This classic may be a bit outdated too, but it should give you some valuable insight into this issue:
It appears that the University of California has the updated version.
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."
"Anyone who claims the Earth is 6,000 (or even 10,000) years old is just plain ignorant, regardless of his religion.
There are plenty of Protestant sects and/or schools that accept modern science. The UC system is only attempt to exclude those who make themselves willfully ignorant of it."
YOU used the word Protestant as though it were a dirty word. By the way the Bible no where states this earth is a mere 6,000 years old that is a tradition of man, just like other religions have their own traditions.
Evolution is a LIE.
Not in my book, but you don't have to be a creationist to be a social conservative.
Evolution has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal, either socially or fiscally.
I'm a social conservative and I accept evolution, along with the rest of modern science. And there are plenty of people like me.
I favor criminalizing abortion, criminalizing the destruction of living human embryos, and I'm against the recognition of homosexual marriages. I'm support public flogging, as in Singapore, as a punishment for various petty crimes like vandalism and shoplifting. I even support criminalization of sodomy (though sodomy laws should only be enforced selectively, as they have always been).
Is that socially conservative enough for you?
I'd venture to say the vast majority of pro-evolution people on FR are socially conservative, though perhaps few are as exterme as I am.
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with political philosophy. It is neither right wing nor left wing in any sense, either fiscal or social.
It's just a cold, hard fact about the natural world. Nothing less, nothing more.
No, but the parents of these students are forced to subsidize the tuition and salaries of the faculty and student body through their taxes. UCLA is a public institution. It is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. UCLA forces students to be indoctrinated in godless evolution before they consider them qualified for admission. IMO that is the same as a public institution requiring the students to have been baptized in the Catholic Church before they are admitted.
Evolution is as much a religion as creationism. The only difference is that evolution is apparently a state mandated religion. You must be baptized into evolutionary doctrine before you are considered a qualified student.
If you want a really detailed takedown of Behe's thesis, get a copy of Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".
You did.
My apologies. That was not my intention.
By the way the Bible no where states this earth is a mere 6,000 years old that is a tradition of man, just like other religions have their own traditions.
I agree, but the textbooks that the UC system is targeting adhere to this erroneous tradition of men.
Evolution is a LIE.
Yes, just like it's a lie that the world is round, that the earth orbits the sun, and that there's no such thing as phlogestin.
Have fun living in your dream world.
Yep I did.
A public university system rejecting a course entitled "Christianity's Influence on American History" on the grounds that it is too narrow while accepting other garbage listed in the complain that is narrower and of dubious value at best is an open invitation to be smacked down.
More to the point the entire episode smacks of bitchiness. Either the kids can do the work and they graduate or they can't and they are bounced. The university has NO evidence that using these texts is a detriment to success rates at their university which would seem to be what the goal should be, accepting students who are successful.
Sorry. I was still trying to figure out what you meant in 186 & missed the later references to Genesis. To debate death is pretty pointless.
Concerning Gen 2:17 there is a correct interpretation.
God gave man free will. Man is sinful. Because of those two things man will argue and fight about everything including religion. If God wanted to optimize on efficiency he could have manufactured robots who all were programmed to love God and had a single religion encoded in their brains. No. God wants those to choose Him who actually love Him in their heart of their own free will. Those who choose Him He will allow in his home. Those who don't won't be allowed in. The default condition is no one is allowed in His home unless invited and welcomed. Kind of like how you run your house. Makes perfect sense.
The different interpretations of the Bible are noise compared to the important essential points - the two commandments. Not saying theology doesn't matter. I'm saying one should not throw the baby out with the bath water. We mere men can never fully understand Christian theology. We can argue and debate but what's most important is a relationship with Jesus Christ and to not let these debates get in the way of that.
No, it's discriminating on the basis of applicants' science curriculum.
UCLA forces students to be indoctrinated in godless evolution before they consider them qualified for admission.
Like all scientific theories, evolution nothing to say, pro or con, about God. You might as well call all scinece "godless."
Evolution is not philosophy or theology. It's nothing more than a fact about nature, and it has nothing to do with religion. There are plenty of conservative Christians who have no problem with evolution.
You really shouldread the complaint before you make sweeping assertions that are incorrect.
I did not see that. I agree with you; this is an outrage.
An interesting outlook that doesn't really contradict Judiasim or Christianity.
If you had any credibility before, you've just spent it all on that post.
HUH? Lots of Christians are enrolled in the CA university system ...
This classic may be a bit outdated too, but it should give you some valuable insight into this issue:
It appears that the University of California has the updated version.
However, looking at the complaint, I see that most of the rejected humanities textbooks are put out by Bob Jones University.
That makes them immediately suspect, judging from a lot of the garbage I've seen come out of that place. For example, I'm very suspicious that they might do things like whitewash the history of slavery and Jim Crow.
I'd have to see the humanities books myself before making a judgment. In the complaint, all I have to go on are the title, which I agree by themselves is perfectly innoncent. But you should not judge a book by its title.
On the other hand, knowing already the kind of nonsense BJU spouts on science, I can be pretty sure that their science textbooks are garbage and are rightly rejected.
Definition of "death" in what context? Your question as stated is confusing.
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.