Court: Bible No Substitute For Science

[Aaron]

Link

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 Tuesday. 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 of history, or any alternative ... to evolution."

But Otero said in March that the university has approved many courses containing religious material and viewpoints, including some that use such texts as "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation," or that include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution.

UC denies credit to courses that rely largely or entirely on material stressing supernatural over historic or scientific explanations, though it has approved such texts as supplemental reading, the judge said.

For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.

He also said the Christian schools presented no evidence that the university's decisions were motivated by hostility to religion.

UC attorney Christopher Patti said Tuesday that the judge assessed the review process accurately.

"We evaluate the courses to see whether they prepare these kids to come to college at UC," he said. "There was no evidence that these students were in fact denied the ability to come to the university."

But Monk, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said Otero had used the wrong legal standard and had given the university too much deference.

"Science courses from a religious perspective are not approved," she said. "If it comes from certain publishers or from a religious perspective, UC simply denies them."

Now before people lose their minds, note that only certain credits are being rejected due to the material being more supernatural than science.

[Graham Kennedy]

"Science courses from a religious perspective are not approved," she said. "If it comes from certain publishers or from a religious perspective, UC simply denies them."

It's not that they are from a religious perspective, it's that the religious perspective that they are from is bullshit. If I turn up at a university wanting to do atomic physics should they have to accept me if my school has taught me that there's no such thing as atoms?

[Sionnach Glic]

I immediately doubt the credibility of any "scientist" that can seriously claim the Earth is 6000 years old. I see this as nothing but a good thing.

"if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.

Says it all, really.

[Mikey]

Exactly. I don't think the point is anti-religion at all' but how could you give credit for a scientific discourse on evolution if the credit is coming from a class basis of "there is no such thing?"

Not to keep repeating myself, but this is why I always saw the division between science and religion as not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Monroe]

Good for the judge.

I could take a class in Carebears but that doesn't make me a ecologist.

[Teaos]

Good for them. Good to see something in America going the right way in terms of religious out look.

[Deepcrush]

Folks in the bible belt will raise the Lord's hellfire and brimstone over this. I just see it now...

[Teaos]

Suprising they dont want to go to one of their own places, I know there are a few of them around.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

Good to read, here. Something going right for a change, there.

[Nutso]

Keep religion out of Science.

[stitch626]

I immediately doubt the credibility of any "scientist" that can seriously claim the Earth is 6000 years old. I see this as nothing but a good thing.

As do I. The Bible doesn't even indicate that the Earth is 6000 years old. It only mentions 7 creative days, but does not say how long each day was.
I wonder where anyone ever got the idea that the Earth was 6000 years old.

[Mikey]

Because they, um, used completely arbitrary license to fuel their "fundamentalism?"

Yeah, I know it makes no sense. Goes right along with everything else the evangelicals do.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

I know of many perfectly legitimate scientists who have been able to reconcile their scientific and religious beliefs, who keep their faith out of their work, and who aren't threatened by any such "dichotomy." I'm not religious myself, but if I were my attitude would be that the laws of Nature, which are discovered through Science, are the natural order of God.

Either way, it's quite simple: if the basic thesis of a course or its text is based on dogma, it is by definition NOT science.

[RK_Striker_JK_5]

I immediately doubt the credibility of any "scientist" that can seriously claim the Earth is 6000 years old. I see this as nothing but a good thing.

As do I. The Bible doesn't even indicate that the Earth is 6000 years old. It only mentions 7 creative days, but does not say how long each day was.
I wonder where anyone ever got the idea that the Earth was 6000 years old.

IIRC, someone added up the ages of Adam's descendants.

[JudgeKing]

I immediately doubt the credibility of any "scientist" that can seriously claim the Earth is 6000 years old. I see this as nothing but a good thing.

As do I. The Bible doesn't even indicate that the Earth is 6000 years old. It only mentions 7 creative days, but does not say how long each day was.
I wonder where anyone ever got the idea that the Earth was 6000 years old.

It was completely arbitrary.