Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 8/12/8 | Bob Egelko

[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

[seanrobins]

>>>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.

But, you continue to miss the point that started all of this. While it might be reasonable and rational when dealing with a scientific proof (which even you agree does exist) to conclude: “Case close” or “No room for discussion” - In the case of a “Theory” (however certain you may believe in your heart it might be) there will always exist room for discussion and disagreement, and as to a theory, no one can legitimately conclude “case closed”

(Unless of course you fall in with the crowd that believes that there is anything legitimate about the nonesense known as “Scientific Concensus” - there is, of course, no such thing as scientific concensus that has any value whatsoever, concensus meaning, in essence, “Let’s vote on it” - Absurdity!)

[Coyoteman]

But, you continue to miss the point that started all of this. While it might be reasonable and rational when dealing with a scientific proof (which even you agree does exist) to conclude: “Case close” or “No room for discussion” - In the case of a “Theory” (however certain you may believe in your heart it might be) there will always exist room for discussion and disagreement, and as to a theory, no one can legitimately conclude “case closed”

While what you say about theory is correct, the problem we have in these threads is that folks are bringing up "discussion and disagreement" based on religious beliefs, not scientific evidence. For religious reasons they have decided that the theory of evolution is impossible or some such, and they then bring forth all manner of objections--all of which have been refuted hundreds of times. But because they are operating on belief rather than evidence, no amount of evidence that we post makes the slightest difference to them.

I am sure that if ID and similar subjects were encouraged in classrooms the same thing would happen. What would it serve a class to have a student interrupt a teacher with a claim that evolution was impossible because it "violates the second law of thermal documents." We actually had a post a couple of years ago on this website claim that very thing. This is what comes from knowing nothing about a subject, or from reading a few creationist websites, and suddenly being convinced that you have the answer that tens of thousands of scientists have overlooked for 150 years.

Science is hard, and it takes a lot of study to be well versed in even a small segment of it. At the high school level students need to start learning. They will be many years before they can start finding legitimate flaws in science, and they are not going to do themselves any good by believing the nonsense on creationist websites.

(Unless of course you fall in with the crowd that believes that there is anything legitimate about the nonesense known as “Scientific Concensus” - there is, of course, no such thing as scientific concensus that has any value whatsoever, concensus meaning, in essence, “Let’s vote on it” - Absurdity!)

If you want to see what the "consensus" is in any particular field you need to do a thorough study of the current scientific literature. What shows up in the popular literature and the press is not sufficient. It most often reflects what the popularizers and the agenda-driven want you to hear. The real scientists are far more likely to dodge the cameras and reporters and present their findings, very carefully worked out and reported, in the technical journals.

[seanrobins]

>>>For religious reasons they have decided that the theory of evolution is impossible or some such

Unfortunately, the discussion with “man-made” global warming is the same... People claiming “science” are supporting the notion that (1) man-made GW exists, (2) that man has and can affect climate change, and (3) that a so-called calamatous world-ending clilmate change is just over the horizon, on what is essentially a religious belief in thoroughy incredible and unsupported “science”

This “religious” belief is far FAR more dangerous that people believing that God created the universe: a “theory” that no scientist has or can refute, and one which many (myself included) believes is NOT necessarity inconsistent with evolutionary theory. (After all, who can say that God’s creation of the universe did not take the form of an “evolutionary” process)

But I digress...