Replies

Abeka certainly does address evolution. It states what it is and why they believe it is wrong but they DO present it. We've used Abeka for out jr./sr. homeschooling and I feel that the state is off base here. Abeka at least has the courage to address both opinions which is more than I can say for most public schools. I also feel that it irresponsible for the college to say that Christian school students are not adequately prepared for college on the basis of ONE topic taught in ONE subject for ONE year of high school. when you see how inadequately prepared for college most students are in math and English, this is just an agenda issue. There are incoming freshmen who can't even handle a 100 level math course and that was what I saw 20 years ago when I went back to finish up my degree. I'm sure it's much worse now.

"It states what it is and why they believe it is wrong but they DO present it."

Apparently, the University of California does not believe that the books adequately cover the topics necessary to enroll in their required science classes. They may present it, but that presentation may not be thorough enough to give incoming students the knowledge and understanding required for them to enter the university's science courses.

"Abeka at least has the courage to address both opinions"

The Theory of Evolution is not an opinion; it's a scientific theory, which has a very specific meaning.

"I also feel that it irresponsible for the college to say that Christian school students are not adequately prepared for college"

That's not what they're saying. What they're saying is that students taught from certain textbooks do not have the knowledge and understanding of certain topics required to enroll in their university. Apparently, no public schools use those particular textbooks. If they did, it's likely that the University of California would not admit those students either. It's not the religion, nor the school; it's the textbooks.

"not adequately prepared for college on the basis of ONE topic taught in ONE subject for ONE year of high school."

The school is free to have requirements of knowledge and understanding in any given subject for applicants to be accepted. How about a school which does really well with teaching students about every subject, but never addresses algebra? Sure, the kids are mostly prepared, but they've not met the university's requirements for mathematical knowledge. Ergo, they're not admitted. Too bad; apply elsewhere.

This is an amusing manifestation of a persecution complex some people have. This university has every right to set its academic standards. When students are inadequately prepared for what the college is teaching, they are not admitted to the college. If certain schools are teaching religion at the expense of other subjects, their students are going to suffer. I went to a Catholic high school where a year-long religion class was mandatory and standard for every single student. 96% of my high school's graduates went on to college. The schools whose graduates are not getting into college have failed their students. That's just the way it is. The students affected by this should apply to a school with lower standards, or go to a local community college to receive instruction in the subjects where they lack the requisite knowledge and understanding.

Abeka certainly does address evolution. It states what it is and why they believe it is wrong but they DO present it.

I've never seen a piece creationist literature give an accurate description of the theory of evolution or the evidence that supports it. In addition, I've never seen a piece of creationist literature give a scientifically valid argument against it.

In other words, all creationist literature I've seen is filled with MISINFORMATION. Now maybe Abeka is different. Given my experience with other creationist literature, however, I'd seriously doubt it.

The UC system has every right to excludes applicants who have been taught a bunch of misinformation regarding one of the most important concepts in the life sciences.

Abeka certainly does address evolution. It states what it is and why they believe it is wrong but they DO present it. We've used Abeka for out jr./sr. homeschooling and I feel that the state is off base here. Abeka at least has the courage to address both opinions which is more than I can say for most public schools

metmom, I'm not an educator or any kind of expert--and if you've had good results from using A Beka, no one can contradict you.

But I would be interested to read just what A Beka does 'state' about ToE. The reason I ask is because, judging from some other FReep threads, there is certainly a body of people who think they know what ToE comprises but who very clearly know very little about it or understand what it is to make a valid scientific challenge; indeed, the only thing some appear to 'know' is that 'ToE' is 'wrong'--and that just doesn't get anybody anywhere.

I have tried A Beka's website; there was nothing specifically about what their curriculum covers on ToE, though two passages did strike me:

Mathematics is the language God used in His creation of the universe, and thus it is logical, orderly, beautiful, and very practical in science and in daily life. No subject matter better reflects the glory of God than mathematics. To study mathematics is to study God's thoughts after Him, for He is the great Engineer and Architect of the universe. Unlike the “modern math” theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, we believe that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute. All of the laws of mathematics are God's laws. Our knowledge of God's absolute mathematical laws may be incomplete or at times in error, but that merely shows human frailty, not relativity in mathematics. Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe, both scientific and mathematical. A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory.

I am a little puzzled by some of the above (I don't normally think of mathematics as a particularly religious issue, though people have thought that way at least since the time of Pythagoras) but certainly unobjectionable, although I wonder what the beef is about 'set theory'?

The ideological approach they outline toward English looks a bit shakier to me:

Since Darwin, linguists have sought in vain for a credible explanation for the origin of language. Having accepted evolutionary philosophy, they can only think that language must be simply a response to a stimulus, an emotional outcry, an imitation of animals. If such foolishness were true, then any talk of language being governed by rules or any claims that some expressions are better than others would be inappropriate, and relativism would rule. This explains many English programs today. But as Christians, we still believe that the Bible provides the only credible explanation for the universe, of man, and of language. Therefore, it is easy to see in language a structure which reflects the logic, reasonableness, and orderliness of the One who created man and his language.

But the section on Science is, in my view, getting very shaky indeed:

Science is the study of God's order, provision, and reasonableness as revealed in His physical creation. While secular science textbooks present modern science as the opposite of faith, the A Beka Book science texts teach that modern science is the product of Western man's return to the Scriptures after the Protestant Reformation, leading to his desire to understand and subdue the earth, which he saw as the orderly, law-abiding creation of the God of the Bible.

I won't pick through this point by point (I've arrived late to this thread), but offer the above for consideration by anyone interested

I also feel that it irresponsible for the college to say that Christian school students are not adequately prepared for college on the basis of ONE topic taught in ONE subject for ONE year of high school.

Rejecting Darwinian theory in rigorous detail (which one hopes a science classroom is about), requires rejecting a fair chunk of modern astronomy, physics, geology, paleo-meteorology, decay dating, racimation dating, paleo-microbiology, and, of course, paleology.

Darwinian theory is to biology what gravitational theory is to physics. Do you think UC should accept students steeped in the platonic physics of the flat earth society?