Posted on 09/15/2005 6:36:25 PM PDT by 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."
I suppose an ID vet can deal with your dog's fleas fairly well; and he can sell you heartworm pills as well as anyone else. However, there's more to being a vet, or an MD, than being a competent tradesman. Sometimes there's some serious thinking required. Because all the evidence supports evolution, and none supports creationism/ID, that means an ID vet is involved in some serious reality-denial. I wouldn't want to entrust my dog's health to such a person.
If you doubt what I said about the evidence, I invite you to check this out: The List-O-Links.
Bzzzt! Sorry, you get zero. Lamarck was only slightly less evil than Darwin (because his ideas, unlike Darwin's, were easily disproved). The correct answer is that God cunningly started Adam off with 13 ribs, with one specially designed for transmogrification into a female body.
Report for your stoning after recess.
"What this really comes down to is do you make exceptions to academic standards because of someone's religion."
Incorrect. There is a difference between academic standards and philosophic assumptions.
Now, I haven't read the books in question. If they are indeed of lower standard, then yes, they should be penalized. However, they should not be penalized for merely taking a different view of the evidence.
If the book teaches biology well, the facts are presented, and the student knows as much as any student who is taking another biology class, then the prohibition is absolutely groundless, and truly is viewpoint discrimination.
If I were writing a Christian biology textbook, I would make sure that my students knew more about evolution than was taught in normal high schools, because certainly when you start to explore the depths you begin to see just how poor evolution is as an explanation. Now, perhaps this is not the view of the biology books in question. If they are not teaching what is being required to _know_, then in fact the discrimination is proper. However, if the only problem is what they present for the student to _believe_, or present additional evidences against the prevailing view, then the discrimination is wholly baseless for a public institution (private institutions can do whatever they want, legally).
I am _certain_ that they are not lowering academic standards in general. That is a red herring. However, I can agree that failing to teach the traditional model would be a disadvantage to a student going to school in a school that does teach the traditional model. However, as I've said, requiring that the school advocate belief in the traditional model is completely outside the concept of academic standards, and does go to viewpoint discrimination.
Let's pick a couple of examples:
Please explain how an oil geologist would choose where to dig, if he did not believe that the meandering contours of ancient shorelines, where critters were buried and crushed into oil, could be traced via their appropriate fossil indicators, related column-wise to older and newer shorelines via the geological column.
Explain how vets would go about treating animals they did not train on, if they did not believe in the commonality of biochemical, structural, and morphological claudisms that evolutionary theory predicts?
micro-evolution, if you want to call it that: modifications within species due to natural variation + selection pressur
There is no sound evidence for a micro-macro barrier between "species" or families, or phyla (whatever you may mean in distorting the meaning of "species"). And profound reasons for regarding it as equivalent to the flat-earth theory in scientific respectability.
Since I know two superb ID-oriented veterinarians right here in the city where I live
There are a number of variations in the ID conjecture. Including naturalistic ones.
It is very easy to accept the general notion of ID, without requiring any particularly profound modification of Darwinian evolutionary theory, and which does not require the acceptance of creationism, nor conflate with micro-evolutionary "theory".
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
yea, well, some people are skeptical that the earth orbits around the sun, and some people believe in the healing powers of crystal pyramids. A variety of beliefs makes for an interesting and spicy social environment--however, it also makes for lousy science. The argument from irreducible complexity, even dressed up with charts and graphs and entertaining engineering drawsings--is best stated: "since my giant brain can't comprehend how something was built, it must be a miracle!".
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?
Go back up a few posts in this thread and read about the heart surgeon who thought transplanting a babboons heart into a human was a good idea because he "did not believe in evolutionary theory".
"If a high school uses textbooks based on the Raelian movement to teach science to its students, it's highly likely that those students lack the requisite knowledge and understanding required to attend college level science courses."
Yes and no. I'm not familiar with the books in question, but let's look at it this way:
1) If a textbook based on the Raelian movement teaches EVERYTHING that is in the standard textbooks, AND teaches Raelianism, and teaches that the standard model is completely in error, then that student would NOT lack the requisite knowledge and understanding, they would simply be more likely to hold an unpopular view.
2) If a textbook based on the Raelian movement teaches ONLY Raelianism and skips everything contradictory, then the student WOULD lack the requisitie knowledge and understanding.
So what's at issue is whether it is #1 or #2. This is the true issue, but it also seems like noone wants to talk about it. If I were to guess, Bob Jones doesn't want to talk about it because they are actually doing #2, and NCSE doesn't want to talk about it because it would legitimize option #1. But again, I haven't seen the books myself.
Which specific Biblical principles are you referring to, and which specific precepts of fiscal conservativtism do these Biblical principles apply to?
"Socially conservative based on unalienable rights from the Creator forming the basis for proper universal personal responsibility."
Which specific inalienable rights are you referring to, and which specific precepts of social conservatism do these inalienable rights apply to?
I see no good reason to study biology beyond the mechanics of reproduction for students who plan their careers in fields other than science.
I will match my Christian School educated High Schoolers' Stanford Achievement Test scores or AP scores to FReepers secularly educated scores, anyday. Put in any controls you want, and you will not see a discrepancy.
Absolutely. After all, why would they need to understand how their own bodies function, how drugs and vitamins work, or whether the pesticides they use are likely to be harmful? Heaven forbid they should be able to evaluate for themselves claims about health or the environment!
Good to see a man of our profession making a strong stand for ignorance, sir. Heaven forbid a lawyer or a businessman would know any science!
The RC's inability to keep the state out of the Church made it a political organ. The Founders were clear on this. I disagree with the overly political side of Christianity. Our responsibility is to persuade individuals that personal accountability comes only by way of belief in Christ. Without Jesus Christ taking up residence in our heart, we are destined to be ruled by our self-centered flesh. Those attempting to be morally sound apart from Christ are miserable because they cannot avoid being ultimately ruled by their flesh.
A nation of unbelieving people is destined to failure.
Just as someone who studies the depths of conspiracy theories on how we never flew to the moon sees how poor the evidence is that we actually went there. The fact is they started with a conclusion (we didn't fly to the moon) and then sought to find "evidence" to support it.
Such evidence is bogus, as the "evidence" against evolution is bogus. But that doesn't stop a mini industry around the "we didn't fly to the moon" tale just like the mini industry around creationism.
I've got to admit though, the anti-evolution industry has a much larger potential market. There are lots and lots of ill educated people out there.
"I love it when creationists think they know more about science than scientists, I love it."
Why do you assume that creationists are not scientists? Many are, and are well-published in secular journals. A few young-earthers I am aware of:
* Todd Wood -- part of the team that sequenced the rice genome
* John Baumgardner -- world renowned for his computer models of the earth's mantle
* Grant Lambert -- studying enzymed editting mechanisms in cells
* Guy Berthault -- created the study of paleohydraulic analysis
* Robert Gentry -- physicist studying polonium halos in rock
What you have to realize is that while most scientists know science, most of them do not know philosophy, and are unaware of the philosophical presuppositions they are using in their work. Some of them do, and readily admit it. Few people know that Hawking explicitly stated in The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time that his model of the universe is based entirely on a philosophical presupposition. As he said, you cannot do cosmology without an admixture of philosophy. The problem is that most practicing scientists are simply unaware of the philosophical assumptions on which their work is based.
The primary motivation of the ID movement (as opposed to the creationist movement) is to point out these philosophical assumptions and simply ask if they are in fact valid. The creationist movement starts from the other side and simply has a different set of starting assumptions.
My oldest daughter got a 1600 math score, and went to public school.
I'm sure there are very few questions about evolution on the SAT test. Perhaps none.
It's easy to learn a set of facts regarding biology and still have a completely wrong understanding on "how things work". Creationist biology students would be very ill prepared for advanced degrees, and thus I support the UC system rejecting such ill educated students.
One of the main problems is that in order to justify a creationist/ID point of view, the other hard sciences like physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy have to be manipulated and twisted to fit what creationists want to believe. These subtle manipulations, and sometimes outright lies affect everyone studying them, but this effect is profound and deep when someone goes to specifically study in the hard sciences. In other words, creationism and ID must screw up the other sciences in order to sound tenable. If you truly believe in creationism, especially the literal interpretation of Genesis, you cannot accept most, if not all, of modern science.
If "ID is philosophy", fine. Teach it in philosophy class. But science does not assume that if we don't have perfect knowledge of how something works, then it must be the result of a deity.
Such a philosophy is death to science. Because if God did everything that we can't explain, then where's the motivation to find out what we don't know?
Yes, the student would lack the prerequisite understanding and knowledge. In order to teach a theory is in error, you must have substantiating evidence. That evidence will contradict the current understanding of the subject in question. Therefore, the student in ill prepared.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.