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.
| 101 |
| Vote |
Comments (39)
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by Winston
on Post-Easter Musings on Atheism
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
However, do you really want to get into an argument about this? This is one of the reasons I am not around Orble much anymore: people who think that because they're anonymous behind a keyboard, basic civility is not required. I don't understand that. If you want to have a discussion with someone, or if you feel that someone has said something in error, try being polite. It's amazing how much more inclined it makes people to answer you, rather than writing you off as someone looking for a fight.
With that being said, I find several errors in your argument above.
Despite your assertion, atheism means "lacking a belief in a god or gods". The prefix a- means "without". Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods". So, atheism is the position of being without a belief in a god or gods. That's it. It is not a positive assertion that a god definitely does not exist, because that would entail knowledge that is unobtainable. Yes, some people (frequently theists) use the word to mean a positive denial of god, but that is not the way most atheists generally apply the label to themselves. Once we start talking about knowledge, we're talking about gnosticism and agnosticism. Yes, agnosticism and atheism are different things, but not so very much. If your agnosticism prevents you from answering the question of "do you believe a god exists" with a yes, then you are an atheist (an agnostic atheist), as you lack a belief in that god. Here’s an excerpt from an essay I found by Gordon Stein (a noted skeptic who died in 1996). I think it expresses this view very well:
Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.
You claim that only 'hard atheism' is a positive belief that God does not exist. Does this mean that everyone who is not aware of God or who doesnt actively choose to believe in God is an atheist?
Yes. What else should I call them? Potential theists? As I've already said, atheism is just lacking a belief in a god. That's it. The term says nothing at all about whether or not they might believe in a god at some point in the future, or about any of their views on anything else at all. It's just a word to describe a position (or lack thereof) on one point. It ABSOLUTELY is the default position for everyone, I couldn't agree more. But why is that useless? Not believing you can fly is a default position as well. Is that useless? Believing unfounded things can be dangerous, so it’s probably a good thing that our default position tends to be unbelief. Until someone offers some actual evidence, gods and flying people are about equally worthy of consideration. The babies and rocks argument is completely absurd and untenable, by the way, as to the best of my knowledge babies and rocks are also not democrats, conservatives, Marxists or Yankees fans. Maybe we should limit our arguments to sentient beings with the capacity to form complex opinions?
You have to choose to be an atheist just like you have to choose to be a theist or agnostic.
No. I imagine we're going to have a fundamental difference of opinion on this, because I don't see it that way at all. Belief is not a choice. It is not subject to the will. Belief is the result of being convinced (or unconvinced) by evidence. You can't decide to believe something. Go ahead and try it. Close your eyes and decide that you're going to believe that Elvis lives in your closet, and he's making you a grilled cheese sandwich right now, but if you look for him he'll turn invisible and intangible. Do you believe it yet? Try harder! I'm betting it's not working. That's an absurd example, but it works for this purpose. Without some evidence that Elvis lives in your closet, you can't choose to believe or disbelieve that statement. While the statement can never be proven false, given the set of conditions listed, there is absolutely no reasonable way to give it any credence. Are you making a choice by disbelieving, or is that simply the result of not being convinced by the available evidence? Now, let’s tweak the example and say you looked in the closet and, sure enough, you did not see Elvis but you DID find a sandwich crust. Would that convince you that the whole statement must be true? Possibly, as the evidence that convinces people that a god exists is about as flimsy as that crust of bread. But if you do conclude that Elvis and the grilled cheese are there, based on that bit of sandwich, it still is not a choice. You have been convinced by evidence that you perceive is in support of the statement. Obviously there are an infinite number of explanations for the scrap of sandwich more plausible than an invisible Elvis (at least in my mind), but that does not change the fact that some marginal evidence that the statement could be true persuaded you. You did not “choose” it; you accepted it. That’s the way belief works, you either accept data as true or you don’t. I can't choose whether or not to believe in god. Without good evidence it is simply a non-issue. The information that is commonly presented as evidence strikes me as entirely unpersuasive and inadequate. I don’t choose to feel that way, I simply feel that way. It's not that I decided not to believe in god, it's that nothing has convinced me otherwise. I’m compelled by what I see (and don’t see) to make the conclusions I make. Do you honestly think that it’s possible to choose what you believe? That implies that I could see clear evidence for something but exercise my will to disbelieve it anyway. If Zeus shows up in Times Square and starts flinging lightning bolts I’d say choice sort of goes out the window, whether I want to believe in Zeus or not. Even people who are delusional and clearly believe things that are demonstrably untrue believe them based on some sort of personal evidence and conviction. There is a big, important difference between this view and your statement above. Being convinced by something is not the same as making a choice. The only choice I made was to use the label. The beliefs behind it are dependent on the evidence. If and when the evidence dramatically changes, the beliefs probably change as well.
are you claiming that belief and knowledge are interchangable/synonymous?
Not exactly, no. They are not synonymous, but they are inter-dependent. Do you know things you don't believe, or vice versa? Doubtful. If you do, you shouldn't. I may not have made my point as clearly as I should have initially, I admit, but I think if you actually read what I wrote you'll see that I noted the distinctions. Even so, the bottom still line holds, that being agnostic (i.e. thinking that ultimate knowledge of god is unknowable) generally results in lacking a belief in a god (although, as Stein noted, it is also possible to be an agnostic theist). Conversely, most atheists are open to the idea that despite their oftentimes strong unbelief in a god, that god's existence or non-existence is ultimately unknowable. In this instance, there is much overlap.
Agnosicism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. That's it it has nothing to do with 'what you know'
So, you're saying that not knowing something has nothing to do with what you know? Ha. OK. I’m still not sure why you find this statement (‘Atheism deals with what you believe, agnosticism deals with what you know’) so amusing. That’s pretty much the definition of those words. One deals with belief, one deals with knowledge. Problem? Now, as to your citing of my apparent contradiction, I’ve already stated above that while, yes, they are different things, they overlap so heavily that I see it as futile to try to address them entirely separately. They are complimentary terms that work together to describe someone’s attitude toward the idea of a god or gods. Another reason I describe agnosticism as being a form of atheism is more pragmatic. If you are like most self-described agnostics and your agnosticism means that you don't worship a god, attend services, observe rituals, adhere to dogmas, etc., then what is the difference between you and me? The end result is the same, In practice they're often hard to tell apart.
By the way it is easy to logically prove that something cannot exist it is called a logical fallacy like the 'stone so heavy that even God can't lift it'
I completely agree. What I actually said was "it is not logically possible to prove a negative". As in, disproving things for which we have a complete absence of evidence. See the difference? By all means, if you CAN do it, let me know. Prove conclusively the statement that god, Santa Claus, leprechauns, imps, Bigfoot, aliens, chupacabra, vampires, fairies, gremlins, Medusa, and the Loch Ness monster do not exist. I'll wait. If you can't do it, does that mean that we should be ambivalent about the existence of all those things? Are you agnostic about gremlins too? Honestly, I don't see the point to that position. There comes a time when it makes sense to say that, given the available evidence, you think something is untrue. That does not mean that new evidence might not convince you otherwise! But the wishy-washy "unknowable" position is just bizarre. Unknowns are a part of life; almost nothing is known to a 100% degree of certainty. How do you make decisions, if not by weighing evidence for and against and being swayed by the strongest case? Do you refuse to say that you know anything?? There's a paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which I looked at per your recommendation) that echoes this sentiment. I liked it.
"Some scientists when canvassing these issues of philosophical theology may prefer to call themselves ‘agnostics’ rather than ‘atheists’ because they have been over impressed by a generalised philosophical scepticism or by a too simple understanding of Popper's dictum that we can never verify a theory but only refute it. Such a view would preclude us from saying quite reasonably that we know that the Sun consists largely of hydrogen and helium. When we say ‘I know’ we are saying something defeasible. If later we discover that though what we said was at the time justified, it nevertheless turned out to be false, we would say ‘I thought I knew but I now see that I didn't know’. Never or hardly ever to say ‘I know’ would be to deprive these words of their usefulness, just as the fact that some promises have to be broken does not deprive the institution of promising of its legitimacy."
Can I say for sure that I know that there is no god? No. But I can say that based on the evidence, I know that there is probably no god. Room for error? Always. But it's unlikely. That sliver of doubt is not enough to sway me, and because of that I do not believe that there is a god. I have an opinion based on evidence and observation. Everyone does. Thus the reason that I find the agnostic label, used by itself, to be complete BS. While it certainly suggests that you do not find the idea of god particularly plausible, in the end it tells me nothing about what you really believe. The term agnostic, used by itself, is a dodge. I’m an agnostic as well, but absent a declaration of my belief (theist or atheist), who cares? You have some opinion on the matter, whether you wish to commit to the idea or not. Isn’t that more important? What do you believe based on what we know now? Either you don’t know if a god exists but you think it probably does, which makes you a theist, or you don’t know if a god exists but you think it probably doesn’t, making you an atheist. You can be agnostic about either position, but you must give more weight to one than the other. By itself agnosticism is a non-position, and as such it is completely useless.
You know, I'm really not on here much anymore. I happened to check back today out of curiosity as to whether or not you responded. I wasn't expecting the hostility, that's for sure. I’m not sure what your beef is, or where you got the 'show your intellectual superiority as an atheist' line from: I sure didn’t say it, so I’m not sure why it’s in quotes. I’m not trying to show my superior anything – are you?
I'll probably check back again at some point. But I just don't have it in me anymore for these long, tedious, back and forth arguments. The only reason I have written such a long response is because you said a lot of things I had an issue with, and you said them in an antagonistic fashion. I'll generally respond once to someone when they're impolite, but not twice. I like discussing things, and I'm more than open to respectful differences of opinion. If at some point you want to respectfully continue to explore our differences, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, let's not bother pursuing a discussion that will go nowhere. I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue this discussion if it's just going to be a pissing contest. In the end, we're both entitled to our opinions anyway, and neither one of us has to like the other's.