LAT reported Amid the growing national debate over the mixing of religion and science in America's classrooms, University of California admissions officials have been accused in a federal civil rights lawsuit of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints
Certainly cant have Christians around all of our Secular Humanists; they might convert some of them, and maybe even turn California into a Red State..... Under a policy implemented with little fanfare a year ago, UC admissions authorities have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution, the suit says. Other courses rejected by UC officials include "Christianity's Influence in American History," "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" and "Special Providence: American Government."
It is not about evolution, it is about ChristiansThe 10-campus UC system requires applicants to complete a variety of courses, including science, mathematics, history, literature and the arts. But in letters to Calvary Chapel, university officials said some of the school's Christian-oriented courses were too narrow to be acceptable.... Instead, the board instructed the schools to "submit for UC approval a secular science curriculum with a text and course outline that addresses course content/knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community."
In other words a Christian school must stop teaching Christianity and much teach Secular Humanism."It appears that the UC system is attempting to secularize Christian schools and prevent them from teaching from a world Christian view," said Patrick H. Tyler, a lawyer with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is assisting the plaintiffs. Wendell E. Bird, an Atlanta attorney who represents the Assn. of Christian Schools, said California was the only state in the nation that had taken such actions against Christian schools. Bird said the schools have no objection to teaching evolution alongside creationism but consider the UC regulations a violation of their rights. "And a threat to one religion is a threat to all," he added. UC had not yet been served with the suit, so spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said she could not comment on its details. But she said the university had a sound legal right to set course requirements for incoming students. "What we're doing is really for the benefit of the students," she said. "These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed."
As long as those critical thinking skills dont involve belief in God.Jesse Taylor blogged The University of California system is rejecting students who are unprepared for college. Somehow, this is controversial. To be more specific, the UC system is rejecting Christian religious classes that the schools in question are attempting to pass off as substitutes for real education.
Actually they want to be sure their Secular Humanist state schools are not infested with a bunch of Christians, so they are using the excused that they object to one particular thing the students may have been taught (regarding evolution)Steve Bainbridge blogged Concerns have been raised - including by UC regents - that, as I put it in an earlier post, "given the intense opposition to 209 among both students and administrators, it would be surprising if some admissions bureaucrats were not at least subconsciously using discretionary slack in the process to achieve the diversity outcomes they favor." Louis Brandeis famously observed that electric light is the best policeman and sunlight the best disinfectant. Certainly, a greater degree of transparency in the UC admission process seems desirable as long as these sorts of questions are being raised.
7 comments:
"As long as those critical thinking skills dont involve belief in God."
Treating the magical teachings of an unmeasureable and unknowable God as "science" is the eqiivalent of giving a primative witch doctor an appointment to a science faculty because his rituals can be redefined as "experiements."
Science is about measuring and explaining natural events. God is inherently unknowable and immeasurable. Relegating certain explanations of natural events to the "will of God" may be satisfactory religion, but it is bad, even incompetent science. From a scientific view, it is nothing more than providing an explanation of natural events through hand-waving and magic.
People who want hand-waving, magic and Genesis as their explanations of natural events can attend Bob Jones Institute or Fallwell's Lynchburg academy. If they want to attend the University of California system they need to demonstrate a competentce in the kinds of knowledge taught there just like every other student accepted. If instead of studying biology, they wasted their time studying creationism, they need to make up that deficit in their knowledge and not expect any special priviliges.
As for rejecting those who believe in God, that is a totally different issue. It is my opinion that the so-called "Christian" fundamentalists are as much heritics to Christianity as were Arians and Gnostics. That, however, is a religious judgement and does not belong in the public square as long as such heretics don't practice polygamy or child abuse or try to pass off use of illegal drugs as protected religious ceremony.
You are right that science is about measuring and explaining natural events, and ID does not challenge any of those observations or explanations. But in places where evolution says there must have been some major jump from one species to another, but offers absoutely no proof for that jump, ID just offers another alternative answer.
You said "If they want to attend the University of California system they need to demonstrate a competentce in the kinds of knowledge taught there just like every other student accepted."
I assume you mean the secular crap the rest of your post implies, but the second part of the 1st ammendment related to religion says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and since UC is state supported, they cant require only athiests, agnostics, and other Secular Humanists. All faiths, including monotheistic faiths like Christianity, Judism, and Islam, may attend.
All faiths, including monotheistic faiths like Christianity, Judism, and Islam, may attend.
Are you saying that there are no adherents of any of the above faiths at UC Berkeley?
I have never been to UC Berkley, but some of the things I have heard make me wonder how welcome they are if there are any there
ID just offers another alternative answer.
As does the theory that my kitten built a time machine, stole the "missing" fossils and put them in her litter tray.
Over 80% of the population are Christians, and there are many Jews and Muslims. How many do you know that subscribe to the "Kitten with a time machine" theory?
I wouldn't suggest for a second that any school accepts the children I have homeschooled in the lore of the kitten into their science programme, so why should UC Berkeley accept students who may not even understand the base principles of the scientific method?
Can you provide any evidence of a Homeschool curriculum that teaches the lore of the kitten? And what makes you think students that have been taught ID, which supports evolution, but just offers another solution to the unsubstantiated "missing links", and also has learned about physics, chemestry, and many other aspects of biology other than evolution, have not learned the Scientific Method?
Over 80% of the population are Christians, and there are many Jews and Muslims. How many do you know that subscribe to the "Kitten with a time machine" theory?
That's totally irrelevant! The popular vote is not an element of the scientific method. It wouldn't matter if 100% of the people sincerely believed that hydrosodium chloride and methylene blue, when combined, turn pink. Science tells us otherwise.
The kitten with a time machine was your theory. I just wonder how it worked with your idea of the scientific method
And what makes you think students that have been taught ID, which supports evolution, but just offers another solution to the unsubstantiated "missing links", and also has learned about physics, chemestry, and many other aspects of biology other than evolution, have not learned the Scientific Method?
You can't select which elements of "science" to apply sthe scientific method to, and anyone who had followed a scientific curriculum that elided that salient point might struggle with college-level courses. ID isn't science, any more than kitten lore, and including it within a science curriculum is intellectually bankrupt.
ID is completely consistent with all parts of evolution that are provable by the scientific method. It is only when evolution postulates a speices jump, with no "missing links" to prove the jump, that ID steps in with a different explanation.
second part of the 1st ammendment related to religion says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and since UC is state supported, they cant require only athiests, agnostics, and other Secular Humanists.
Talk about twisting things around and spitting them out in a form completely foreign from the truth!
Nowhere do the UC's admissions requirements -- de jure or de facto -- state that if you believe in God or creationism you're not going to be admitted. What they do say is that if you want your "science" classes to count as science classes, they actually have to be, well, science. In other words, you have to understand scientific method, etc. And the books from Bob Jones are exactly the opposite of that. (Have you actually read any of the ridiculous statements made in those books?) And nothing's keeping the UC from accepting the classes in question to fulfill other requirements. They simply aren't accepted as science classes, which is exactly as it should be, as they aren't science.
I got here from a talkbalk on another blog, but won't be visiting again, as to this midwestern moderate, it looks like just another place for right-wingers to completely exaggerate and distort what the left-wingers (or anyone who disagrees with the wingnuts, for that matter) are saying/doing.
second part of the 1st ammendment related to religion says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and since UC is state supported, they cant require only athiests, agnostics, and other Secular Humanists.
Talk about twisting things around and spitting them out in a form completely foreign from the truth!
Nowhere do the UC's admissions requirements -- de jure or de facto -- state that if you believe in God or creationism you're not going to be admitted. What they do say is that if you want your "science" classes to count as science classes, they actually have to be, well, science. In other words, you have to understand scientific method, etc. And the books from Bob Jones are exactly the opposite of that. (Have you actually read any of the ridiculous statements made in those books?) And nothing's keeping the UC from accepting the classes in question to fulfill other requirements. They simply aren't accepted as science classes, which is exactly as it should be, as they aren't science.
If they want to know whether students know something, they should test them; but the test should be given to everyone. If they are blocking students because of the text book they used, and because of the religious aspect of it, then they are using taxpayer funds to discriminate based on religion; a violation of the first amendment
I got here from a talkbalk on another blog, but won't be visiting again, as to this midwestern moderate, it looks like just another place for right-wingers to completely exaggerate and distort what the left-wingers (or anyone who disagrees with the wingnuts, for that matter) are saying/doing.
I presume that means you can't refute my arguments, at least without calling names. Oh well, I realize it may be difficult to defend the indefensable.
And BTW, it is a trackback, not a talkback
The kitten with a time machine was your theory. I just wonder how it worked with your idea of the scientific method
It works in exactly the same way. It's completely consistent with evolution, and its explanation for the "missing" elements of the fossil record is that kitty got in her time machine and swiped them.
However, like intelligent design, there isn't a shred of scientific basis for promoting it as a theory.
Well we are faced with three alternatives. The Darwinists can't come up with a shred of scientific evidence (fossils, etc) to prove their theory that the same mechanism that creates minor changes also creates massive jumps from species to another, your kitty theory has no scientific evidence, nor you say does ID
There are a number of people that agree with the Secular Humanist / Darwin theory of species creation, and a number of books have been published about it.
There are orders of magnitude greater number of people that believe in God, and while there are a huge number of books available about Him, just one, the Holy Bible, has had more copies printed than any other book in history (even Harry Potter).
I really have not heard of any books or any other people that have expressed your theory of Kitten with a Time Machine, but if that is what you want to believe, then you are entitled to your opinion.
Post a Comment