Posted on 08/12/2008 6:49:07 PM PDT by SmithL
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.
Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.
Otero's ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university's system of reviewing high school classes. Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, a group of Christian schools has appealed Otero's rulings to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said today. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.
Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations." What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."
The suit, filed in 2005, challenged UC's review of high school courses taken by would-be applicants to the 10-campus system. Most students qualify by taking an approved set of college preparatory classes; students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.
Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
My main interest at the time was in animal populations. I didn’t see where evolutionary theory was required to work with changes in current populations.
However, in my first class after the election of Ronald Reagan, the Professor said, “You all must be here for love, because there won’t be many jobs...” I eventually tired of being a frequently unemployed biologist, and joined the US Air Force.
From my perspective, evolution seems to belong more to history than science. That doesn’t make it evil - history is a valid intellectual discipline as well. History also teaches us many things useful for today, but the standards for proof are both different and widely understood. I think a lot of the problem with evolution is that people expect the proof to be similar to chemistry, where you can replicate experiments. If they thought of it as history, they would find the uncertainties easier to accept.
BTW - I took a graduate level class in evolution. The final exam was a single essay question, “Why is evolution absolutely necessary to biological thought?”
I replied it wasn’t, and tried to defend my position. The Professor - a great guy - gave me an A on the exam. “I’m certain you are wrong,” he wrote, “but it was easily the most original and thought-provoking answer in any of the classes I’ve taught”. A hard-core evolutionist, he also loved honest discussion. He remains my idea of a scientist.
>>>It is the current best explanation for a set of facts.
Yes, this is true. But it is different that a “proof” - which certainly does exist in the real of science. “Gravity” for instance, is not a “theory” in scientific terms, it is demonstrable, and capable of definitive explanation and proof. No so with evolution.
>>>A theory has been tested over and over, and passed all of those tests.
“Evolution” does not pass even this definition. It is a collection of observations and efforts to rationalize thoseobservations. It falls far from being demonstrable and provable.
>>>There is no such thing as “scientific proof” which can be applied to a scientific theory to bring it to a higher level. A theory is as high as you get in science.
You are wrong. Sorry.
Yes, this is true. But it is different that a “proof” - which certainly does exist in the real of science. “Gravity” for instance, is not a “theory” in scientific terms, it is demonstrable, and capable of definitive explanation and proof. No so with evolution.
You are confusing gravity, as in "this brick fell on my toe" with the theory of gravitation, which explains why and how that brick fell. You are confusing the observation with the explanation. Certainly the observation can be made with great precision (what you are considering "proof"), but that is entirely different from the explanation (theory) of why that observation occurred.
A theory has been tested over and over, and passed all of those tests.
“Evolution” does not pass even this definition. It is a collection of observations and efforts to rationalize thoseobservations. It falls far from being demonstrable and provable.
You seem to be speaking from religious belief here, as well as continuing your misunderstanding of the role of proof in science. See the definitions I have included below.
There is no such thing as “scientific proof” which can be applied to a scientific theory to bring it to a higher level. A theory is as high as you get in science.
You are wrong. Sorry.
See the definitions below.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.
There is no such thing as a religiously neutral education. That is why government should get out of the education business: elementary, high school and university.
If the college rejecting the courses had been a private university this case would not have been in the courts. It is before a judge because government education can **never** be religiously neutral and will uphold the religious worldview of some and trash that of others.
Another example of the government's attempt to enforce conformity of thought at the expense of critical thinking.
The solution is privatization of all education.
It is another attempt to indoctrinate children in the current government religious worldview of atheistic Secular Humanism.
Government schools ( pre-K, elementary, high school, and university) are **not** relgiously neutral because NO education can be religiously neutral.
So?
A religiously neutral education is impossible.( wintertime)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You ask, “So?”
Since education can never be neutral, and education will always tear down and/or establish specific religious beliefs, government can not constitutionally be involved in education. We have a First Amendment to protect us from government established religion.
Government education on every level will establish and favor the religion of some citizens and destroy that of others.
The solution: Begin the process of privatization of all levels of education.
If you feel strongly about government education then I suggest we amend the constitution.
The Amendment would read:
“It is OK for government to establish the religious belief of the biggest political bully in its government owned schools.”
By the way, do you think that this case would have been before a judge if the college were private? I don’t think so because private colleges can establish any religious belief that they want.
You are expecting your religious beliefs to be either confirmed, or at least not contradicted, in everything a government does.
Multiply that by the approximately 4,300 extant world religions and the government couldn't do anything at all! Is that what you want?
Or do you just your particular religion so favored?
Face it, some things believed by some religions (for example, the idea of a global flood 4,350 years ago), simply don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. There is absolutely no reason that schools can't teach what science has discovered about human history, including events surrounding 4,350 years ago, just because some folks have a contrary belief.
This is the difference between faith and belief on one hand and evidence on the other. Schools should stick to the evidence and let the chips fall where they may. If that contradicts some particular religious beliefs among those 4,300 religious, that is simply unavoidable.
Then we should amend the Constitution:
“It is OK for government to establish the religious belief of the biggest political bully in its government owned schools.”
There really is a better way. Begin the process of privatizing government education.
Coyoteman....You aren't defending government schools because you want to be a bully are you?
Nice try.
Actually, you are the one being the bully. You want to shut down the entire federal education system (and if you succeed there, the state systems would be next) because your personal dogma is contradicted by what is taught in science classes.
You want to shut down the entire federal education system (and if you succeed there, the state systems would be next) because your personal dogma is contradicted by what is taught in science classes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So?....You are admitting that government schools preach dogma?
I said begin the process of PRIVATIZING government education. There would still schools. ( Likely even **more** and better schools).
This is very different from your strawman argument which says shut the schools down.
Great. May I then add on?
If we agree that gravity exists we should have no problem arriving at a conclusion that Einstein's theories may be overturned by some radical new theory and it is okay for students, texts and even teachers to explain some of the problems the theories do not explain as well as some of the possible challenges.
If so, can we then agree that to question the current evolutionary theories is simply an outgrowth of a long standing tradition that improves our knowledge and tightens our arguments and that even the current theories of how evolution occurs will most likely someday be overturned by some radical new concept?
The best minds seem to arrive at novel new explanations by brainstorming and such brainstorming is best done unrestrained by presumptions. It very well may be that the evolution theories never need an intelligent designer but such a concept may be the avenue toward arriving at a much better, more predictive theory than the ones we have now.
It seems to me that the complete shutdown by the current status quo regarding any challenges to evolution theory makes those folks look more like high priests than scientists who are not afraid to allow and encourage discovery, testing, questioning and creative thought. The very avenue they are banning because of religion may be the one that actually leads to solutions that cannot be imagined at this time.
You might challenge that such a avenue is a waste of time but how many failed experiments actually leads to increasing our knowledge?
OK, let see where we draw the line. I prefer to keep science classes limited to sciences. You appear to want other forms of "knowledge" included. Which of the following list do you favor as being the equivalent to scientific evidence, and why?
Magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, and voodoo.Of course some of the items on this list are ridiculous. But you seem to want your favorite non-scientific belief included in science classes, to the exclusion of these other such beliefs. Do you have any rational for your selection other than your personal religious belief? And what of those people who believe in other items on the list? How do you include your non-scientific belief while excluding theirs?
Wouldn't it just be easier to teach science in science classes and leave religion to be taught elsewhere?
I joined the US Air Force and THEN went to college, and then graduate school.
Evolution is not a historic Science. Common descent is historic, but evolution is ongoing. Evolution is an experimental and observed Science. I can give you hundreds of citations where natural selection of genetic variation leads to different characteristics within a population, as well as many other facets of evolutionary theory.
I took many graduate level classes in Evolution. I don't know about “absolutely necessary”; but evolution is central to biological thought in my current field of drug discovery. Congrats on your “A”. Sounds like you had a great teacher with an open mind. It must have been one heck of a well written essay, although I doubt that much of it is in line with our current understanding of Molecular Biology and Molecular Evolution.
I beg your pardon? Who you calling a WA, buster?
Many of the above things have led to new knowledge but I see that you think we must limit the creative process and assign gate keepers. I believe many old wives tales have proven themselves as well as folklore and superstitions. Likewise, anecdotes can lead to valuable hypothesis. Public opinion is sometimes correct.
Further, the study of the "black arts" (to use an encompassing term) that you seem to use as derogatory have led to discoveries and insights regarding psychology and the affect of the mind on the physical body. Can thought alter genes? Wouldn't that be fascinating? What discoveries would be made along the way?
I suggest that your approach to learning is quite restrictive to anyone with creative thinking by holding fast to presumptions.
What we have here is a classic example of Orwellian doublethink. If they actually believed that scientific “theories” were mere guesses, they would (for example) occasionally jump out windows and try to fly like Superman (since the Theory of Gravity is only a “theory” and need not be taken seriously). Ironically, this would tend to remove them from the population by natural selection (as per the “theory” of evolution).
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.