about the comments that attack me personally.”
Perhaps you could lead by example and stop attacking everyone else personally on your own blog?

The policy on my blog is to allow personal attacks except gossip about people’s private affairs and attacks based on race, sex, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, those kinds of things. I try to avoid making personal attacks myself unless provoked.

Why not drop the arbitrary censorship and heavy handed monitoring on your own site

So censoring gossip about my private affairs is “arbitrary censorship and heavy handed monitoring”! What a jerk.

Anyway, what I do on my own blog is off-topic here.

Scott said,

I also can’t find the ruling/order anywhere on the Central District web site, or anywhere else except the UC site.

It is not on the UC website, nor is it on the ACSI website:

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/

http://www.acsi.org/web2003/default.aspx?ID=1181

Now, it’s not likely that anyone at UC would make up something like this, but it does seem odd not being able to locate it.

April Fools Day ended several days ago. I originally thought it was a hoax, too.
#93 Q
April 5, 2008

Larry asserts The Supreme Court has long since ceased requiring lower courts to use it. (it = the Lemon Test)

Nuh uh.

Larry suggests If you consider religions to be mythology, then the Constitution says that the government must accommodate beliefs in mythology.

Nuh uh. Read amendment 1. The constitution says that the government must not establish any religion. It also says that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. It does not mention accomodate. It also doesn’t say that maintaining a knowledge of scientific principles interferes with the exercise of religion. Keep in mind, expecting a certain knowledge isn’t the same as mandating how religion is excercised.

You seem to be confusing what is really protected by the Constitution from what you want to be protected.

Larry asks UC offers remediation to students with deficient English skills, so why not offer remediation to the fundy students?

Maybe you should check if there are any laws affecting ESL. But, nonetheless, “why not” is simply begging. It doesn’t provide a logical argument. The frank answer could quite simply be “they don’t want to.”

Larry suggests the fundies could just take regular college courses in biology, history, or whatever subjects they are deficient in because of the fundy orientation of their high school courses.

If, as you suggest, those people could take those classes, then they could just as well take those classes in a community college to prove that they truly are capable of learning the material before they are admitted to the university.

Your argument seems to be based on resolving your offense, and not upon anything that the univeristy did wrong that must be changed.

Larry comments UC might not even require biology remediation for transfer students — the entrance requirements for transfer students may be different from the entrance requirements for freshmen — I don’t know.

UC has transfer requirements too. They are on line here http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/transfer/tr_adm_reqs.html. Google-fu is cool.

Larry extrapolates If you ever had your lawsuit totally ignored by the courts (obviously you haven’t), …

Obviously? Where did that ESP come from? May be true, may not be, but where do you get off?

Larry asserts So I am not interested in listening to your crap about how to complicate the ACSI v. Stearns case.

So?

Larry reminds the readers Anyway, what I do on my own blog is off-topic here.

And I fully agree. Bringing up stuff from another blog is simply setting up a smokescreen. Larry, I’m sugesting, has the freedom to post what he wants there, and what he wants here. If he keeps the claims separate, then linking them easily runs afoul of simply being ad hominim, of the form “Look at what he did over there, so discredit him over here”. Pure argumentative bunkum. (Surprise Larry, I’ll argue for your position if I agree with it.)

Larry mentions It is not on the UC website, nor is it on the ACSI website: (it being the ruling/order)

I found that it is online, but requires a subscription to see. Are you looking for something other than what is at the link I provided at April 5, 2008 2:31 AM?
#94 Voice in the Urbanness
April 5, 2008

Larry said,

>If you consider religions to be mythology, then the Constitution says that the government must accommodate beliefs in mythology.< The Constitution does not require religion or mythology to be taught as science.

> California did not even attempt to rebut that argument. < Because your suit was thrown out on other grounds. If a man is brought in to a hospital with his head missing, they rarely check for measles.

> Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter < This from someone who decries personal attacks.

> I was later vindicated < No. Having a witness testify that one of your points was valid does not make the rest any more valid. The bottom line is that you had no standing to sue so they did not need to comment further.

> I try to avoid making personal attacks myself unless provoked. <

You must be always provoked. Few of your comments lack personal attacks.

I don’t consider mention of your total failure in lawsuits to be personal gossip. It is public information. You have claimed to be an “unrecognized legal genius”. If someone claims to be Annie Oakley, the fact that they have failed to hit the ground with a sack of manure in twelve successive attempts is certainly admissable.
#95 Larry Fafarman
April 5, 2008

Q moaned,

Larry asserts The Supreme Court has long since ceased requiring lower courts to use it. (it = the Lemon Test)

Nuh uh.

Wrong — the answer is uh uh. See the Wikipedia article on the Lemon test. Also, the Supreme Court can hardly expect lower courts to use the Lemon test when the SC itself sometimes does not use it — see

http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/aptly-named-lemon-test-sucks.html

Anyway, the Lemon test is irrelevant here — it applies only to cases where there appears to be a government endorsement of religion.

Read amendment 1. The constitution says that the government must not establish any religion. It also says that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. It does not mention accomodate.

The Supreme Court said in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673,

Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. — see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0465_0668_ZO.html

Larry asks UC offers remediation to students with deficient English skills, so why not offer remediation to the fundy students?

Maybe you should check if there are any laws affecting ESL.

The Subject A English requirement dates back to at least the mid-1960′s — I don’t think that it has anything to do with ESL laws.

If, as you suggest, those people could take those classes, then they could just as well take those classes in a community college

That is what I call a “let them eat cake” argument. They could also go to a private university or an out-of-state public university. That does not justify denying them admission to UC.

Larry extrapolates If you ever had your lawsuit totally ignored by the courts (obviously you haven’t), …

Obviously? Where did that ESP come from?

As I said, time that the courts spend on high-profile cases takes time away from low-profile cases. Anyone who ever had their low-profile case completely ignored by a court would not want a court to unnecessarily complicate a high-profile case.

Larry reminds the readers Anyway, what I do on my own blog is off-topic here.

And I fully agree. Bringing up stuff from another blog is simply setting up a smokescreen.

Thank you — at last a voice of reason. ViU is trying to clutter up this blog with a debate about what I do on my own blog, and I don’t even censor comments about that on my own blog.

I found that it is online, but requires a subscription to see.

I am able to view the decision without paying a subscription.

Voice in the Urbanness said,

The Constitution does not require religion or mythology to be taught as science.

There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state.

Because your suit was thrown out on other grounds.

No, bozo, there were no grounds. As I said, there was no oral hearing and no written opinion. There is no shred of evidence that Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter ever read the briefs in the case.

> Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter

This from someone who decries personal attacks.

I don’t decry personal attacks — except for some kinds of personal attacks (see below).

I don’t consider mention of your total failure in lawsuits to be personal gossip.

I don’t consider discussion of my lawsuits to be “personal gossip.” By personal gossip, I mean discussions of where I live, how I live, my reasons for leaving former employment, who knows me personally, those kinds of things. Anyway, derogatory comments about my lawsuits are just ad hominem attacks — it is just a way of dodging the issues here.
#96 Larry Fafarman
April 5, 2008

Q moaned,

Larry asserts The Supreme Court has long since ceased requiring lower courts to use it. (it = the Lemon Test)

Nuh uh.

Wrong — the correct answer is uh uh. See the Wikipedia article on the Lemon test. Also, the Supreme Court can hardly expect lower courts to use the Lemon test when the SC itself sometimes does not use it — see

im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/aptly-named-lemon-test-sucks.html

Anyway, the Lemon test is irrelevant here — it applies only to cases where there appears to be a government endorsement of religion.

Read amendment 1. The constitution says that the government must not establish any religion. It also says that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. It does not mention accomodate.

The Supreme Court said in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673,

Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. — see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0465_0668_ZO.html

Larry asks UC offers remediation to students with deficient English skills, so why not offer remediation to the fundy students?
Maybe you should check if there are any laws affecting ESL.

The Subject A English requirement dates back to at least the mid-1960′s — I don’t think that it has anything to do with ESL laws.

If, as you suggest, those people could take those classes, then they could just as well take those classes in a community college

That is what I call a “let them eat cake” argument. They could also go to a private university or an out-of-state public university. That does not justify denying them admission to UC.

Larry extrapolates If you ever had your lawsuit totally ignored by the courts (obviously you haven’t), …

Obviously? Where did that ESP come from?

As I said, time that the courts spend on high-profile cases takes time away from low-profile cases. Anyone who ever had their low-profile case ignored by a court would not want a court to unnecessarily complicate a high-profile case.

Larry reminds the readers Anyway, what I do on my own blog is off-topic here.

And I fully agree. Bringing up stuff from another blog is simply setting up a smokescreen.

Thank you — at last a voice of reason. ViU is trying to clutter up this blog with a debate about what I do on my own blog, and I don’t even censor comments about that on my own blog.

I found that it is online, but requires a subscription to see.

I am able to view the decision without paying a subscription.

Voice in the Urbanness said,

The Constitution does not require religion or mythology to be taught as science.

There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state.

Because your suit was thrown out on other grounds.

No, bozo, there were no grounds. As I said, there was no oral hearing and no written opinion. There is no shred of evidence that the Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter ever read the briefs in the case.

> Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter

This from someone who decries personal attacks.

I don’t decry personal attacks — except for some kinds of personal attacks (see below).

I don’t consider mention of your total failure in lawsuits to be personal gossip.

I don’t consider discussion of my lawsuits to be “personal gossip.” By personal gossip, I mean discussion of where I live, how I live, my reasons for leaving former employment, who knows me personally, those kinds of things.
#97 Q
April 5, 2008

Larry mentions Anyway, the Lemon test is irrelevant here — it applies only to cases where there appears to be a government endorsement of religion.
It also applies to cases where the govenment prevents free exercise (there are two parts to how the Constitution protects religious isses.)

If, as you say, the Lemon test doesn’t apply, then this isn’t an issue about religion. It is simply an issue about whether the students were prepared to enter the UC. Their curriculum couldn’t have prepared them.
#98 Voice in the Urbanness
April 5, 2008

Larry said,

> There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state. < ID and creationism are not bad science. They are not science at all.

> No, bozo, there were no grounds. < The judge thought otherwise. This was not an isolated case. All of the cases you have filed have been thrown out.

> There is no shred of evidence that the Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter ever read the briefs in the case. < The fact that he laughed you out of court is evidence that he did read them.

> By personal gossip, I mean discussion of where I live, how I live, my reasons for leaving former employment, who knows me personally, those kinds of things. <

If you had actually limited your censorship to such things, there would not be a controversy. Please don’t pretend that you do.

In the mean time, I would suggest that to keep on track, the use of the terms “dunghill”, “bozo”, and “Mad Hatter” do not add to your discussions. They only show the frustration that you have had in failing to prove your points.
#99 Scott
April 5, 2008

Dear Q:
I found that it is online, but requires a subscription to see. Are you looking for something other than what is at the link I provided at April 5, 2008 2:31 AM?

I had found the linked site earlier, but thanks.

I’m not looking for something “different”. I’m just remembering the Dover trial, where all the rulings/opinions were posted on the Court’s website. I can’t find anything about this trial on the Central District web site: http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/

Am I looking at the wrong site? Or, are you saying you need a subscription to this site? I couldn’t find anything on the site itself about a “subscription”.

Just curious how this Court runs, or runs differently from Pennsylvania.

Thanks.
#100 Q
April 5, 2008

Scott, sorry about my bad wording. I found what looked like a copy of the case on a legal site, but it required a subscription. The copy at the UC site looks like what would be on the legal site. But, I wasn’t sure if you wanted the imprimatur of cite from a legal site, or if collecting the case from a college was complete for your cause.
#101 Scott
April 6, 2008

Q: Just trying out “due diligence” in a minor way by trying to track down “original” sources. The comment that a copy could not be found at the Court site piqued my curiosity. Thanks.
#102 Larry Fafarman
April 6, 2008

Q said,

If, as you say, the Lemon test doesn’t apply, then this isn’t an issue about religion.

The Wikipedia article about the Lemon test says,

It consists of three prongs:
1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs is violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(in recent years, the 3rd prong has often been either ignored or incorporated into the second prong)

I checked a few other Internet references and they agree that the Lemon test is just about the establishment clause. I agree that the Lemon test could be applied to some free-exercise clause cases, but I am not aware of it ever being applied to such a case.

It is simply an issue about whether the students were prepared to enter the UC. Their curriculum couldn’t have prepared them.

If that were the only issue, then UC would lose the case. As I pointed out in my comment of April 2, 2008 1:35 AM,

An article titled “Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?”, by the Association of Christian Schools International, said the following about a meeting between UC personnel, Christian school personnel, and attorneys on both sides of the issue (page 3):

When asked whether poor college performance by students from religious schools prompted the rejection of the textbooks, UC representatives responded negatively. They also acknowledged that UC did not have any objective evidence that students from religious schools are deficient in science when they arrive for their freshman year of college …..

As the discussion continued about the biology books, it became evident that they were rejected because they appeared to state the perspective that the Bible is revelation and along with faith is more authoritative than the observations of science, especially if there were a conflict over a “factual scientific issue.”

ViU said,

ID and creationism are not bad science. They are not science at all.

OK — there is no constitutional separation between pseudoscience and state. Whatever.

Yes, I know, ViU, judges are always good and I am always bad. What a stupid idiot.

ViU, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney in this case, Wendell Bird, lost his last two big monkey trials, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and Edwards v. Aguillard. So tell me why the defendants are not making a big deal about that in court.

Folks, frankly — who has made a more worthwhile contribution to this thread, ViU or I? His comments virtually entirely consist of personal attacks and breathtaking inanities. I am forced to tolerate his crap on my blog because of my general no-censorship policy, but I wonder what Mike Dunford’s excuse is — Mike has shown willingness to practice censorship at the drop of a hat.

Scott said,

I’m not looking for something “different”. I’m just remembering the Dover trial, where all the rulings/opinions were posted on the Court’s website. I can’t find anything about this trial on the Central District web site

Well, the Dover case had a much higher profile than this case has, but of course that is no excuse for the failure to post this ruling on the court’s website. I myself was particularly annoyed because I was checking for the ruling practically every day but first found out about it from some blogs. I have no idea how the bloggers found out about it. There was — and still is — nothing about the ruling on the UC and ACSI websites. I didn’t see the ruling reported in the general media but a higher-ed news service did have an article about it. Failure of a court to post a ruling promptly is very irresponsible — for example, maybe someone wants to file an amicus brief and misses a deadline because a ruling was not posted. It was the judge’s responsibility to make sure that this ruling was posted and his failure to do so is another strike against him (the first strike was quote-mining Behe). Don’t expect the court to follow any rules — as I said, my lawsuit in this court was thrown out without an oral hearing and without a written opinion, even though I had an airtight argument which defendant California did not even attempt to rebut.

The National Center for Science Education has the best collection of documents on the Dover case — see

www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=152

www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/

Q said,

The copy at the UC site looks like what would be on the legal site. But, I wasn’t sure if you wanted the imprimatur of cite from a legal site, or if collecting the case from a college was complete for your cause.

The copy from UC is presumably official because it has the stamp of the court at the top. It is probably also the only copy available to the public.
#103 Q
April 6, 2008

Larry suggests I checked a few other Internet references and they agree that the Lemon test is just about the establishment clause.

Then, I suggest, you have read the references incorrectly.

Read the second point in your own post:
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion

The reference to “advancing” corresponds to the 1st amendment’s establishment clause. The reference to “inhibiting” corresponds to the 1st amendment’s free-exercise clause. Sorry, but your interpretation isn’t consistent with legal theory.

This is still a case about unprepared students, and not a case based on one’s adherence to a mythology. In other words, this isn’t a case about relilgious discrimination. It is, frankly, about people that used materials that leave them as ignormamuses, who want admission to a university that holds standards of admission.

Larry says Folks, frankly — who has made a more worthwhile contribution to this thread, ViU or I?

Larry, I’ll speak out on your behalf regarding ad hominim attacks against you, as I did. But, I’ll speak against you when you appeal to the masses as a means to strengthen an argument. It should be strong on its own.
#104 Larry Fafarman
April 6, 2008

Q said,

Then, I suggest, you have read the references incorrectly.

No, I have not read the references incorrectly. Here is part of my quote from Wikipedia:

If any of these 3 prongs is violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (emphasis added)

It is true that the Lemon test is normally associated with just the establishment clause and is not normally associated with the free exercise clause. However, I agreed that the Lemon test could be applied to free exercise clause cases. I checked the ruling here and it does use the Lemon test, but that is partly because the plaintiffs made an establishment clause claim. The ruling says,

Although Establishment Clause claims typically challenge government action that allegedly benefits religion, the clause also governs “a claim brought under a hostility to religion theory.” (citations omitted) (“”The government neutrality required under the Establishment Clause is …. violated as much by government disapproval of religion as it is by government approval of religion”). (page 32 of original document, page 34 of pdf file) — from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/msjruling_033108.pdf

There have been lots of free exercise cases where the Lemon test has not been used — that’s why the test is not associated with free exercise cases. Also, as I said, the Lemon test has fallen into disfavor.

This is still a case about unprepared students, and not a case based on one’s adherence to a mythology.

As I pointed out, UC representatives said at a meeting that they had no objective evidence that the fundy students are unprepared to study science at the college level.

I’ll speak out on your behalf regarding ad hominim attacks against you, as I did. But, I’ll speak against you when you appeal to the masses as a means to strengthen an argument.

My arguments against ViU don’t need strengthening, because he makes no arguments at all — he just makes unsupported assertions.
#105 Voice in the Urbanness
April 6, 2008

Larry said:

> My arguments against ViU don’t need strengthening, because he makes no arguments at all — he just makes unsupported assertions. <

You seem to believe that if you do not understand or agree with an argument, it has not been made. There are endless examples on the net of people giving valid arguments with your only answer being to repeat your original assertion and pretend that no counter argument has been made.
#106 Larry Fafarman
April 6, 2008

ViU moans,

You seem to believe that if you do not understand or agree with an argument, it has not been made.

And you seem to believe that you make arguments. Consider, for example, your unsupported statement, “The bottom line is that your ‘solution’ is the most burdensome suggested so far so you fail your own test.” What is the most burdensome about my proposal that the fundy students be required to either pass a biology test or take a biology course after enrolling? Why, for example, should the students start at a non-UC college and later transfer to UC if they are deficient only in biology? Transfer students may have problems because the courses at the non-UC school may not be well-coordinated with UC’s courses (though transfer-program courses at California community colleges are coordinated with UC’s courses). Anyway — GET THIS — junior-level UC transfer students are not required to satisfy the a-g high school course requirements by taking college courses in missing subjects! Only lower-division UC transfer students are required to take the missing high school subjects:

Lower division transfer
- – - – - – - – -
If you met the Scholarship Requirement in high school but did not satisfy the 15-course Subject Requirement, you must take transferable college courses in the missing subjects, earn a C or better in each required course and have an overall C (2.0) average in all transferable coursework to be eligible to transfer. –from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/transfer/tr_adm_reqs.html

No such requirement is stated for junior-level transfer students, so this transfer proposal would be a way of evading the a-g course requirements entirely.

“I’m always kicking their butts — that’s why they don’t like me.”
– Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
#107 Q
April 6, 2008

Larry comments:
Why, for example, should the students start at a non-UC college and later transfer to UC if they are deficient only in biology?

Because them’s the rules, and those are legimitate rules.

You made the observation that junior-level transfer students have different acceptance criteria than lower-level transfer students. So? Are you arguing based on “fairness”, or because there is something fundamentally wrong with differing requirements? The basis for your suggestion is important, because as you are mentioning, until those students can prove their mettle in earning an associates degree they are still not junior-level, so the existing rules state that the students are still bound by the lower-level transfer requirements, specifically in “the missing subjects”.

Larry, suggesting that they should take a remediation class after isn’t the same as presenting a sound argument. It is just making a suggestion – one of many that could be proposed. I’m pointing out that for soundness, you need to show why your suggestion is more proper than the existing rules – i.e. receiving remediation before admission. “Fairness” could be one argument (but extremely weak, since it is so subjective). “Discrimination” could be another, but as you’ve said on April 5, 2008 3:42 PM , it doesn’t apply since religious discrimination isn’t the argument. Do you have an objective reason that the legitimate rules should be modified for these ignorant students?

Are we just going in circles on this?
#108 Larry Fafarman
April 6, 2008

Q,

You missed my points entirely.

If teaching or learning evolution in the fundy schools is contrary to religious beliefs and some fundy students flunk the SAT AP Biology Test because of ignorance about evolution, then allowing those fundy students to take a college biology course after UC enrollment would be accommodating religious beliefs. The Supreme Court said that the government should make reasonable efforts to accommodate religious beliefs.

The basis for your suggestion is important, because as you are mentioning, until those students can prove their mettle in earning an associates degree they are still not junior-level, so the existing rules state that the students are still bound by the lower-level transfer requirements, specifically in “the missing subjects”.

I can’t understand what you are trying to say here. My point is that if the fundy students enter UC as junior-level transfer students, they would not be required to repeat biology, thus defeating the purpose of the proposed transfer solution.

Are we just going in circles on this?

You are the one who is causing us to go in circles.
#109 tomh
April 6, 2008

Larry Fafarman wrote: The Supreme Court said that the government should make reasonable efforts to accommodate religious beliefs.

You certainly have a tortured definition of the word reasonable. Instead of forcing colleges to accept unqualified students, thereby displacing qualified ones, why not just accept the fact that students should be qualified before they are accepted. That would be reasonable.
#110 Mary
April 6, 2008

In his struggle to justify admitting Calvary Chapel students at all costs, whether or not they are the most qualified applicants (or even minimally qualified at all), Larry is overlooking one important fact: UC may not share this priority.

As part of the preparation for its expert reports, UC actually looked at the records of students who graduated from ACSI-affiliated schools. Even though these particular students did meet the minimal standards for admissions that Larry finds so unfair, they were significantly poorer students than public school students from similar backgrounds in many important measures: more likely to drop out, longer time to graduation, lower grade point average, and so on. This is exactly what one would expect from students who received a poor high school education that didn’t properly prepare them for the demands of a university education.

UC is in the business of taking the best of the best among all California students and turning them into the best-educated graduates it can. It doesn’t do remedial education, and it doesn’t have any particular interest in accepting students who are philosophically opposed to so much of what a university education is all about.
#111 Q
April 6, 2008

Larry mentions:
My point is that if the fundy students enter UC as junior-level transfer students, they would not be required to repeat biology, thus defeating the purpose of the proposed transfer solution.

Larry, by comparing fundy students without even an adequate high-school education to juniors in college you show that you don’t really understand the problem. It isn’t about UC graduating people with biology training. It is about meeting criteria for acceptance to UC, based upon the curricula that the students have studied. People entering as juniors have demonstrated the ability to study and succeed in building a suitable foundation with accepted curricula. The students in this case have done no such thing.

Do we need to keep circling back to the real issues?
#112 Q
April 6, 2008

I separated this point, where Larry said:
If teaching or learning evolution in the fundy schools is contrary to religious beliefs and some fundy students flunk the SAT AP Biology Test because of ignorance about evolution, then allowing those fundy students to take a college biology course after UC enrollment would be accommodating religious beliefs.
So, are you arguing that they denied admission because of their religion or their preparation?

The case was ruled that it was because of their preparation. That they did not meet the requirements of admission is indisputable.

Besides, there are many means of accomodating those students. There are even four methods to gain acceptance identified in the case, any one of which can accomodate those students. Methinks you misunderstand the bounds of necessary accomodation.

Regardless of the words you pick to frame your argument, your argument that they should be admitted before being qualified has no backing and still holds no water.
#113 Larry Fafarman
April 6, 2008

You people just keep wasting my time by raising arguments that are blatantly false, unsupported, or straw men:

tomh said,

Instead of forcing colleges to accept unqualified students,

These fundy students might be “unqualified” in just one small area, knowledge of evolution (I don’t know). Some UC entrants do not take high school biology (they can take physics and chemistry instead) and some who do take high school biology do not study evolution.

Mary moaned,

Even though these particular students did meet the minimal standards for admissions that Larry finds so unfair, they were significantly poorer students than public school students from similar backgrounds in many important measures: more likely to drop out, longer time to graduation, lower grade point average, and so on.

And Q quibbled,

People entering as juniors have demonstrated the ability to study and succeed in building a suitable foundation with accepted curricula. The students in this case have done no such thing.

Sigh. For the THIRD time in this thread,

An article titled “Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?”, by the Association of Christian Schools International, said the following about a meeting between UC personnel, Christian school personnel, and attorneys on both sides of the issue (page 3):
When asked whether poor college performance by students from religious schools prompted the rejection of the textbooks, UC representatives responded negatively. They also acknowledged that UC did not have any objective evidence that students from religious schools are deficient in science when they arrive for their freshman year of college. — from http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_1.%20Overview%20of%20ACSI%20Law%20Suit.pdf

The case was ruled that it was because of their preparation. That they did not meet the requirements of admission is indisputable.

Wrong. This case is not over yet.
#114 tomh
April 6, 2008

This case is not over yet.

How’s it going so far?
#115 Q
April 7, 2008

Larry tried to provide:
An article titled “Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?”, by the Association of Christian Schools International, said …
Can we stick with the ruling and the facts contained therein?
#116 Larry Fafarman
April 7, 2008

How’s it going so far?

Are you asking about how the case is going along, or why it has lasted so long?

The lawsuit was filed way back in August 2005. ACSI told me that UC alone has submitted 350,000 pages of materials. UC alone has 8 expert witnesses — see
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/

BTW, I discovered that I was mistaken when I said that the above webpage does not mention the latest ruling — it is mentioned at the top. I missed it because it is not in the list of documents at the bottom.

The case is finally starting to roll. ACSI told me that the case will probably now go to a jury.

In the Selman v. Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook-sticker case, the appeals court took 16 months just to vacate and remand the decision because of missing evidence. The courts have become slower than molasses at the South Pole in a midwinter cold snap.

BTW, it is noteworthy that “[t]he University did not move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ challenges to several specific course approval decisions.” — see
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/courtdecisionsummary_033108.pdf

UC’s decision to not move for summary judgment on those challenges is almost an admission of guilt.
#117 Larry Fafarman
April 7, 2008

Q said,

Larry tried to provide:
An article titled “Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?”, by the Association of Christian Schools International, said …
Can we stick with the ruling and the facts contained therein?

No. There is nothing wrong with citing results of an official meeting between representatives of the plaintiffs and UC. Can you show me anything in the ruling or elsewhere that contradicts what I quoted from the ACSI article?
#118 Mary
April 7, 2008

Careful, Larry: you’re forgetting the party line.

You imply above that Calvary Chapel’s goal in trying to get the disputed classes certified by UC was to protect the religious freedom of its students by allowing them to qualify for college admissions without actually learning anything about mainstream biology, history, literary criticism, or anything else that might challenge their religious training. (It may surprise you that I agree with you that this is precisely what Calvary Chapel was trying to accomplish.)

Unfortunately for their lawsuit, the only way the classes could accomplish this purpose was to omit the objectionable material by choosing textbooks that failed to address the mainstream academic consensus. Now the judge has agreed that UC is perfectly within its rights to fail to certify courses that don’t adequately cover (by UC’s standards) the mainstream academic consensus.

Or maybe you prefer to argue today that the classes did adequately cover the mainstream academic consensus, after all? In which case, of course, your religious freedom argument for allowing the students to substitute the disputed courses for normal college-prep courses disappears–both courses would be covering much the same material–and the only issue is which course covers it most thoroughly.
#119 Voice in the Urbanness
April 7, 2008

As usual, the argument goes on over Larry’s head and he just restates his old positions in the false belief that they contain some sort of logical argument. He further pretends that since he can’t defeat the arguments that are raised against him, the arguments haven’t been made.

“The Supreme Court said that the government should make reasonable efforts to accommodate religious beliefs.”

This does not mean that flat earth theories need to be included in geology courses.

“I can’t understand what you are trying to say here.”

Do you ever?

> If teaching or learning evolution in the fundy schools is contrary to religious beliefs and some fundy students flunk the SAT AP Biology Test because of ignorance about evolution <

Religion often has its costs. Perhaps these students can consider themselves martyrs.

We are always kicking Larry’s butt. That’s why he doesn’t like us.
#120 Larry Fafarman
April 7, 2008

Mary moans,

You imply above that Calvary Chapel’s goal in trying to get the disputed classes certified by UC was to protect the religious freedom of its students by allowing them to qualify for college admissions without actually learning anything about mainstream biology, history, literary criticism, or anything else that might challenge their religious training.

Do you have a serious argument to make? The judge can’t just get up there and say that he just hates fundies and rule accordingly.

As for courses other than biology, we don’t know enough about them to pass judgment. In regard to such courses as “Christianity in American History,” the fundies claim that UC accredited non-Christian courses with a similar narrow focus. I think that one factor that should be considered is how many of the fundy-type courses a particular student takes. One or two may be OK, but several may be bad.

If UC’s position is so strong, then why did UC decide to not move for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ challenges to several specific course approval decisions? That decision is almost an admission of guilt.

As usually, ViU just makes some breathtakingly inane comments which illustrate the utter bankruptcy of his position.
#121 W. Kevin Vicklund
April 7, 2008

When asked whether poor college performance by students from religious schools prompted the rejection of the textbooks, UC representatives responded negatively. They also acknowledged that UC did not have any objective evidence that students from religious schools are deficient in science when they arrive for their freshman year of college.

See, even the plaintiffs admit that UC was not discriminating on the basis of religion.

How this observation is supposed to help the plaintiffs’ case is beyond ken.

If the question had been whether students who used these books as primary texts were deficient in science… well, that’s a whole nother ballgame.

BTW, it is noteworthy that “[t]he University did not move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ challenges to several specific course approval decisions.” — see
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/courtdecisionsummary_033108.pdf

UC’s decision to not move for summary judgment on those challenges is almost an admission of guilt.

No, it’s an admission that the two parties can’t agree on facts dispositive of the case, such as whether the textbooks meet UC standards. Summary judgment can’t be issued under those circumstances. You see, smart lawyers don’t file frivolous motions – it tends to piss off the judges. Of course, since you admit to not only having filed frivolous lawsuits, but actually perjuring yourself in the process, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
#122 Voice in the Urbanness
April 7, 2008

Larry bleats:

As usually, ViU just makes some breathtakingly inane comments which illustrate the utter bankruptcy of his position.

I want to thank you Larry for giving such a perfect example of my observation about you. If you have no answer, you just pretend that no argument has been made.

Kevin,

Why waste your time? You have proven many times that Larry has no understanding of law and court practices.
#123 W. Kevin Vicklund
April 7, 2008

Here’s a hypothetical situation detailing how summary judgment works:

A traffic camera catches Larry Jones running a red light. Mr. Jones decides to fight the ticket. Larry makes the following claims: the light was not red when he entered the intersection, and that the pictures from the traffic camera violate his constitutional rights and should be inadmissible as evidence. The city claims that the pictures clearly show that he entered the intersection after the light turned red and that they are admissible as evidence.

Larry then files for summary judgment on the basis that if the traffic camera is unconstitutional as a matter of law, the city has no evidence upon which to prosecute and the case would not require a trial to determine the facts. The city can only file for partial summary judgment because even if their evidence is ruled admissible, there is a material issue of fact as to whether Mr. Jones entered the intersection before or after the light turned red.
#124 Larry Fafarman
April 7, 2008

Kevin Vicklund said,

See, even the plaintiffs admit that UC was not discriminating on the basis of religion.

WHAT? Where in the hell did the plaintiffs say that?

If the question had been whether students who used these books as primary texts were deficient in science… well, that’s a whole nother ballgame.

That is — or should be — one of the questions.

UC’s decision to not move for summary judgment on those challenges is almost an admission of guilt.
No, it’s an admission that the two parties can’t agree on facts dispositive of the case, such as whether the textbooks meet UC standards.

If they agreed on that, there would be no lawsuit. One of the reasons why they can’t agree on that is that the plaintiffs think that UC’s standards are wrong.

Summary judgment can’t be issued under those circumstances.

Wrong. The part of the definition of “summary judgment” that says that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” only means that one side has convinced the judge(s) that there is no such issue and does not necessarily mean that the other side agrees that there is no such issue.

Anyway, what material facts are disputed in the case? I mean facts, not opinions. For example, the dispute over what the UC’s standards should be is a dispute over opinion, not a dispute over claims about fact.

You see, smart lawyers don’t file frivolous motions – it tends to piss off the judges.

And smart commenters don’t post frivolous comments like you do — it tends to piss off the blogger and other commenters.

Of course, since you admit to not only having filed frivolous lawsuits

My lawsuits against California’s “smog impact fee” were not frivolous. The state courts eventually declared the fee to be unconstitutional. A former top California auto-emissions agency official testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA, showing that I properly filed my lawsuits in the federal courts (a fact which I had already shown in my legal arguments). I am getting really tired of going over this again and again.

Anyway, IMO my proposed solution — that students claiming credit for the fundy biology course be required to either get a satisfactory score on the SAT AP Biology Test or take a college biology course after enrolling — is fair and practical. If fundy students can pass the SAT AP Biology Test without knowledge of evolution, then good for them (students from public schools are allowed to pass the test without knowledge of evolution). The court is just wasting time and money by pursuing this further. The court is taking time away from cases that have a lower profile.

ViU says that if he posts a comment saying that bears don’t shit in the woods, I am ducking the comment when I don’t answer him.
#125 Q
April 7, 2008

Larry suggests Anyway, IMO my proposed solution — that students claiming credit for the fundy biology course be required to either get a satisfactory score on the SAT AP Biology Test or take a college biology course after enrolling — is fair and practical.

Let’s suppose, strictly for the sake of argument, that we don’t disagree about whether it is a fair and practical solution. But, also suppose that the law doesn’t require the solution, and as well, allows for different solutions, like admissions requirements being met before admission.

You’d get your approval of “Yes, Larry, you had a good idea” but still get no victory. Is that what you are really going after – recognition that you had a good idea?

BTW, Larry, you brought up the notion that the students should be allowed to pass the SAT AP test. It is one method specifically provided for in the case. Page 4 of 51: “A student may demonstrate proficiency in an A-G Subject by acheiving a sufficiently high grade or score: (c) on the corresponding SAT II subject test, or (d) on the International Baccalaureate or Advanced Placement exams.” Also note that the requirement of before admission already exists in the same section “(b) in a college course at an accredited university”

Did they or didn’t they pass any of the tests with sufficiently high scores?
#126 Larry Fafarman
April 7, 2008

Q, you make me repeat myself over and over and over and over. Why can’t you just read the comments I have already made in this thread and use your noggin to cobble together my answers to your points and questions. You could take a tip from the Clergy Letter Project:

We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

So you are rejecting the will of the creator and committing an act of hubris.

Let’s suppose, strictly for the sake of argument, that we don’t disagree about whether it is a fair and practical solution. But, also suppose that the law doesn’t require the solution

The courts often make decisions that are not expressly required by law.

allows for different solutions, like admissions requirements being met before admission.

It has never been established that the fundy students do not meet the requirements before admission. Evolution education is not required for admission. High school biology is not required for admission (students may take physics and chemistry instead). Many public-school graduates get UC credit for high school biology courses that did not include evolution. There is no proof that the fundy students did not study evolution (the BJU textbooks have a section on evolution — I don’t know about the A Beka Book textbooks). If the fundy students claim credit for the biology course and are just deficient in knowledge of evolution (which has not even been proven), it is not fair to force them to either (1) apply through special admissions programs (top 2-4% of high school grads) or (2) start at another university or college and then transfer to UC (ironically, if they transfer as juniors they will not be required to repeat biology).

You’d get your approval of “Yes, Larry, you had a good idea” but still get no victory.

I still get a victory.

BTW, Larry, you brought up the notion that the students should be allowed to pass the SAT AP test. It is one method specifically provided for in the case.

Yes, I know that. However, not studying evolution because it is against the religious beliefs at the fundy schools could cause the fundies to fail the SAT AP Biology Test, and for that reason I suggested that if they fail the test, they be allowed to enroll upon condition that they take a college course in biology.

Did they or didn’t they pass any of the tests with sufficiently high scores?

Presumably they have not taken the SAT AP Biology Test because taking this test has not been established as a requirement for UC applicants who claim credit for the fundy biology courses.
#127 Bill Carter
April 7, 2008

Larry eructs:

“And smart commenters don’t post frivolous comments like you do

We have seen these exchanges between Larry and Kevin on Larry’s blog before Larry went to monitoring and even heavier censorship than before. As we will see, Kevin’s weapons are knowledge and facts while Larry’s only weapon is endless repetition:

“I am getting really tired of going over this again and again.”

I would make a suggestion, Larry. If you don’t understand, or can’t answer Kevin’s arguments, don’t make a bigger fool of yourself by repeating the same tired garbage.

I have known Larry over 50 years, which is why Larry doesn’t want me on his blog. I am able to point out the difference between what he says he has done and what he actually does. In the smog fee case, for example, Larry has failed to mention the efforts of those on his own side to exclude him and his disruptive efforts from their cause. In one case an advocate asked him to stop emailing. Larry immediately blew up and insisted that the only possible reason that person would ask this was to intentionally annoy him. Larry’s answer was to spam the man’s email. They eventually won their case despite Larry’s efforts.

Larry has never forgiven the public for not recognizing his contributions to their welfare. He once erupted at the patrons in a restaurant for not giving him proper respect for his efforts on their behalf.

You can see why Larry doesn’t want anyone who “claims to know him” on his site. One of the specific pieces of information he doesn’t want out is where he lives. He didn’t seem to have a problem with this until I noted a problem on his blog. Larry’s blog is inhabited by a large number of his sock puppets. Some times he has even forgotten this and gotten into heated arguments with himself. One of the features on his blog is the ability to find who has been on and from where. I pointed that a very large number of the “people” posting just happened to be from his area, were all using the same operating system, and even had the same screen setting. It was then that Larry had a problem with his address being known, not before. At the same time, Larry has accused every one who opposes him, including Kevin, of being a sock puppet of Ed Brayton.

Larry seems to have a problem with logic. He states:

“A former top California auto-emissions agency official testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA, showing that I properly filed my lawsuits in the federal courts…”

Sorry Larry. The opinion of one witness that a part of your filing was accurate does not mean that you had standing to sue, which the judge determined that you did not. I am sure that Kevin will give more details on this as he has time and time again on other blogs.

I don’t feel particularly good about jumping on Larry like this and admit to often reading his posts out of a feeling of schadenfreude, but I would really like to see him get well. As long as he fails to realize that he has a problem, he won’t get the care he needs.

In the mean time, let’s all congratulate PBS. Their coverage of the Kitzmiller trial with its exposure of the creationists’ antics has just won a Peabody Award.
#128 Larry Fafarman
April 8, 2008

Bill Carter driveled,

The opinion of one witness that a part of your filing was accurate does not mean that you had standing to sue, which the judge determined that you did not.

Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter determined nothing, idiot. There was no oral hearing and no written opinion. There was no evidence that he ever read the briefs. Defendant California did not even attempt to answer my argument that the state had “left the sphere that was exclusively its own” (Parden v. Terminal Railway) by basing the fee entirely on the state’s special status under federal emissions laws and regulations. It is because the courts waste so much time on high-profile lawsuits such as this one — ACSI v. Stearns — that the courts have no time to spend on low-profile lawsuits.

My lawsuits are off-topic here. I brought up my smog impact fee lawsuits only because troll Kevin Vicklund raised the issue of my lawsuits. Where in the hell are you, Mike? Why in the hell aren’t you moderating this blog? Why is it that you always jump on me and no one else? If you are going to let these trolls attack me here, then you ought to let me respond here. Otherwise you are just one big lousy hypocrite.
#129 Q
April 8, 2008

Larry asks
Q, you make me repeat myself over and over and over and over. Why can’t you just read the comments I have already made in this thread and use your noggin to cobble together my answers to your points and questions.

Larry I’ve read your points. I can conclude only that you are wrong. Totally wrong.

And, I don’t make you do anything. You get credit for your own actions.

Larry boasts
I still get a victory.

Of the hollow variety.
#130 Larry Fafarman
April 8, 2008

Q said,

Larry I’ve read your points. I can conclude only that you are wrong. Totally wrong.

Instead of just referring to my previous comments, I went to the considerable trouble of repeating my arguments, but you have not responded to any of my repeated arguments. And my arguments — unlike so many of the opposing arguments I have seen in this thread — are not frivolous. So you lose the debate by default.
#131 W. Kevin Vicklund
April 8, 2008

My lawsuits are off-topic here. I brought up my smog impact fee lawsuits only because troll Kevin Vicklund raised the issue of my lawsuits.

This is a blatant lie. I first posted on this thread on April 7th. You brought up your lawsuits long before I began posting here. You were the one prattling on about them as if they were on topic. Here’s the proof, excerpts of some of the times you brought up your lawsuits.

This lawsuit was filed way back in Aug. 2005 and is finally getting rolling. ACSI told me that UC submitted 350,000 pages of materials! ACSI told me that the case will likely go to a jury now. Time that courts spend on high-profile cases takes time away from low-profile cases. If you ever had your lawsuit totally ignored by the courts (obviously you haven’t), and it takes a hell of a lot of time, effort, and sometimes money (if you hire a lawyer) to sue in court, you would know what I mean. When I sued California and the US EPA in federal court over the flagrantly unconstitutional $300 smog impact fee on incoming out-of-state federally certified vehicles (this fee was eventually thrown out by the state courts), I argued that California had lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity by “leaving the sphere that was exclusively its own” (Parden v. Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks Dept.) by basing the fee entirely on the state’s special status under federal auto-emissions laws. California did not even attempt to rebut that argument. My lawsuit was thrown out by Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter without an oral hearing and without a written opinion! I was later vindicated when a top former California auto-emissions agency official testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA! So I am not interested in listening to your crap about how to complicate the ACSI v. Stearns case.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 5, 2008 4:13 AM

No, bozo, there were no grounds. As I said, there was no oral hearing and no written opinion. There is no shred of evidence that the Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter ever read the briefs in the case.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 5, 2008 3:42 PM

Don’t expect the court to follow any rules — as I said, my lawsuit in this court was thrown out without an oral hearing and without a written opinion, even though I had an airtight argument which defendant California did not even attempt to rebut.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 6, 2008 2:24 AM

Since you have made it a topic and Mike has not said anything about it, I feel it is fair game.
#132 Voice in the Urbanness
April 8, 2008

Larry brays:

> Judge TJ “Mad” Hatter determined nothing, idiot. < Larry's usual position. If he doesn't agree with something, it just didn't happen. Are you trying to say that the judge didn't even recognize that you were on the calendar? Then how did he render his decision (which is public record)?

> There was no oral hearing and no written opinion. There was no evidence that he ever read the briefs. Defendant California did not even attempt to answer my argument… < As I said before, if a decapitated body arrives at a hospital emergency room, they rarely check for a pulse, let alone signs of kidney failure.

> If you are going to let these trolls attack me here, then you ought to let me respond here.< It seems that you are responding. What is your point? Do you want this blog to be as censored as your own?

> Instead of just referring to my previous comments, I went to the considerable trouble of repeating my arguments < Proving my point. If you are losing an argument, you just repeat yourself.

> but you have not responded to any of my repeated arguments. <

Then why are his responses still on the blog?

And your arguments are frivolous.

I see that Kevin has shot you out of the water, as he always does. Perhaps if you tried to argue your points and respond to others rather than repeat, name call, and pretend that arguments against your position are not made, you might occasionally win. After all even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.
#133 W. Kevin Vicklund
April 8, 2008

If the question had been whether students who used these books as primary texts were deficient in science… well, that’s a whole nother ballgame.

That is — or should be — one of the questions.

I agree that it should have been – it’s not my fault the ACSI lawyers are incompetent. The point is, it wasn’t asked, and the question that was asked has no relevancy to the issue. A classic example of begging the question.

UC’s decision to not move for summary judgment on those challenges is almost an admission of guilt.

No, it’s an admission that the two parties can’t agree on facts dispositive of the case, such as whether the textbooks meet UC standards.

If they agreed on that, there would be no lawsuit. One of the reasons why they can’t agree on that is that the plaintiffs think that UC’s standards are wrong.

No, the question of whether the two parties agree on the textbook meeting the standards is independent of whether the parties agree on the correctness of the standards.

Summary judgment can’t be issued under those circumstances.

Wrong. The part of the definition of “summary judgment” that says that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” only means that one side has convinced the judge(s) that there is no such issue and does not necessarily mean that the other side agrees that there is no such issue.

While I glossed over the “genuine” part for the sake of simplicity (though it was implicit in the remark on frivolous motions), you are incorrect. It means that one side was unable to convince the judge that there might be such an issue, not the other way around (acknowledging the fact that the opposing party may have brought the flaw to the judge’s attention). See Rule 12(b)(6) (Larry’s favorite rule to misinterpret) for details.

Anyway, what material facts are disputed in the case? I mean facts, not opinions. For example, the dispute over what the UC’s standards should be is a dispute over opinion, not a dispute over claims about fact.

As I already said, one such dispute is whether the textbooks meet UC standards. ACSI claims that they meet the standards and merely added a religious perspective. UC claims that they don’t meet the standards regardless of the religious perspective. Since both sides have expert witnesses prepared to defend the respective positions, there is a material issue of fact. It should also be noted that the distinction is between matters of fact and matters of law, not fact and opinion. Larry again shows his striking unfamilarity with legal concepts, belying his claim of expertise.

Anyway, IMO my proposed solution — that students claiming credit for the fundy biology course be required to either get a satisfactory score on the SAT AP Biology Test or take a college biology course after enrolling — is fair and practical. If fundy students can pass the SAT AP Biology Test without knowledge of evolution, then good for them (students from public schools are allowed to pass the test without knowledge of evolution). The court is just wasting time and money by pursuing this further. The court is taking time away from cases that have a lower profile.

And I argue that it is less fair than the UC-alternative that the judge has already ruled in favor of. For one thing, requiring students to take an imaginary exam (as Larry has been told numerous times, there is no such thing as the SAT AP Biology test; the SAT II Biology and the AP Biology are separate exams) in order to get in is reprehensible. But that is merely an attack on Larry’s stupidity and inability to correct his errors. If we asume that Larry was actually referring to the various possible exams permitted by UC, I would still say it’s unfair, because it requires the students to take a specific route, rather than take all the options UC has made available to them. Larry also argues that requiring them to take the college level course after admission is a reasonable accomodation of religion, but that allowing them to take it before admission is not. This is not fair in any means. How does taking the class before admission not accomodate the religious views if taking it after does? What happens if the the student gets straight A’s in all the other classes, but fails biology class? They either get thrown out, which isn’t fair to the student because it is a major black mark on the academic record, or they are allowed to continue, which means that the “accomodation” merely eliminates one of the admission requirements and is unfair to all the other students who didn’t have the advantage of being of that religion (not to mention being unconstitutional, as it acts as an endorsement of religion). It is much fairer to the student going in to know they have met all requirements for admission so as to not have a single class acting as a Sword of Damocles. Larry also makes a big deal over the “least-burdensome alternative.” His alternative is not, in fact the least-burdensome alternative. If one’s religion does not permit one to learn biology properly, the least-burdensome alternative is to have alternates to taking biology. Thus, the least-burdensome alternative is to allow students to take other classes to satisfy the science requirement – which UC already does. The fact that UC also permits slightly-more-burdensome alternatives is gravy. It should also be pointed out that the standard is actually that the government can’t impose a substantial burden. Least-burdensome only arises in the event that the government has a compelling state interest to impose a substantial burden. This is known as the Sherbert Test, and has been codified under US Code 42�2000bb by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Larry also makes a fundamental error. The issue (from UC’s view) is not that the class doesn’t teach evolution properly, it’s that it doesn’t teach biology as a whole (including but not limited to evolution) properly, nor does it teach science properly [this is one of the material issues of fact that the judge found in his ruling]. It is impossible to pass the AP Biology test without knowledge of evolution – evolution makes up 75% of the test, as Larry so conveniently cut-and-pasted. It is possible to pass the test without realizing that you have knowledge of evolution, however, because often teachers avoid acknowledging that they are in fact teaching evolution.
#134 Larry Fafarman
April 8, 2008

Kevin Vicklund said,

You brought up your lawsuits long before I began posting here. You were the one prattling on about them as if they were on topic.

OK, that was a ways back. But I brought up my smog impact fee lawsuits for an ON-TOPIC purpose, whereas you brought them up for the sole purpose of attacking me personally. I brought them up as an example — from personal experience — of how courts ignore low-profile cases because they waste too much time and effort on high-profile cases such as this one. My smog impact fee lawsuits obviously had merit — the state courts later declared the fee to be unconstitutional and a former top California auto-emissions agency official — who should know more about the subject than some despicable jackass Jones-type judges, don’t you think? — testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA, meaning that my lawsuits belonged in federal court. California made no attempt to answer my argument that the state lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity because it “left the sphere that was exclusively its own” (Parden v. Terminal Railway) by basing the fee entirely on its special status under federal laws and regulations, and there was NO oral hearing and NO written opinion. There was not a shred of evidence that the judge ever read the briefs. You think that judges are always right and I am always wrong. I hope that someday you get your sorry ass kicked very hard in court (that goes for you too, Bill Carter) so that you know what it feels like. You and your pal Bill Carter can now slink off with your tails between your legs and crawl back into your holes.
#135 tomh
April 8, 2008

high-profile cases such as this one

Hard to see how this is a high profile case when this recent development has been completely ignored by the media.

Although others have pointed it out you don’t seem to realize that this ruling rejected every single claim made by the plaintiffs. The court stopped just short of calling them liars and con men and even used the term “straw man” referring to one of their claims. You really should read the ruling as it was written rather than how you wish it had been written.

It’s very possible that the deep pockets who fund this kind of creationist wishful thinking will realize that this case is a complete non-starter and total waste of money and will pull the plug on the whole thing. They haven’t even been able to get any publicity so that they could whine about religious discrimination, which is always one of the main reasons for filing suits like these. Of course, the usual suspects like Wendell Bird, Michael Behe, and the rest have already lined their pockets and are, no doubt, ready to move on to Florida, Texas, or wherever the next berry patch is that’s ripe for picking.
#136 Larry Fafarman
April 8, 2008

Kevin Vicklund said,

If the question had been whether students who used these books as primary texts were deficient in science… well, that’s a whole nother ballgame.

That is — or should be — one of the questions.

I agree that it should have been — it’s not my fault the ACSI lawyers are incompetent. The point is, it wasn’t asked,

That question was asked at the pretrial meeting between UC and the plaintiffs — how do we know that the question wasn’t asked in court?

and the question that was asked has no relevancy to the issue

What is that other question?

No, the question of whether the two parties agree on the textbook meeting the standards is independent of whether the parties agree on the correctness of the standards.

Did I ever say otherwise?

It means that one side was unable to convince the judge that there might be such an issue, not the other way around

Whatever. My point was that your statement that a summary judgment may not be issued unless both sides agree on the facts is wrong.

As I already said, one such dispute is whether the textbooks meet UC standards.

No, that is a dispute over opinion, not fact.

Since both sides have expert witnesses prepared to defend the respective positions, there is a material issue of fact.

No, the presence of expert witnesses does not necessarily mean that there is a dispute over fact (though there may be disputes over fact in this case).

And I argue that it is less fair than the UC-alternative that the judge has already ruled in favor of.

What are you talking about? The judge has not ruled in favor of any alternative yet.

as Larry has been told numerous times, there is no such thing as the SAT AP Biology test; the SAT II Biology and the AP Biology are separate exams

I don’t know all the details and you might not either, but it doesn’t matter. It is a nitpicking distinction that was not raised “numerous times.”

But that is merely an attack on Larry’s stupidity and inability to correct his errors.

And you are so busy concentrating on trivial details that you miss the big issues.

If we asume that Larry was actually referring to the various possible exams permitted by UC

That is obviously what I was referring to. Duh.

I would still say it’s unfair, because it requires the students to take a specific route, rather than take all the options UC has made available to them.

WHAT? How would my proposal prevent the fundies from taking other options?

Larry also argues that requiring them to take the college level course after admission is a reasonable accomodation of religion, but that allowing them to take it before admission is not.

Where did I say that? You are just raising straw-man arguments.

What happens if the the student gets straight A’s in all the other classes, but fails biology class?

I am talking about them taking a beginning course in biology in college. And the fundies who took fundy biology in high school are probably even prepared for advanced biology courses in college.

the “accomodation” merely eliminates one of the admission requirements and is unfair to all the other students who didn’t have the advantage of being of that religion

How is it unfair? How would other students be harmed?

If one’s religion does not permit one to learn biology properly,

Sheeesh — a lot of biology students in public schools do not study evolution.

The issue (from UC’s view) is not that the class doesn’t teach evolution properly, it’s that it doesn’t teach biology as a whole (including but not limited to evolution) properly,

UC’s principal complaint is about the way the fundy biology texts treat evolution.

It is impossible to pass the AP Biology test without knowledge of evolution — evolution makes up 75% of the test, as Larry so conveniently cut-and-pasted.

Wrong — evolution specifically makes up only a relatively small part of the test — see my comment of April 3, 2008 6:20 AM.

It is possible to pass the test without realizing that you have knowledge of evolution, however, because often teachers avoid acknowledging that they are in fact teaching evolution.

Wrong — how could a teacher be teaching evolution without knowing it — sheeesh. The teacher might be teaching topics related to evolution — e.g., genetics and population dynamics — but a teacher could hardly be unaware of those topics’ relation to evolution.

You are just making straw man and blatantly false arguments.
#137 Voice in the Urbanness
April 8, 2008

Larry snorted:

“But I brought up my smog impact fee lawsuits for an ON-TOPIC purpose, whereas you brought them up for the sole purpose of attacking me personally.”

No. It looks like everyone who is discussing it is just trying to get through to you that you are not the legal genius that you imagine yourself to be. You do not even reach the level of total ignorance since most of what you think you know is wrong.

The point is that you can’t presume to argue with an appeal to authority because you certainly are not an authority. You certainly have proved that here regardless of your laughable claims.

“I brought them up as an example — from personal experience — of how courts ignore low-profile cases because they waste too much time and effort on high-profile cases such as this one.”

Bad example. The court did not ignore you. They laughed your pathetic attempts out of court. They will spend more time on valid filings.

“My smog impact fee lawsuits obviously had merit”

Your cause had merit. Your lawsuits did not.

“California made no attempt to answer my argument…”

You can’t be that thick. They did not need to answer your argument. Your case had already been thrown out. Why should they try to resurrect it? Your boat, made out of thick lead, was sitting on the bottom of the ocean. Do people have to argue that tiny pinholes would have eventually sunk it anyway?

“and there was NO oral hearing and NO written opinion. There was not a shred of evidence that the judge ever read the briefs.”

Do we have to go through this again? The answer to that false claim has been stated here many times.

“You think that judges are always right and I am always wrong.”

No. Judges are not always right. They just happened to be in your cases. As for you always being wrong. It appears so.

“I hope that someday you get your sorry ass kicked very hard in court”

Sorry. So far I have always won, although I haven’t been in court as often as you. This is probably because judges often bend over backwards for pro se litigants.

“(that goes for you too, Bill Carter)”

I thought that you were telling us that Bill Carter doesn’t exist. This is one person that you have singled out. You are willing to believe that “Raging Bee” or “Q” or “Hector” exist but the only two you single out for non-existence are Bill Carter and your brother Dave. Ed Brayton has proven who the real Dave is on his blog and as for Bill Carter, we know from your reaction to him, that he is also real and knows you quite well.

You and your pal Bill Carter can now slink off with your tails between your legs and crawl back into your holes.

Why? We have beaten you as usual. Most everyone does.

Now you have been braying about others drifting off topic. How about you staying on topic, for a change? Try to answer Kevin’s arguments without resorting to name calling or repeating arguments that have already been turned into Swiss cheese.
#138 Larry Fafarman
April 8, 2008

(http:// prefixes removed to prevent comment from hanging up. Links must be copied and pasted)

tomh said,

Hard to see how this is a high profile case when this recent development has been completely ignored by the media.

This latest ruling has not been completely ignored by the media — it was reported by a higher-ed news service:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/01/uc

However, this ruling does appear to have been unreported by the general media, and I think that the reason for that is that this ruling is inconclusive. The ruling has not even been reported on the ACSI website (though ACSI should of course report it).

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, it was reported by big articles in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-12-christian-school_x.htm

http://www.cccsmurrieta.com/secondary/wsj.asp

So I think it can be fairly considered to be a case with a relatively high profile. Anyway, I was just talking generally about the courts giving short shrift or no shrift to some cases because the courts waste so much time on other cases. All litigants pay the same court fees and this gross disparity in the attention given different cases is grossly unfair. Litigants who want special treatment should hire their own judges, and some litigants have been doing precisely that.

Although others have pointed it out you don’t seem to realize that this ruling rejected every single claim made by the plaintiffs.

Wrong — the most important issues have not yet been decided. That’s why this ruling was largely ignored by the media.

It’s very possible that the deep pockets who fund this kind of creationist wishful thinking will realize that this case is a complete non-starter and total waste of money and will pull the plug on the whole thing.

The plaintiffs appear to be doing fairly well — UC did not move for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ challenges to several of UC’s decisions to disapprove courses.

They haven’t even been able to get any publicity so that they could whine about religious discrimination, which is always one of the main reasons for filing suits like these.

As I pointed out, they have already gotten some publicity, and they are going to get more when this case is finally decided.

ViU is wasting space here with blatantly frivolous comments. He does that on my blog too, but I generally can’t censor him because of my no-censorship policy (I do prohibit him from gossiping about my private affairs).
#139 tomh
April 8, 2008

Larry Fafarman wrote:
UC did not move for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ challenges to several of UC’s decisions to disapprove courses.

You keep bringing this up, but there’s no point in trying to get a summary judgment on an as-applied issue, in this case the specific courses. The basic reason is that the opposing party (here the religious schools) only needs to raise a colorable issue of fact, which they can do by telling any old lie, since whatever they say has to be taken as true for purposes of the motion. To spin this as a negative for UC is just silly.

The plaintiffs appear to be doing fairly well

Well, if by doing well you mean having every contested claim rejected, then I guess they’re doing well.
#140 Larry Fafarman
April 9, 2008

tomh said,

You keep bringing this up, but there’s no point in trying to get a summary judgment on an as-applied issue, in this case the specific courses. The basic reason is that the opposing party (here the religious schools) only needs to raise a colorable issue of fact, which they can do by telling any old lie, since whatever they say has to be taken as true for purposes of the motion. To spin this as a negative for UC is just silly.

So far as I can see there is no disputed issue of fact in this lawsuit — the textbooks and UC’s policies are out in the open for everyone to see. The only disputes are over opinions. So why didn’t UC dispute the plaintiffs’ opinion that disapprovals of the textbooks and the courses were not justified? And as I said, a summary judgment can be granted even when there is a dispute over an issue of fact.

Well, if by doing well you mean having every contested claim rejected, then I guess they’re doing well.

No, that is obviously not what I meant — I meant that the plaintiffs are doing fairly well because some of their biggest claims were uncontested in UC’s motions for summary judgment even though there is apparently no dispute over the facts concerning those claims.
#141 Voice in the Urbanness
April 9, 2008

Larry bleats”

“ViU is wasting space here with blatantly frivolous comments.”

In other words, Larry has no answer to the points that I raised.

“He does that on my blog too, but I generally can’t censor him because of my no-censorship policy (I do prohibit him from gossiping about my private affairs).”

What total misrepresentation! Larry censors people arbitrarily and the censored posts rarely have anything that could be considered his “private affairs”. Now he is monitoring all posts because he is afraid that something will get by that will show that he is unable to answer it, like he has been unable to answer my points here.

Now let’s try to stick to the issues:

“I meant that the plaintiffs are doing fairly well because some of their biggest claims were uncontested in UC’s motions for summary judgment”

Perhaps because they were irrelevant to those motions? You can’t assume anything from what is not mentioned. Ball scores, weather reports, etc. are usually also left out of motions for summary judgement for the same reason. Real lawyers, unlike yourself, do not throw in the kitchen sink on their motions.
#142 Larry Fafarman
April 9, 2008

ViU drivels,

“ViU is wasting space here with blatantly frivolous comments.”
In other words, Larry has no answer to the points that I raised.

No — in other words, ViU is a stupid jerk.

“I meant that the plaintiffs are doing fairly well because some of their biggest claims were uncontested in UC’s motions for summary judgment”

Perhaps because they were irrelevant to those motions?

No, stupid. What makes those claims relevant to UC’s motions is the fact that UC’s motions did not contest those claims. Those claims are relevant to UC’s motions whether UC contests those claims or not. Duh.

You can’t assume anything from what is not mentioned.

Wrong again, idiot. It is not necessary to assume anything — one could read the court documents and see that UC did not contest some of the plaintiffs’ claims. However, it is not necessary to read the court documents, because UC says,

The University did not move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ challenges to several specific course approval decisions.

– from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/courtdecisionsummary_033108.pdf

The principles “speech is silver, silence is golden” and “you have the right to remain silent” do not apply here. Nothing in the rules says that a judge cannot grant summary judgment on the opposing party’s uncontested claims. In fact, a litigant’s failure to contest a claim would be a good contributing reason for granting summary judgment on that claim.
#143 W. Kevin Vicklund
April 9, 2008

I beg indulgence while I address Larry’s off-topic discussion of his lawsuit. I will not discuss it here again.

OK, that was a ways back.

While you had brought it up well before I posted on this thread, you continued to bring it up as recently as the day before I posted.

But I brought up my smog impact fee lawsuits for an ON-TOPIC purpose, whereas you brought them up for the sole purpose of attacking me personally.

No, you brought it up as on off-topic (and erroneous) personal attack on the court system, and as an attempt to set yourself up as an authority on the legal system. I was merely returning the favor, and showing that you are not a reliable authority.

I say erroneous, because the ruling was posted on the PACER server by the end of the next business day. No, it wasn’t available for free, but most of the district court rulings are listed for free, nor are they required to be. The case is not high-profile enough to be so listed – none of the previous rulings were listed.

I brought them up as an example — from personal experience — of how courts ignore low-profile cases because they waste too much time and effort on high-profile cases such as this one.

No, you brought it up because you can’t resist the urge to bitch about how you hate the court system – just like how you can’t resist the urge to bitch about Ed Brayton. The court system does not ignore low-profile cases. They do, however, refuse to waste time on cases over which they are prohibited from considering, such as yours.

My smog impact fee lawsuits obviously had merit — the state courts later declared the fee to be unconstitutional

I’ve never disputed that the fee was unconstitutional, just that you clearly brought it up in the wrong court.

and a former top California auto-emissions agency official — who should know more about the subject than some despicable jackass Jones-type judges, don’t you think? — testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA,

The district court judge and the four 3-judge circuit panels never ruled otherwise.

meaning that my lawsuits belonged in federal court.

No, it would have meant that California didn’t have the authority to enact the fee, supporting the EPA’s claim that the fee was a tax arising under state law, not federal law, and thus not under federal jurisdiction due to the Tax Injunction Act. I would think the EPA’s top lawyers would know more about that than a pro se litigant who knows so little about the law that he called his reply briefs “objections.”

California made no attempt to answer my argument that the state lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity because it “left the sphere that was exclusively its own” (Parden v. Terminal Railway) by basing the fee entirely on its special status under federal laws and regulations,

They had already cited the Supreme Court decision that overruled your interpretation of Parden. Why should they make the same argument, especially since the EPA did respond, making a similar argument as California? Not only that, you quote-mined Parden. You claim that Parden means that a state loses sovereign immunity when it leaves it’s sphere. Here is what it actually says:

But when a State leaves the sphere that is exclusively its own and enters into activities subject to congressional regulation, it subjects itself to that regulation as fully as if it were a private person or corporation.

Parden then goes on to acknowledge that in some instances, “such regulation takes the form of authorization of lawsuits by private parties.” Some, but not all. Therefor, it was Larry’s responsibility, even under Parden, to identify whether the regulations included implied waiver of immunity. Larry failed to do this. Larry’s situation was made worse by the fact that California, the EPA, and (ironically) he himself referenced Supreme Court decisions that specified that congressional regulations must be explicit in their waiver of sovereign immunity. Neither the CAA nor the APA (the two regulations governing the subject matter) have an explicit waiver of immunity. Larry’s claim must therefor fail. But it gets worse. The CAA and APA explicitly state that state sovereign immunity is not waived. Larry was therefor barred by congressional regulation from entering a suit against California, even under Parden. To rub salt in the wound, a month after the district court judge made his decision, the Supreme Court overturned the last remnants of Parden.

It should also be noted that California did reply to his Parden argument when it went before the appeals court, which upheld the district court opinion. All in all, Larry’s lawsuits were rejected per curiam by four circuit court panels, twice by a district judge, and twice the Supreme Court declined to consider it.

and there was NO oral hearing and NO written opinion.

And according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, oral arguments are discretionary, while written opinions for Rule 12 dismissals are not required. I suggest that you contact the Judiciary Committee if you want to see a rule change. Until then, most cases that are so obviously outside of federal jurisdiction as yours will be dismissed without written opinion.

There was not a shred of evidence that the judge ever read the briefs.

There is no also no evidence that he did not read the briefs, as the results would be the same regardless.

You think that judges are always right and I am always wrong.

No, I think that you are almost always wrong, and that legal professionals know their profession a hell of a lot better than you know it. I do try to point out when you are right, because it is a noteworthy event.

I hope that someday you get your sorry ass kicked very hard in court (that goes for you too, Bill Carter) so that you know what it feels like. You and your pal Bill Carter can now slink off with your tails between your legs and crawl back into your holes.

Well, that’s what you get for perjuring yourself by demanding full refund of a fee you never actually paid. You’re lucky – if your case actually belonged in federal court, it would have been dismissed as soon as they found out that you didn’t have standing and you would be facing possible charges of perjury (and maybe some other charges). You’re also lucky you didn’t get charged with filing a frivolous lawsuit when you refiled after the Supreme Court dismissed the original appeal.
#144 Larry Fafarman
April 9, 2008

Kevin, you stupid jerk, try as hard as you might, you can’t justify what the courts did to me, so why don’t you just give up trying? I am fed up with responding to your stinking crap. You can take your goddam court rules to hell when you go there. As I said, I just hope that you get your sorry ass kicked real hard in court.

Let’s forget about me and address the real issue here — time that courts waste on some cases takes time away from other cases. True or false? In fact, that was a big issue in the recent controversy over the new national federal court rule that requires all federal courts to allow citations of unpublished opinions (though the courts are not required to recognize unpublished citations as precedent). One of the arguments against the rule was that judges would not want to spend the time required to write really good unpublished opinions because doing so would take time away from other cases and so the judges would choose to write no unpublished opinions at all. Time is a limited commodity.

if your case actually belonged in federal court, it would have been dismissed as soon as they found out that you didn’t have standing

This was a “citizen suit,” dummy. A person can file a “citizen suit” without suffering personal injury.
#145 Larry Fafarman
April 9, 2008

Anyway, Kevin, what are you trying to prove here with your phony legal arguments? Your arguments are of no significance because as I said, there is not a shred of evidence that the judge read any of the briefs. So I don’t need to waste my time responding to your phony arguments. I have better things to do.

Anyway, I brought up my smog impact fee cases here just to illustrate — from personal experience — how time that the courts waste on some cases takes time away from other cases.

You are really making yourself look like a stupid jerk.
#146 Larry Fafarman
April 9, 2008

Kevin, I have an idea. Why don’t we move this discussion to my blog where I can call you all the names I want to call you without fear of censorship?
#147 Q
April 9, 2008

Larry, no please! Keep it here. I don’t want to go hopping all around the web to follow this amazing discourse.

And please use the laguage you want to use, if it adds to the value of your presentations.
#148 Voice in the Urbanness
April 9, 2008

Larry brays:

“Those claims are relevant to UC’s motions whether UC contests those claims or not. Duh.”

You can’t be as thick as you pretend to be. Just stating that those claims are relevant, with no logic or proof, does not make them relevant no matter how many times you repeat it. Try explaining why they are relevant to the issue at hand, don’t just repeat your position in the belief that constituest further proof. No matter how many times you say 2+2=3, it won’t be any more true.

“one could read the court documents and see that UC did not contest some of the plaintiffs’ claims.”

Kevin has shot that down very effectively. The bottom line is that they did not have any reason to contest most of that drivel.

“The University did not move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ challenges to several specific course approval decisions.”

For reasons that Kevin already explained.

“Kevin, you stupid jerk, try as hard as you might, you can’t justify what the courts did to me” < .i>

He seems to be doing a first class job of explaining what you did to yourself.

“the time that courts waste on some cases takes time away from other cases.”

Yes. That’s why they have no reason to waste time on your frivolous cases. That is why you have been laughed out of court at the first appearance every time you have filed. I am surprised that you have not been declared a “vexatious litigant”.

Kevin, I have an idea. Why don’t we move this discussion to my blog where I can call you all the names I want to call you without fear of censorship?

Perhaps because he would be wasting a lot of time typing material that you would censor claiming that it had “gossip about your personal affairs”. Also with your moderating every post so you can have the last word, it is an uneven playing field. The discussion is better here where everyone can see both sides.

Congratulations Kevin. You have booted his ass over the goal posts again.
#149 Larry Fafarman
April 9, 2008

Q moaned,

And please use the laguage you want to use, if it adds to the value of your presentations.

The blogger threatened to kick me off just for using the mild epithet “dunghill” — I want to use much stronger language.

I could easily demolish Kevin Vicklund’s phony legal arguments about my smog impact fee lawsuit, but refuting him would be a big waste of time and would be seen as an admission that those arguments are relevant here. I used my lawsuit just as an example of a case that was ignored by the court — California did not answer my arguments which even that jackass Kevin conceded had at least a little merit (hey Kevin, if my arguments are so easy to refute, then why didn’t California try to do it?), and there was no hearing and no written opinion. Whether my lawsuit was ultimately valid is irrelevant. It was that #$@*&^# so-and-so Kevin who made my lawsuit a big off-topic issue in this comment thread. Even he admitted that it is grossly off-topic — he promised that he was going to make just one more comment about it and then shut up (of course, if I answer his comment he is not going to shut up). What is relevant here is the issue that the courts’ wasting of time on some cases takes time away from other cases.

If it is OK for judges to decide cases with neither oral hearings nor written opinions, then why don’t they do it more often? Why couldn’t the judge do it in this case, or why couldn’t it be done in any number of other cases? You stupid Darwinists, who think that Judge “Jackass” Jones was obligated to rule on the complex ID-as-science question just because both sides asked him to do it, think that expecting a judge to write a short opinion is asking too much. Ironically, an attorney acquaintance of mine told me that the judge in my case, TJ “Mad” Hatter, had a bad reputation for issuing judgments without opinions. As I said, now with the new national rule in place requiring federal courts to allow citations of unpublished opinions, many judges will prefer to write no unpublished opinion at all rather than write one hastily. As one judge (Kozinski?) noted, formerly an unpublished opinion was just an informal letter to the litigants informing them about why the judge decided the way he did. And as big cases like this one take more and more of the courts’ time, the courts will have less and less time to spend on other cases.

ViU wheezed,

The bottom line is that they did not have any reason to contest most of that drivel.

Wrong, idiot. By not contesting “most of that drivel,” UC risked losing the whole case. The issues were matters of opinion, not issues of fact, and so there was no reason to wait for trial-phase discovery.

The irony is that if this case goes to a jury (ACSI told me that it is likely to go to a jury), the jury’s decision will be of no help to judges in deciding similar cases, because juries do not write opinions.
#150 tomh
April 9, 2008

…if this case goes to a jury (ACSI told me that it is likely to go to a jury) …

Then they really are as dumb as they appear to be. For this kind of case, there is no right to a jury in federal court. And with the judge on top of the issues the way he is, ACSI can just call it a day.
#151 Larry Fafarman
April 10, 2008

tomh said,

For this kind of case, there is no right to a jury in federal court.

Yes, I know that and told them that. But they still insisted that this case is likely to go before a jury.
#152 tomh
April 10, 2008

Yes, I know that and told them that.

Sure you did. If you knew that much you would have understood when I explained to you why UC didn’t bother to ask for the summary judgment that you think is so important, and you would know why ACSI doesn’t have a prayer in this case. Or, I guess that’s all they have. If you want to understand the case go back and actually read the ruling without trying to make it fit all your preconceived notions.
#153 Larry Fafarman
April 10, 2008

Sure you did.

Why would I lie to you? Here is the response I got from ACSI’s director of legal/legislative issues:

I checked with our attorney, John L. Cooley regarding your jury questions. Here is his response:

Got your voice mail re the California Discrim. case and a jury. While there is no request for a monetary relief and the issues involve constitutional matters, I believe that a jury will be used to decide issues of fact. This may include special interrogatories (questions) presented by the court to the jury to decide. In addition, I would anticipate the jury would likely apply some of those facts to the jury instructions and reach other conclusions, ultimately the court will decide the questions of law. You can check with Wendell to verify, but I expect all or part of the above process will occur at the trial.
#154 Pepper
April 10, 2008

Larry says:

Anyway, allowing fundy students who flunk the SAT test to take a biology course after enrolling could be considered to be just a way of accommodating their religious beliefs. This would in principle be no different from UC’s Subject A English requirement, where students deficient in English skills are allowed to take remedial English courses after enrolling.

Firstly, do you really think that the fundies wouldn’t cry foul if UC required these students to take a college biology course? Wouldn’t that also not be unfair discrimination in their eyes since biology is not a required course for any student besides those who need it for their major (any science course would fill the general requirements)?

We’d be back here discussing a new case if that requirement ever came to fruition.

Secondly, remedial English and Math courses are usually the only remedial courses offered in universities. The reason for this is that there are many levels of proficiency and even the introductory level courses are beyond some students. The ability of individual students is assessed through SAT/ACT or college admission test scores. For example, when I enrolled in college (granted this was 13 years ago), I was allowed to start out with College Trig. and Honors English Comp I while my best friend was allowed to start out with College Algebra I and Honors English Comp I (Honors English meaning we were required to write an additional research paper to get Honors credit). The reason this is important in these specific areas is that, even at the introductory levels, a certain skill set is required to move on to the next level. I’m fairly certain that all students must have SAT or ACT or GED or college admission test scores to show where they should be placed. The remedial English and Math courses offered at university don’t depend on the high school textbooks used, just the test scores. These skills are pretty well assessed through standardized tests (You can either read or you can’t. You can either solve certain equations or you can’t.)

However, in areas like Biology and History everyone starts out on the same level (some, obviously, are smarter than others or have more background or a better memory or any number of factors) in that individual class and the “101″ courses provide a pre-req to move on if one wishes, regardless of inherent ability or high school knowledge (unless you can demonstrate gifted proficiency and understanding). There really is no “remedial Biology” or “remedial History” course at the college level. Certain skills are needed to do well and the determining factor of success in these courses is the ability to think critically and apply knowledge gained to successive, related topics. This applies to all higher level coursework, including Math and English/Literature. You either have the ability to grasp the concepts and style of thinking required for success in a university setting or you do not. This is very difficult to assess in a standardized test (unless there is a substantial essay or lab component to the test…memorization of facts says nothing except that you have a good rote memory).

The issue that UC has with specific texts is not that they promote a particular religious viewpoint, but that they do not provide sufficient critical thinking skills. That is important to a university because they have a limited amount of slots and they must fill those slots with those students that can show that they have a reasonable chance of thriving in a university setting.

The kids that attend schools which use the disapproved texts have to use other means (which are available and have been) to show that they can thrive because their high school course material doesn’t pass muster.

Finally, UC does not have an obligation to accommodate these particular religious students at the expense of all the others. They must meet the same criteria as everyone else. Yes, it is unfortunate that their parents made them attend a fundy school, but if their schools were so concerned about getting their students into UC (which I doubt…I hear they are a hotbed for liberalism and other “evils”), then they would conform to the admission requirements like every other school and/or prepare their students for “alternate” means of entry.

Secular private schools and charter schools must also provide an accredited curriculum in order for their students to be accepted to UC. Home schooled students (religious or otherwise) must also prove their mettle.

I’m not sure about UC, but many universities even allow dropouts to show that they can succeed (with or without a GED or SAT scores) by showing a research or artistic project. If dropouts can do it, why can’t fundy school kids?

The Christian persecution complex is really getting wearying. Really.
#155 Pepper
April 10, 2008

Larry says:

BTW, it is noteworthy that “[t]he University did not move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ challenges to several specific course approval decisions.” — see
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/courtdecisionsummary_033108.pdf

UC’s decision to not move for summary judgment on those challenges is almost an admission of guilt.

Wha???

UC not moving for summary judgment on their specific course requirements means that they want their requirements to be reviewed in detail. That displays confidence, not guilt.

They realized that while the judge can rule that they have the right to have requirements for admission and that the plaintiffs have not proven their case, the specifics should be judged on their constitutional merits on a case-by-case basis and that they should be able to defend their criteria on a case-by-case basis.

Moving for a summary judgment on the plaintiff’s challenges, to me, would be more of an admission of guilt because it would imply an unwillingness to have the specifics of their opinion dissected in more detail.
#156 Voice in the Urbanness
April 10, 2008

Larry brays:

“I could easily demolish Kevin Vicklund’s phony legal arguments about my smog impact fee lawsuit”

Then why have you tried and failed to do so for over a year?

“I used my lawsuit just as an example of a case that was ignored by the court”

It would have been difficult to find a poorer example. Your case received all of the attention that it deserved”

“(hey Kevin, if my arguments are so easy to refute, then why didn’t California try to do it?)”

“and there was no hearing and no written opinion.”

The answer to those questions have been given in this thread at least a half dozen times by several people. Do you ever read posts before attempting to respond to them?

“It was that #$@*&^# so-and-so Kevin who made my lawsuit a big off-topic issue in this comment thread.”

Even though you discussed it long before Kevin appeared on this blog?

“What is relevant here is the issue that the courts’ wasting of time on some cases takes time away from other cases.”

If you don’t want the courts wasting their time I would suggest that you stop filing frivolous cases. At least they didn’t waste their time by answering moot points or issuing needless written opinions.

“If it is OK for judges to decide cases with neither oral hearings nor written opinions, then why don’t they do it more often?”

Because in many cases there are interesting issues to address. That wasn’t the case here.

“Why couldn’t the judge do it in this case”

So now you want the courts to waste time? You will have to take one side or the other on this.

The bottom line is that the cases that you filed were like the Wikipedia editors said about your blog “non-notable and crappy”.

“Why would I lie to you?

In your case it appears to be pathological. You often have lied when the truth would have better served you.
#157 Mary
April 10, 2008

Getting back to the subject of the UC-Calvary Chapel lawsuit, what I find most incredible is that Calvary Chapel is apparently as clueless about the quality of their legal team as they are about the quality of their academics.

I could understand Larry, who has no legal training, not understanding the difference between the law as it is and his own fantasies about what it should be. However, Calvary Chapel’s legal team has been to law school, and presumably makes a living arguing lawsuits for their clients. Why, then, did they annoy the judge by spending some 20 pages of their brief arguing against a strawman “UC policy” that has never existed, rather than framing their argument against UC’s actual, published policies? Admittedly, as the judge agreed, UC’s actual policies don’t require blanket rejection of courses that teach a religious viewpoint, so proving discrimination would be very difficult. However, they might have at least tried to argue interpretation, rather than letting UC’s legal team win by default.

The facial challenge was by far the strongest part of Calvary Chapel’s not-very-strong case. Now that the judge has ruled that UC is well within its rights to examine high school coursework for content and rigor and base admissions on the courses a student has taken, they’re left with trying to prove that their courses were academically rigorous. This will be very difficult, because they have to use UC’s definition of academic worth, not their own.

Furthermore, as the case proceeds, they will be risking having their school branded as “that so-called prep school where the academics are so bad the kids can’t even apply to a decent college without remedial work”. That could be an even worse blow to their budget than the money they’re pouring into legal fees.
#158 Bill Carter
April 10, 2008

The amazing thing is that while Larry is a creationist, he doesn’t believe in creation in the way that the fundies do. He believes that the creators were the same little green men that he believes write, produce, and distribute the Los Angeles Times and the World Almanac.
#159 Larry Fafarman
April 11, 2008

Pepper said,

Firstly, do you really think that the fundies wouldn’t cry foul if UC required these students to take a college biology course?

If fundy students who claim credit for the fundy biology course flunk the SAT Biology Test, then I don’t see how anyone can complain about a requirement that they repeat biology.

Evolution might be the only area of deficiency of the fundy students who took the fundy biology courses — I don’t know. The BJU texts at least have a short section of about 15 pages on evolution.

Secondly, remedial English and Math courses are usually the only remedial courses offered in universities.

UC presumably offers elementary biology courses for students who did not take biology in high school. UC admission requirements allow students to take chemistry and physics instead of biology.

The issue that UC has with specific texts is not that they promote a particular religious viewpoint, but that they do not provide sufficient critical thinking skills.

There is no proof of that. UC said it had no objective evidence that the fundy students are unprepared to study science at the college level.

Possibly the worst thing about the BJU textbooks is the introduction, which says,

Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling. This book was not written for them . . . . .
The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second . . . . . . . . . To the best of the author’s knowledge, the conclusions drawn from observable facts and presented in this book agree with the Scriptures . . . .
The same encyclopedia article may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a “scientific” explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These statements are conclusions based on “supposed science.” If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.

Pepper said,

UC not moving for summary judgment on their specific course requirements means that they want their requirements to be reviewed in detail.

If UC had a really strong case, there would be no need to review the specific course disapprovals in detail.

Mary moaned,

I could understand Larry, who has no legal training,

What is this “no legal training” crap? That is just an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.

BTW, do you have any legal training? Not that it matters, but I am just curious.

Furthermore, as the case proceeds, they will be risking having their school branded as “that so-called prep school where the academics are so bad the kids can’t even apply to a decent college without remedial work”.

How many times do I have to repeat that UC said that it had no objective evidence that the fundy students are unprepared to study science at the college level?

The facial challenge was by far the strongest part of Calvary Chapel’s not-very-strong case.

Now you are really talking through your hat. You just criticized the plaintiffs’ attorneys for making what you call a “facial challenge” and now you say that this facial challenge was by far the strongest part of their case. You are so dumb that you don’t know whether you are coming or going.

As usual, ViU’s and Bill Carter’s crap is not worth answering.
#160 Voice in the Urbanness
April 11, 2008

Larry belched:

“What is this “no legal training” crap? That is just an ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.”

Wrong as always. Mary’s observation is quite relevant to the point she made. She could explain why a tyro like yourself could make the errors you constantly do but couldn’t understand the actions of professionals.

“How many times do I have to repeat…”

You are sticking to your theory that if a falsehood is repeated often enough, it will become true. Please stop repeating. That, along with your need for insults and ad hominyms, is the reason that your blog remains non-notable and crappy.

“As usual, ViU’s and Bill Carter’s crap is not worth answering.”

If you are incapable of answering it, why call attention to that fact?
#161 Mary
April 11, 2008

It appears I forgot that Larry’s reading comprehension is not up to UC standards.

Calvary Chapel’s best chance in this case was to find a judge that was willing to accept their novel legal theory that it is religious discrimination for UC to withhold its approval from coursework that rejects mainstream academic findings in favor of a religious interpretation: the facial claim.

Now the judge has ruled that UC’s standards and policies are not discriminatory as written. Calvary Chapel is left trying to prove that the actual course material met UC guidelines, so they can claim that the rejection was due to discrimination.

How are they going to convince anyone that a brief excerpt in an anthology is the equivalent of a full novel-length work, or that British authors are American?

How are they going to convince anyone that mainstream, secular academic scholars routinely teach “Christian Nation” history or creationist biology?

Oh, and Larry, one of UC’s expert reports has a very interesting appendix in which they show that UC students from ACSI schools don’t do as well as non-ACSI students from a similar background: they have a higher dropout rate, and lower grade point average and longer time to graduation if they stay. All of these are indicators of a student whose high school education has not properly prepared them for university-level work.
#162 Bill Carter
April 11, 2008

Mary, You are wasting your time. Larry will just respond with a mindless repetition of what he has already posted here, presenting it as if it was new material.
#163 W. Kevin Vicklund
April 11, 2008

A quicky response:

How many times do I have to repeat that UC said that it had no objective evidence that the fundy students are unprepared to study science at the college level?

No, UC did not say that. The said that they had no objective evidence that religious students were unprepared to study science at the college level. How is this at all relevant to the lawsuit? If their standards accurately assess students, it shouldn’t matter whether or not they are from religious or public schools – so long as students from those schools meet the standards set by UC. As I said earlier, this is a classic case of begging the question.
#164 Larry Fafarman
April 11, 2008

Mary moaned,

It appears I forgot that Larry’s reading comprehension is not up to UC standards.

I not only passed the Subject A requirement but I took a full year of regular English courses at UC (a requirement for all students at the Santa Barbara campus at the time), and taking that much college English is very unusual for engineering students (a lot of engineering schools don’t bother you about English if you can put together an intelligible sentence). The courses were very hard on me because I did not have good writing skills at the time. I wanted to delay taking the English courses until I was more mature and could write better, but no, the rules said that I had to take the courses as a freshman, even though I did not need good writing skills in my engineering, math, and science courses. So don’t give me that crap that my reading comprehension skills are not up to UC standards, you lousy sack of @#$*&^%. That is a real sore spot with me.

Calvary Chapel’s best chance in this case was to find a judge that was willing to accept their novel legal theory that it is religious discrimination for UC to withhold its approval from coursework that rejects mainstream academic findings in favor of a religious interpretation: the facial claim.

Actually, I am not even aware that Calvary Chapel made that claim — I thought that Calvary Chapel’s claim here was that it is religious discrimination to reject a course that merely adds a religious interpretation to mainstream academic findings without rejecting those academic findings. But IMO Calvary Chapel is wrong here because the introduction to the BJU biology textbooks advocated rejecting mainstream academic findings in favor of a religious interpretation. Still, though, IMO that just gives the students a bad attitude — it is still possible that they learned all the core material correctly. But because the textbook and the course are suspect because of the textbooks’ introduction, I proposed requiring the fundy students to either get a passing score on the SAT Biology Test or repeat biology after enrolling.

How are they going to convince anyone that a brief excerpt in an anthology is the equivalent of a full novel-length work, or that British authors are American? How are they going to convince anyone that mainstream, secular academic scholars routinely teach “Christian Nation” history or creationist biology?

We haven’t even discussed those other subjects here, so we don’t know enough to draw any conclusions. Is using an anthology instead of full-length novels bad? What does one learn by reading a full-length novel? Using an anthology has the advantage of covering more territory. As for “Christian Nation” history, the plaintiffs claim that history courses with a similarly narrow focus have been approved by UC. Anyway, maybe the SAT test solution could be applied in those other subjects — there are SAT tests in English literature and US, world, and European history.

one of UC’s expert reports has a very interesting appendix in which they show that UC students from ACSI schools don’t do as well as non-ACSI students from a similar background: they have a higher dropout rate, and lower grade point average and longer time to graduation if they stay.

If UC did not raise that issue before, it is too late to raise it now. That is just an after-the-fact attempt to indulge in thoughts that this alleged poor performance of the fundy students might have given UC a good reason to disapprove the courses. It is an attempt to engage in a “Monday morning battle of the experts,” which the Supreme Court rejected in Edwards v. Aguillard.
#165 Bill Carter
April 11, 2008

> I not only passed the Subject A requirement < So you didn't have to take "dumbbell English"? Congratulations!

> but I took a full year of regular English courses at UC < Which you then admit was a requirement. What is your point?

> The courses were very hard on me because I did not have good writing skills at the time. < That is easy to believe.

> I wanted to delay taking the English courses until I was more mature and could write better < sic.

> but no, the rules said that I had to take the courses as a freshman < You were not a freshman when you went to UCSB. You spent your freshman year at Santa Monica City College.

> you lousy sack of @#$*&^%. < You got that from a year of English courses?

> If UC did not raise that issue before, it is too late to raise it now. <

They don’t have to. They won. It does show that their requirements seem to have a valid basis.

I have a better solution. Why don’t the religious schools teach real science? Then there would not be an issue.
#166 michaelf
April 11, 2008

I teach biology in the UC system. Larry reminds me of a small subset of students who believe rules do not apply to them. They will use any means necessary to get the courses or grades they want. Some will contact you endlessly hoping you will give in or will go around you hoping someone else will. Their underlying credo is the ends justify the means.

Larry also has the problem that he can never be wrong – no matter how many lawyers correct him about the law or how many historians correct him on history or biologists correct him on biology – he is still knows best. He is an expert in everything on which he chooses to comment.
#167 Larry Fafarman
April 12, 2008

michaelf driveled,

Larry reminds me of a small subset of students who believe rules do not apply to them.

Exactly how do my comments here show that I think that rules do not apply to me?

Larry also has the problem that he can never be wrong – no matter how many lawyers correct him about the law

Look, you no-good sack of %$(^*#+% — here again are the facts of my federal lawsuit against the smog impact fee –

(1) The state courts eventually declared the fee to be unconstitutional

(2) A former top California auto-emissions agency official testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA — meaning that my suit belonged in federal court

(3) I argued that California lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity by “leaving the sphere that is exclusively its own” (Parden v. Terminal Railway) by basing the fee entirely on the state’s special status under federal emissions laws and regulations. California made no attempt to counter that argument.

(4) There was NO oral hearing

(5) There was NO written opinion

(6) There was NO shred of evidence that the judge ever read the briefs

how many historians correct him on history or biologists correct him on biology

Let’s see how this sack of #$@%^ answers the following arguments:

In the co-evolution of total co-dependence between two different kinds of organisms, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent. When the co-dependent traits in both organisms are fatal when the corresponding co-dependent trait is absent in the other organism, co-evolution by means of random mutations is virtually impossible.

A “systematic” holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.

You need to be “corrected” by a good hard kick in the teeth, you worthless sack of $#%(##*.

“I’m always kicking their butts — that’s why they don’t like me.”
– Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
#168 Q
April 12, 2008

Larry mistakenly suggests:
A “systematic” holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.

Sure there is. Just ask them. Ask their neighbors. Check the birth cerficates. Check the baptismal records stored in the churches. Check any records at the synogogues indicating membership.

Evidence abounds as to a persons choice of religion. In many countries, from the day they are born.

I suspect you are considering religion to be a non-physical trait. If so, I’d agree. But, nonetheless, it is a social-construct which was considered to be a characteristic of the person. So societal tools can, and could, be used to filter persons of one affiliation from those of another affiliation.

Your thesis fails common sense and actual practices. Please reconsider it.
#169 Q
April 12, 2008

Followup to Larry.

Check this copy of a German birth certificate from 1938.

http://www.magazinepublisher.com/family/images/birthcertif.jpg

Notice the term “Religion”?

Here’s one for a person born in 1896. Notice the spot for “Religion”
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.anythinganywhere.com/commerce/documents/ger-doc-12t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.anythinganywhere.com/commerce/documents/ger-naz-doc.htm&h=116&w=84&sz=40&tbnid=2W85kqtGxzAJ:&tbnh=116&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgerman%2Bbirth%2Bcertificate%2Bpicture&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=2

Look at lots of means to identify a person’ religion in Nazi Germany, here.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS237US237&q=german+birth+certificate+picture&um=1&ie=UTF-8
#170 Q
April 12, 2008

Reposted followup to Larry.

Check this copy of a German birth certificate from 1938.

http://www.magazinepublisher.com/family/images/birthcertif.jpg

Notice the term “Religion”?

Here’s one for a person born in 1896. Notice the spot for “Religion”
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.anythinganywhere.com/commerce/documents/ger-doc-12t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.anythinganywhere.com/commerce/documents/ger-naz-doc.htm&h=116&w=84&sz=40&tbnid=2W85kqtGxzAJ:&tbnh=116&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgerman%2Bbirth%2Bcertificate%2Bpicture&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=2

Look at lots of means to identify a person’ religion in Nazi Germany, here.
images.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS237US237&q=german+birth+certificate+picture&um=1&ie=UTF-8
#171 michaelf
April 12, 2008

Larry swore at me? I’m shocked.
#172 Larry Fafarman
April 13, 2008

Sheeeesh. Here we go again — that no-good so-and-so michaelf brought up the holocaust again, which we are not supposed to discuss here because it is off-topic.

Q, as for birth certificates, that was just in Germany — what about the other countries that the Nazis occupied? And did Europeans run around with birth certificates in their pockets?

As for getting information from synagogues, the Nazis destroyed all of them.

As for informers, the Nazis couldn’t trust them, and there could not have been enough informers to account for more than a tiny fraction of the supposed Jewish victims of the holocaust.

Non-Jews would have been afraid that they would be mistaken for Jews. If there had been an attempt at a systematic holocaust, we would have heard more complaints from people who believed that the Nazis mistakenly identified them as Jews. People would have been worried that their friends and relatives would be identified as Jews.

The Nazis just rounded up people en masse with no attempt at identification, which would have been virtually impossible anyway.

Many of the supposed Jewish victims of the holocaust did not think of themselves as Jews, so how could the Nazis think of them as Jews.

Jews could not be identified by last names because many non-Jewish Germans and Eastern Europeans have Jewish-sounding names.

Identifying Jews would be difficult enough in peacetime conditions, but these were wartime conditions.

Positively identifying Jews and non-Jews is a fundamental requirement for carrying out a “systematic” Jewish holocaust, so why have official holocaust historians almost completely ignored this issue of Jew identification. We don’t even know exactly what a Jew is. One holocaust historian claimed that the Nazis identified all the Jews of Europe by using IBM Hollerith machines to process data stored on billions of Hollerith cards, but those primitive machines obviously did not have that capability — all those machines could do was read, sort or merge just a few cards at a time.

You just find it convenient to ignore all of these facts. Official holocaust history is just full of holes.

And you didn’t even try to answer my question about co-evolution.
#173 Mary
April 13, 2008

So, Larry can’t comprehend how the Nazis could identify Jews, despite the fact that across Europe, religious affiliation was (and still is) commonly listed on such public documents as tax records, school records, birth certificates, death certificates, passports, school IDs, and so on. The mind boggles.

Next, he’ll be telling us that the police have no way to identify people in Los Angeles who drive black Volvos and UC has no way of determining which classes a student has taken or how well they did on their SATs.

Larry, the thing about public records is that the information on them is available to anyone who cares to look it up. Just because you can’t be bothered to read documents, especially if you have reason to believe that they show that you’re wrong on one of your pet talking points, doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for someone without your prejudices to do so. It’s not even particularly difficult.
#174 Mary
April 13, 2008

So, Larry can’t comprehend how the Nazis could identify Jews, despite the fact that across Europe, religious affiliation was (and still is) commonly listed on such public documents as tax records, school records, birth certificates, death certificates, passports, school IDs, and so on. The mind boggles.

Next, he’ll be telling us that the police have no way to identify people in Los Angeles who drive black Volvos and UC has no way of determining which classes a student has taken or how well they did on their SATs.

Larry, the thing about public records is that the information on them is available to anyone who cares to look it up. Just because you can’t be bothered to read documents, especially if you have reason to believe that they show that you’re wrong on one of your pet talking points, doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for someone without your prejudices to do so. It’s not even particularly difficult.
#175 Voice in the Urbanness
April 13, 2008

“Look, you no-good sack of %$(^*#+% — here again are the facts of my federal lawsuit against the smog impact fee –”

Not facts, just your bleatings.

“(1) The state courts eventually declared the fee to be unconstitutional”

Due to the actions of competent lawyers who were hindered by your comical suits.

“(2) A former top California auto-emissions agency official testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US EPA — meaning that my suit belonged in federal court”

This has been covered before. You are wrong as usual. You seem to be totally unable to make logical inferences with any degree of accuracy.

“(3) I argued that California lost its federal-court tax-suit immunity by “leaving the sphere that is exclusively its own” (Parden v. Terminal Railway) by basing the fee entirely on the state’s special status under federal emissions laws and regulations. California made no attempt to counter that argument.”

A moot point since you had no standing to begin with and had to commit perjury to file again.

“(4) There was NO oral hearing”

Nor did there need to be.

“(5) There was NO written opinion”

Nor did there need to be.

“(6) There was NO shred of evidence that the judge ever read the briefs”

The evidence was that you were laughed out of court.

“A “systematic” holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.”

Larry, since your parents were Jews and your grandparents were Jews, and your great-grandparents were Jews, you would have gone up the chimney. Why do you hate your ancestors?

Perhaps Ed Brayton (Who Larry claims that we all are) has the right idea about Larry. After first engaging him, he dropped further discussion. He believes that it is not good to ruffle the feathers of the clinically insane. Still I can’t resist.

We are always kicking Larry’s butt. That’s why he doesn’t like us.
#176 Jud
April 13, 2008

[Sigh.] I promised myself I’d avoid responding to this particular off-topic but oft-raised part of this particular thread, and I wouldn’t blame Mike a bit if he just tosses out the last few comments and closes the thread for good, but this is just too much to pass up:

Larry Fafarman wrote: As for getting information from synagogues, the Nazis destroyed all of them.

So let me get this “reasoning” straight: The Holocaust couldn’t have happened because the Nazis destroyed all the synagogues?

Wow. The mind reels.
#177 michaelf
April 13, 2008

Larry,
You might want to read the comments before you go off…
because didn’t even come close to bringing up the holocaust.
#178 Larry Fafarman
April 14, 2008

Mary, Mary, quite contrary moans,

So, Larry can’t comprehend how the Nazis could identify Jews, despite the fact that across Europe, religious affiliation was (and still is) commonly listed on such public documents as tax records, school records, birth certificates, death certificates, passports, school IDs, and so on. The mind boggles.

Mary, you are a stupid moron. You are a particular ignoramus when it comes to holocaust history. You are just out of your league here. You need to be corrected about the facts and then shut up (just like I am supposed to do when I am “corrected” about the law and biology).

You are so ignorant that you don’t even know that most people in Europe are very non-religious now — church attendance is very low in most European countries.

It’s not like the Nazis had the records and then went to individual houses to arrest people. The Nazis just rounded people up en masse.

If you wanted to exterminate, say, all of the Presbyterians, or all of the Methodists, or all of the Baptists in America, how would you do it? If you wanted to exterminate all of the Mormons, you could start by killing everyone in Utah, but you would kill a lot of non-Mormons in Utah and you would miss a lot of Mormons who live outside of Utah.

Edwin Black, author of “IBM and the Holocaust,” thought that he had found the big secret about how the Nazis identified all of the Jews of Europe — the Nazis just used extremely primitive IBM Hollerith machines to correlate data stored on billions of IBM cards — never mind that those machines didn’t have such capability even if all that data were available. The book fell flat on its face.

michaelf moans,

You might want to read the comments before you go off…
because didn’t even come close to bringing up the holocaust.

No, bozo, you came quite close to bringing up the holocaust — you said, “no matter how many lawyers correct him about the law or how many historians correct him on history or biologists correct him on biology”

Your mention of history was an obvious reference to my holocaust revisionism.

ViU as usual just clutters up the place with his breathtaking inanities. It is very easy just to say that someone else is wrong without explaining why, you stupid fathead. Anyone can do it.
#179 Larry Fafarman
April 14, 2008

Jud wheezes,

So let me get this “reasoning” straight: The Holocaust couldn’t have happened because the Nazis destroyed all the synagogues?

No, bozo, that is only one of the reasons why the holocaust couldn’t have happened.
#180 Voice in the Urbanness
April 14, 2008

Larry, You are a particular ignoramus when it comes to holocaust history. You are just out of your league here.

“You are so ignorant that you don’t even know that most people in Europe are very non-religious now — church attendance is very low in most European countries.”

You are so ignorant that you don’t even know that the holocaust is not happening now. It happened in the last century.

“It’s not like the Nazis had the records and then went to individual houses to arrest people.”

Yes it is.

“If you wanted to exterminate, say, all of the Presbyterians, or all of the Methodists, or all of the Baptists in America, how would you do it?”

That would seem to be quite easy. First I would go to the church records (before you burn the churches).

Jud points out the irony

“So let me get this “reasoning” straight: The Holocaust couldn’t have happened because the Nazis destroyed all the synagogues?”

And Larry shows himself to be in another world with:

“No, bozo, that is only one of the reasons why the holocaust couldn’t have happened.”

If there were no other exchanges, that one alone would be enough to show that Larry is irretrievably insane.
#181 michaelf
April 14, 2008

Larry,
I was referring to the Christian schools case – their text books revising history and science – the holocaust was even in my thoughts.
You are a bit defensive – guilty about something……
#182 W. Kevin Vicklund
August 11, 2008

UPDATE

On Friday, August 8, the judge issued a summary judgment in favor of UC for the remaining claims. Complete victory!

I summarize the ruling at my long-neglected blog, including a link to the actual ruling.

National Geographic SocietyIn partnership with

Advertisement

Science Blogs

Search National Geographic

The Questionable Authority

Summary Judgment in California Creationist Case: Behe Shoots, Scores, We Get Point (Part 3 of 3)

Comments

Search This Blog

No Widgets Yet!

National Geographic SocietyIn partnership with

Advertisement

Science Blogs

Search National Geographic

The Questionable Authority

Summary Judgment in California Creationist Case: Behe Shoots, Scores, We Get Point (Part 3 of 3)

Comments

Search This Blog

Subscribe

No Widgets Yet!