College Credit for Creationism Courses Cancelled -- Christians Complain
August 15th 2008 06:18
If you're a private educational institution, then you have a good deal of leeway to teach what you wish. Not being sponsored by government funds means far less government intrusion in your curriculum. Sure, there are still standards that need to be met (literacy and mathematics, for example) but otherwise it's pretty open. This is why some private Christian high schools have "science" courses which promote ideas like young-earth creationism and actively deny evolution. Fine. If people actually want to pay to make themselves dumber, that's OK with me. So, no problem so far. However, it seems that Christian high schools in California that ONLY teach creationism are bent out of shape over the fact that colleges are not accepting those "courses" as valid for biology or history credits. That's right. Conservative Christian schools that deny accepted science are mad that they can't get science credit at an accredited state university. Makes sense.
Before I go further, let's take a closer look at the story. Here are some excerpts from the news article, taken from the online edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. All bold font is added by me:
Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.
"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.
Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations. " What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."
Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."
But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.
UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.
For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.
Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.
There's so many awesomely dumb things in this article to address, I hardly know where to start. Let's begin with the line, ' "It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. ' I would dearly love to hear Ms. Monk elaborate on this statement, because I just can't figure out what paths her mind followed to end up at that conclusion. Ms. Monk, wouldn't it be just as simple to say that CA Christian high schools are attempting to "Christianize" secular universities? As an accredited public university, UC is under an obligation to teach the accepted scientific explanations for things like biology, evolution, geology, cosmology, etc. By trying to have personal faith articles validated as equivalent to scientific research, Jennifer Monk and the AFF are essentially trying to have UC endorse Biblical mythology as being on equal footing with secular science. Unfortunately for this group, classes are generally not based upon the idea that "whatever ideas anyone has are equally valid." A good education teaches what the best data says at the current time, not what certain fringe groups want it to say. Sorry Ms. Monk. I will also say that NO ONE is trying to secularize Christian schools. You're free to teach what you wish. What the UC is doing is exercising their right not to recognize unsubstantiated, uncritical teaching. Big difference.
UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations. You mean the University of California won't accept my personal belief that invisible flying gnomes paint the sky blue every morning?? What a crock!
Seriously, what do these religious schools expect? They are entitled to their articles of faith, and I will never argue that. However, even the most ardent theist has to admit that their position, however heartfelt, is not tenable in a scientific sense, right? Oh wait, let me highlight an excerpt from the article again: Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that, does it? The world is flat, mankind started off as two naked people in a garden, bats are birds, the sun moved backwards one day, pi equals 3 and dinosaurs were killed in a flood 4500 years ago. Screw off, science.
Let's be clear here. The school is not being anti-Christian. They are being pro-education. A Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Asatru, Zoroastrian, or Wiccan applicant to the school who had an equally unscientific agenda would have the same problem that these Christian students have. It's clear that the university is willing to work with believers, to a certain extent:
"...the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution."
See? That's not unreasonable. The school isn't refusing to acknowledge a religious viewpoint, they are only refusing to allow the sum total of their curriculum to be dismissed out of hand because of personal faith. Their school, their rules, their curriculum. If you object, go to Bob Jones University. Seriously, Christian high schools of California, why are you arguing about this?
At any rate, a hearty "well done!" for Justice Otero and his eminently sensible ruling. There is no malice or hidden agenda within his decision -- his reasons are quite clear. The texts and classes were rejected because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking. I realize that there are certain populations within the Christian community that are openly hostile to critical thinking, but I take comfort in the fact that it still carries some weight with the majority of people.
Before I go further, let's take a closer look at the story. Here are some excerpts from the news article, taken from the online edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. All bold font is added by me:
Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.
"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.
Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations. " What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."
Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."
But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.
UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.
For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.
Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.
There's so many awesomely dumb things in this article to address, I hardly know where to start. Let's begin with the line, ' "It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said Tuesday. ' I would dearly love to hear Ms. Monk elaborate on this statement, because I just can't figure out what paths her mind followed to end up at that conclusion. Ms. Monk, wouldn't it be just as simple to say that CA Christian high schools are attempting to "Christianize" secular universities? As an accredited public university, UC is under an obligation to teach the accepted scientific explanations for things like biology, evolution, geology, cosmology, etc. By trying to have personal faith articles validated as equivalent to scientific research, Jennifer Monk and the AFF are essentially trying to have UC endorse Biblical mythology as being on equal footing with secular science. Unfortunately for this group, classes are generally not based upon the idea that "whatever ideas anyone has are equally valid." A good education teaches what the best data says at the current time, not what certain fringe groups want it to say. Sorry Ms. Monk. I will also say that NO ONE is trying to secularize Christian schools. You're free to teach what you wish. What the UC is doing is exercising their right not to recognize unsubstantiated, uncritical teaching. Big difference.
UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations. You mean the University of California won't accept my personal belief that invisible flying gnomes paint the sky blue every morning?? What a crock!
Seriously, what do these religious schools expect? They are entitled to their articles of faith, and I will never argue that. However, even the most ardent theist has to admit that their position, however heartfelt, is not tenable in a scientific sense, right? Oh wait, let me highlight an excerpt from the article again: Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that, does it? The world is flat, mankind started off as two naked people in a garden, bats are birds, the sun moved backwards one day, pi equals 3 and dinosaurs were killed in a flood 4500 years ago. Screw off, science.
Let's be clear here. The school is not being anti-Christian. They are being pro-education. A Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Asatru, Zoroastrian, or Wiccan applicant to the school who had an equally unscientific agenda would have the same problem that these Christian students have. It's clear that the university is willing to work with believers, to a certain extent:
"...the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution."
See? That's not unreasonable. The school isn't refusing to acknowledge a religious viewpoint, they are only refusing to allow the sum total of their curriculum to be dismissed out of hand because of personal faith. Their school, their rules, their curriculum. If you object, go to Bob Jones University. Seriously, Christian high schools of California, why are you arguing about this?
At any rate, a hearty "well done!" for Justice Otero and his eminently sensible ruling. There is no malice or hidden agenda within his decision -- his reasons are quite clear. The texts and classes were rejected because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking. I realize that there are certain populations within the Christian community that are openly hostile to critical thinking, but I take comfort in the fact that it still carries some weight with the majority of people.
| 86 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Comments (39)
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by Winston
on Post-Easter Musings on Atheism
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Let me try to clarify. Atheism is defined as "lacking a belief in a god or gods". It is not a positive assertion that a god or gods definitely don't exist. In the absence of a positive assertion, it is the theist's job to provide evidence for their positive claim that god exists. While I have more reasons than I can count as to why I find the idea of a god implausible, it really isn't my burden to present them: I'm not the one making an extraordinary claim. I have no "proof" that god does not exist, as it is not logically possible to prove a negative. Now, there are atheists who claim that god DOES NOT exist. Atheists making this positive claim are referred to as "strong atheists". Strong atheism is an unprovable position just as is theism. When most people think of atheism, they think of strong atheism, but the great majority of atheists would not identify themselves this way,
Agnosticism IS atheism, just a different shade. If you are not able to answer the question "do you believe a god exists?" with a yes, then you are an atheist. Atheism deals with what you believe, while agnosticism deals with what you know. I am an atheist. Based on the evidence, I do not believe that a god exists. However I do not, and can never, know for sure that a god doesn't exist, just as I can't know for sure that there aren't leprechauns living in my closet that hide every time I open the door. So, that would make you an agnostic atheist: you lack belief in a god, as well as knowledge regarding that god's existence. Referring back to the strong atheism above, a gnostic atheist would be someone who KNOWS a god does not exist. Again, this is not representative of most atheists.
The word agnosticism is frequently misused as not being sure whether or not you believe in god. That's sort of become the common usage for it, but it's incorrect. I think the reason many people use the atheist label is because, as they learn more about their beliefs, they realize that the term "agnostic" is no longer accurate. Then again, I'm not sure that more people actually use the atheist label. The term "agnostic" is at least slightly less reviled that the term "atheist" which is one reason that many people choose to use it (not realizing that the distinction is not what they believe it to be).
I hope this answered your question. I probably typed more than necessary, it's a bad habit of mine