University of California system sued over creationism

National Center for Science Education ^ | 08 September 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Creationism is prominent in a recent lawsuit that charges the University of California system with violating the constitutional rights of applicants from Christian schools whose high school coursework is deemed inadequate preparation for college. The complaint was filed in federal court in Los Angeles on August 25, 2005, on behalf of the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, California, and a handful of students at the school. Representing the plaintiffs are Robert H. Tyler, a lawyer with a new organization called Advocates for Faith and Freedom, and Wendell R. Bird of the Atlanta law firm Bird and Loechl.

Bird is no stranger to litigation over creationism. As a law student in the late 1970s, he published a student note in the Yale Law Journal sketching a strategy for using the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to secure a place for creationism in the public school science classroom. Bird later worked at the Institute for Creation Research, where he updated its model "equal-time" resolution. The ICR's resolution eventually mutated, in Paul Ellwanger's hands, to become model "equal-time" legislation. A bill based on Ellwanger's model was passed in Arkansas in 1981 and then ruled unconstitutional in McLean v. Arkansas.

Although Bird was not able to participate in the McLean trial -- he sought to intervene on behalf of a number of creationist organizations and individuals, but was not allowed to do so -- he was involved in Aguillard v. Treen, which became Edwards v. Aguillard. Named a special assistant attorney general in Louisiana, Bird defended Louisiana's "equal-time" act all the way to the Supreme Court, where in 1987 it was ruled to violate the Establishment Clause. His The Origin of Species Revisited, which compared evolution and "abrupt appearance," was subsequently published (in two volumes).

At issue in the present suit are the guidelines set by the University of California system to ensure that first-year students have been adequately prepared for college in their high schools. The complaint (1.6M PDF) cites a policy of rejecting high school biology courses that use textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books as "inconsistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community." Such a policy, the complaint alleges, infringes on the plaintiffs' rights to "freedom of speech, freedom from viewpoint discrimination, freedom of religion and association, freedom from arbitrary discretion, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from hostility toward religion."

Robert Tyler told the Los Angeles Times (August 27, 2005) that "It appears that the UC system is attempting to secularize Christian schools and prevent them from teaching from a [Christian world] view." But creationism is a matter of theology, not of science, Robert John Russell of the Center for Theology and Natural Science told the Oakland Tribune (August 31, 2005). "It's almost ludicrous anyone would even take this seriously," Russell said. "It seems absurd that a student who had poor biology would meet the same standards as a student with 'good' biology. ...This has nothing to do with First Amendment rights."

A spokesperson for the University of California system would not comment on the specific allegations leveled in the complaint, but told the Los Angeles Times that the university was entitled to set course requirements for incoming students, adding, "[t]hese 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."

In its fall 2005 newsletter, ACSI expresses concern that the University of California system's "secular intolerance might spread to other institutions and to other states. ... If this discrimination is allowed to continue unchallenged, it is only a matter of time before secular institutions in other states will join the bandwagon." Interviewed by Education Week (September 7, 2005), however, a spokesperson for the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers expressed the opposite concern, reportedly worrying "about the potential implications of asking a university to ignore its course requirements -- which had been shaped by experts in various fields -- in favor of a 'free-for-all,' in which any interest group is allowed to shape policy."

[Pietro]

"What this really comes down to is do you make exceptions to academic standards because of someone's religion. "

Nonsense. Give them a standardized science test. If they pass it let them in if they don't, don't.

[HEY4QDEMS]

That's all the state can reasonably inquire into: the individual student's knowledge base.

That's is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Doesn't California have SATs.

[metmom]

My kids have used Abeka and my daughter has a 1510 SAT score. They are rigorous inspite of some of their statements. I have a science degree from a SUNY college and was impressed with the amount of knowledge and facts presented. We even roll our eyes on some of the other stuff.


Some problems with UC decision are: 1.) They are picking on two curriculum providers. There are other creation science curriculla out there. 2.) Would they exclude a Muslim who I would hazard a guess was not taght evolution? 3.) They are working under the assumption that just because a kid attended a public school, they were taught and understand evolution. Some kids plain don't get science, some don't care, some could have failed that entire section and still passed the course, some probably just plain slept through the course. 4.) There are other areas of education that are lacking. When I went back to college 20 years ago, I was horrified at the quality of education these incoming freshmen (didn't) have. On the first day of Math, everyone was required to take a placement test and if you got less than six answers correct, you had to take a 094 or 096 remedial class. The professors were very disgusted with this. I think that this is an arbitrary criteria when there are some many more serious concerns. If a student can't read, write, or do math, what possible difference does it make if they were "taught" evolution.

[shuckmaster]

Flood and the Fossils (grades 7-12)
A discussion of the evidence from the fossil record, which supports the biblical view regarding the Flood and disproves the evolutionary view.

[atlaw]

Regarding the Bob Jones science textbooks, you stated that you found the Chemistry text useful as a supplement. Perhaps so. But I will note that the Bob Jones textbook treatment of evolution includes, for example, the following:

"After Pasteur's swan-necked flask experiment and thousands of other experiments supporting biogenesis, do people today still believe in spontaneous generation? Yes. Anyone who believes in evolution believes that spontaneous generation has occurred. ... If they can create life, they think they can support their belief in life's beginning without God...."

"The idea that life comes from similar life is important. God created humans and all of the other kinds of organisms with the ability to reproduce after their own kind (Gen. 1:12, 21, 25, 28); therefore, humans reproduce humans, oak trees reproduce oak trees, and cats reproduce cats. The idea of all life forms descending from a common ancestor cell that originated from non-living chemicals is absurd."

[From many - one.]

I shoulda read the entire thread before posting. :-/

Your 108 is just what I was looking for. Goes into my permanent save collection. Thanks.

[js1138]

The Rio Loma Linda web site speaks of the Baby Fae incident as the high point of their existence.

[shuckmaster]

Thanks for doing this bit of research. It's pretty obvious that children raised on such totally irrational myth aren't prepared for university college. I have question however about the gullibility of well meaning parents who send their kids to schools that teach superstitious myths in the classroom. Should such schools be required to issue a disclaimer that the garbage they're feeding innocent children will cause them real problems in being accepted in a real college? I'm of the personal opinion that schools exist to teach the ignorant but, what option do the deceived parents have when the ignorance is being taught by the school?

It's not UC who is liable, it's the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta that should be getting sued!

[shuckmaster]

The problem with the Bob Jones version of teaching evolution along side creationism is that, quite often, the other hard science have to be manipulated to say things they don't say in order for evolution to be critiqued.

Not only that but what they're teaching also requires that the teachings of their own religious documents have to be manipulated to give the illusion of science. IOW, people advocating ID are all going to hell ignorant.

[atlaw]

I'm still wondering what UC would do with incoming foreign students on this issue.

Why? Are you operating under an assumption that the theory of evolution is somehow unique to the United States?

[wallcrawlr]

The complaint was filed in federal court in Los Angeles on August 25, 2005, on behalf of the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, California, and a handful of students at the school.

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[js1138]

I would wonder whether Muslim students from the middle east would have a creationist background.

But perhaps that would be sufficient to teach Planaria to make turns.

[Vive ut Vivas]

We need an end to the "postmodern tradition", that's what. The conditions of the humanities/social sciences departments in some of these schools are deplorable. You wouldn't believe what happens in art classes these days.

I do, however, find an unlikely friendship in the postmodernists and creationists. Both feel victimised by the "rationalists" and want the right to preach their worldview as they feel it is, because they feel it to be so, so it's just as valid as those with science to back up theirs. Both eschew reason. Since postmodernism is almost entirely linked to the left, it's the only shining light to get scientists to ally with the right. Too bad our "postmodernism" is creationism.

[donh]

That's all the state can reasonably inquire into: the individual student's knowledge base.

Being accepted, for example, at UCLA, means someone else was denied your place. UCLA is entitled to think about a broad range of questions, to decide whether you are a good investment in their criminally scarce resources.

[Vive ut Vivas]

I suppose sentences like this are what leads people to think creationism is anti-intellectual.

And the fact that it, well, is.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Not believing in evolution would have no effect on the practical use of sciences ...Other than oil geology, crop protection, fermentation science, immunization, and veterinary medicine."

Please explain (I ask sincerely) how holding a particular theory of the origin of species has an impact on these other sciences.

I don't have a dog in the evolution fight, myself, but I do know that creationists and ID-advocates all accept micro-evolution, if you want to call it that: modifications within species due to natural variation + selection pressure and/or deliberate breeding.

Though they have differences among themselves on many points, what they ALL are skeptical about is the development of novel anatomical structures (such as the eye and the wing) and "irreducibly complex" organelles (such as the flagellum) and new orders and phyla of living things via a millennia-long series of minute modifications.

Since I know two superb ID-oriented veterinarians right here in the city where I live, I would be doubtful of any claim that they are less competent because of their skepticism about some aspects of neo-Darwininan materialism.

So, from a scientific-method point of view: do you have any evidence to prove that Darwin-skeptic veterinarians, or plant physiologists, or pediatricians --- for instance --- are less competent in practice than their Darwinist colleagues?

[js1138]

Well, there is something to be said about a person who doesn't think you have to understand how things work in order to use them -- then is mystified when cut and paste HTML doesn't work as expected.

Somewhat like the Baby Fae heart transplant surgeon.

[trisham]

bttt

[Right Wing Professor]

Question from the Abeka 10-12th grade biology text.

Both men and women have exactly 12 pairs of ribs. Why is this not a contradiction of Genesis 2:21:22?

Oh yeah, that's biology. Mmmm-hmmm.

They advertise it as "Truly nonevolutionary in philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study." That's for sure.

The lawsuit doesn't have a snowflake's chance in Hell.

[js1138]

Because Lamark was wrong?