Now before people lose their minds, note that only certain credits are being rejected due to the material being more supernatural than science.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."
Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
Link
- Graham Kennedy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 11561
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
- Location: Banbury, UK
- Contact:
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
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?"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."
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
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.
Says it all, really."if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
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.
Not to keep repeating myself, but this is why I always saw the division between science and religion as not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
Good for the judge.
I could take a class in Carebears but that doesn't make me a ecologist.
I could take a class in Carebears but that doesn't make me a ecologist.
How many Minbari does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
None. They always surrender right before they finish the job and never tell you why.
-Remain Star Trek-
None. They always surrender right before they finish the job and never tell you why.
-Remain Star Trek-
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15380
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
Good for them. Good to see something in America going the right way in terms of religious out look.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
- Deepcrush
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 18917
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
- Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
Folks in the bible belt will raise the Lord's hellfire and brimstone over this. I just see it now... ![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15380
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
Suprising they dont want to go to one of their own places, I know there are a few of them around.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 13111
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:27 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence
- Location: New Hampshire
- Contact:
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
Good to read, here. Something going right for a change, there.
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
Keep religion out of Science.
"Bible, Wrath of Khan, what's the difference?"
Stan - South Park
Stan - South Park
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
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 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.
I wonder where anyone ever got the idea that the Earth was 6000 years old.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
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.![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Yeah, I know it makes no sense. Goes right along with everything else the evangelicals do.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 4042
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:58 am
- Location: Right here.
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
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.
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.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wonderous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross... but it's not for the timid." Q, Q Who
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 13111
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:27 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence
- Location: New Hampshire
- Contact:
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
stitch626 wrote: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 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.
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.
-
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:53 am
- Location: Somewhere in the universe
Re: Court: Bible No Substitute For Science
It was completely arbitrary.stitch626 wrote: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 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.
I wonder where anyone ever got the idea that the Earth was 6000 years old.
There is not a problem in this world that can't be solved without the proper application of a sufficient number of thermonuclear ordnance.