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."

[jwalsh07]

You still haven't read the complaint. They were'nt rejected on content grounds, they were rejected on grounds that they were too narrow. A sampling of other subject matter accepted by the university makes the claim laughable on its face.

As for the race baiting, I am not interested. Unless you have evidence of what you claim you should leave that stuff to the Jesse Jacksons of this world.

[snarks_when_bored]

If science were religion, you'd have a point; since it isn't, you don't.

Again, read Nagel's book, won't you? I've read the First Amendment (and the others), and much of the Bible. It behooves you to try to understand the nature of that which you're mischaracterizing.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The college track Bio classes at the red neck school where I went, didn't say boo about evolution at all. Adaptation was as close as it came. Somehow the ABET accredited university engineering program I went on to, didn't even care. This is snobbery of the first and worst order. These students are not, by definition, going to be interested in studies in evolution, the only thing that could justify requiring them to know it in the first place.

[P-Marlowe]

If science were religion, you'd have a point; since it isn't, you don't.

If evolution were science you might have a point; since it isn't, you don't.

[bondserv]

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.

I appreciate your response. I would venture to guess you were raised in a Christian environment (more than the average American).

What are you basing your social standards on?

Creationist's do not have a problem with evolution in the sense that creatures change over time. But this has nothing to do with Origins. Biblically speaking, we are a special creation of our Creator. This fundamental belief completely shapes a persons view of reality. As a special creation we have been endowed by our Creator with creativity that is not found elsewhere in the universe.

We as individuals have a God given value that is worth more than the entire inanimate universe. Upon this basis abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia are wrong. A wasted life to alcohol, drugs, crime or laziness should be attempted to be redeemed.

Dennis Prager uses a question to drive the point home:

If your child was caught smoking and cheating in school, which would you be more upset about? The answer is telling.

A person grounded in moral truth will immediately be more upset by the cheating, whereas a person more secular in their orientation will be confused, debating in their mind which is more significant. A person's character is far more significant than their behavior, for, as character builds, behavior is altered for the better.

Ultimately, Christians understand that belief in Jesus Christ pushes us over the line where we are no longer slaves to self. Hence the Hospitals, Charities, Universities and homeless shelters. The gals who were caught in Afghanistan by the Taliban are a recent example of the outworking of Jesus Christ in a person's life.

P.S. I say all of these things because you will never see it discussed on the major media channels. Thank you for your civil discussion.

[snarks_when_bored]

Perhaps you'll understand—perhaps not—if I elect to give qualified assent to the judgment of thousands of intelligent, well-educated, thoughtful biologists and paleontologists (several generations worth) that evolution is science rather than to your own judgment that it isn't. If you're smarter and more insightful than all of those folks, you'll have to do a lot more to demonstrate that than you've done here.

Regards...

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK! I'll read this stuff. Thanks for supplying me with something to chew on.

[curiosity]

I appreciate your response. I would venture to guess you were raised in a Christian environment (more than the average American).

Yup. Not only that, I continue to be a practicing Christian.

What are you basing your social standards on?

The scholastic natural law tradition. I hold to a Thomist moral theology (though I hold Molina's view of grace).

Creationist's do not have a problem with evolution in the sense that creatures change over time. But this has nothing to do with Origins. Biblically speaking, we are a special creation of our Creator.

I agree. The only difference between us is that I accept the overwheliming evidence that God left for as in His creation that He used evolution as His tool for creating us.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If you want a really detailed takedown of Behe's thesis, get a copy of Miller's "Finding Darwin's God".

Thanks. I see Amazon has it second-hand for $7. I'm getting me one. Something to sink my intellectual teeth into. Again gracias.

[curiosity]

Don't neglect the latter chapters of that book, either. The first half is about refuting creationists and ID people. The latter half is about how evolution fits into Dr. Miller's Christian faith.

[Zeroisanumber]

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."

Science is not a democracy. You can call whatever malarkey about dinosaurs and man sharing a 6,000-year old earth "science" if you'd like, but no major university will accept you, nor should they.

[curiosity]

The UC system is on the forefront of the life sciences, so they obviously want to have students who are open to, and prepared, to majoring in them.

[bondserv]

I agree. The only difference between us is that I accept the overwheliming evidence that God left for as in His creation that He used evolution as His tool for creating us.

This is the world system robbing the rightful view of mankind from our children. By saying we are nothing special, because we have accidentally arrived at being human, alters a foundational understanding of our purpose. It says God views His creation as a great masterpiece, with all outgrowths having equal merit.

Consider:

In effect Satan has effaced us of our being specially created in God's image. Because Satan is jealous of this unique quality to our existence, he has set about to rob and destroy the joy of fellowship with the Creator through Jesus Christ.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[curiosity]

By saying we are nothing special, because we have accidentally arrived at being human, alters a foundational understanding of our purpose.

But we are special. God set up the laws of nature so that we would eventually arrise. Even a small change in some of the fundamental constants of nature would make life impossible. We evolved because God wanted it that way.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker

[muir_redwoods]

"Although not as strongly believed as a 'law', a scientific theory is something which is generally considered to be accurate to a high degree"

Keep in mind, then that Newtons Laws of motion had to be tuned up by Einsteins Theory of relativity

[johnnyb_61820]

"That's the problem with ID and creationsism. There is no evidence, let alone proof. There is tons of evidence for evolution. Appearance of design is not proof of design."

Did you miss the equivocation? There is _evidence_ for evolution but not _proof_ of design. The reverse is also true -- there is _evidence_ for design but not _proof_ for evolution. You seem to simply be complaining that design is on equal footing with evolution, or you don't understand the distinction between evidence and proof.

"Actually, they have not shown anything of the sort. They tried to work with abiogenesis, not evolution."

That's simply false. Behe's work published in Protein Science dealt with the mathematics behind the "copy and modify" method of evolving new genes. Likewise, Dembski's work in No Free Lunch and Searching Large Spaces deal with creating information through mutation in living biological systems.

[johnnyb_61820]

Again, you are confusing issues. Your original claim was:

"Because if God did everything that we can't explain, then where's the motivation to find out what we don't know?"

You still did not support your claim of "everything". Behe's criticism is not that evolution has not occurred -- in fact he specifically thinks it did. Instead, Behe's claim of Irreducible Complexity is that the Darwinian process is incapable of producing such structures, not that no theory of evolution can produce such structures. Behe's main point is that science is stuck defending a dead mechanism that has no explanatory power, and it should get off its duff and explore other options.

In addition to that, Irreducibly complex systems match very closely with what designers normally design. Therefore, looking for design in biology is a valid preliminary inference, precisely because Irreducible Complexity matches what we know about how designers do design.

"The research on flagellum evolution has since explained away Behe's argument"

(1) Making up stories is not equivalent to an explanation. (2) Saying the small parts have other uses is likewise not an explanation, just as having a screw being part of a computer does not mean that a computer evolved from screws.

"but like typical ideologues, the ID and creationism advocates don't recognize that they've lost that fight"

If scientists can show experimentally how the flagellum developed, then you can call the case closed. Or, instead, show mathematically how such a feature is likely.

"Behe was satisfied that he had the answer, based on a lack of knowledge. That provides motivation to halt further science."

No, it halted further exploration of a Darwinian mechanism. It did not halt inquiry altogether. I'm all for abandoning dead theories. I don't think we should stick to bad theories just because someone will think that I'm "halting progress" on it. Bad theories should be halted, and replaced by better ones.

You seem to be arguing against design a priori as a bad argument for anything. Does design exist at all? If not, then we should fire our artists and programmers and just write a master program to do it. If it does, then you are excluding an entire mode of operation that is EXTREMELY COMMON in everyday life simply because of personal preference.

"Very true. But religion has abandoned acceptance of most of science"

Most of science? Are you serious? Please name the scientific law that Churches are explicitly against that is experimentally verifiable. (note that I indicated "law" because laws are mathematical, thus eliminating both fudge factors and speculation).

"My particular theory is that faith has acted as a filter, dividing people between those who can understand abstract logic, vs. those who operate emotionally."

This ultimately gives you away -- abstract logic can only lead from premises to conclusions. It appears that it is you who do not understand abstract logic. My favorite Star-Trek quote is, "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end of it". Abstract logic only works if you have correct assumptions, but logic cannot tell you whether or not your assumptions are correct. If you have bad assumptions, logic will lead you the wrong way. My own theory is that Darwinists are people who _only_ have abstract logic, and not any other facet of wisdom. Therefore, they are unable to analyze their own assumptions, because logic is their only tool, which is completely inadequate to the task. It is true that there are some in the Church without logic, but I think you are confusing what you see as a "lack of logic" with what is really a "broader wisdom than logic alone can provide".

[donh]

antigens, and other factors related to tissue rejection. Again, this has nothing to do with the theoretical descent of humans and other primates from common ancestors by heritable modification.

you can't make this true just by saying it with a confident air. Of course tissue rejection, and a number of other issues in applied biology, such as growing human parts replacements on pigs, or anticipating cross-grafts that will bear fruit, has quite a bit to do with mutational distances between the entities in question.

[donh]

would observe the relationship between certain geological structures and the likely presence of oil, without necessarily subscribing to a theory of remote origins which is not directly useful to their quest.

I suppose that's possibly true, much as you might assume that because there were a hole in the fence, and the cat had feathers hanging from his mouth, and some of your chickens were missing--that space aliens teleported your chickens to another dimension.