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 and other scientific concepts.
 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.
What is important here, is to stress the point that this ruling of the judge and the position of the UC is not arbitrary or dogmatic, but based totally on scientific and academic principles.
This is the MAIN reason I became interested in the whole separation of church/state debate.
I don’t want my kid (or anyone else’s-for that matter) to be denied acceptance to the university of their choice because they went to school in FL. where the scholastic standards weren’t up to par.
I am so grateful to all that helped defeat that nonsense this year.
Obviously the big question here is, specifically what were the important topics in science and history that were not included in the curriculum?
Just speculating since I don’t have access to the “textbooks” they use, but I’m thinking there’s also concern for what they DID include in the “curriculum”, not just what they left out. Made-up, revisionist history might be difficult to unlearn and if the kids had a preface in the science sections of the “textbooks” that said that the Bible is correct and scientists are liars (or something along those lines), deprogramming would be required. Either way, those students are ill-prepared for a real-world education and have to make up a lot of ground. But, that’s why God made Liberty and Bob Jones U’s!
Here are the reasons from District Judge James Otero:
” 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.”
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,”
McD – the lawsuit and the ruling are linked on my blog if you want to read them in their entirety but Jonathan has done a very very nice summary.
I guess I’m alone in not blogging about this one. Everyone else seems to be doing a good job, so there’s nothing for me to add.
It seems that topics were not ommitted, but rather the perspective they were taught from was not acceptable. Such a sad day in American history, especially when we think back to when the New England Primer was the foundation for learning in this nation.
It’ll be a sadder day when we have doctors who prescribe “God” as treatment for all illnesses. Hopefully, due to our efforts, that day will never come. I’ll admit I’m a little curious about “Chemistry for Christian Schoolsâ€. I know it’s not one of the rejected texts, but just how does one teach chemistry in a Christian manner? Do they omit all the discoveries made by non-Christian/atheist chemists? End every other sentence with “praise Jesus”?
The main point is an issue we’ve seen brought up here several times: What happens when scientific evidence contradicts the claims made by scripture? “If (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong†simply does not fly in the real world.
Easy. First, make a claim that even though modern chemistry as written by those “godless heathens” says that it is not possible to turn water to wine or water to blood, those with Jebus juice can do so. The human body may float in water, but Jebus’s body is so light it can walk on water. Etc, ad nauseum.
Oh, and despite claims to the contrary, water from the flood was also special: it could re-arrange fossils, cut through rock at an accelerated pace, move mountains, cause carbon-14 to report inaccurate results in archaeological digs, etc.
how does one teach chemistry in a Christian manner
Well, “It’s a mystery, just like God’s will” is an acceptable answer when your reactions or titrations don’t work.
On a more serious note, I went to a Christian school and college. It was some time ago so there weren’t many science textbooks expressly written for a Christian cirriculum, certainly no chemistry textbooks. I suspect the origin of matter is the issue, and possibly the evolution of biological molecules.
Man, given the mental trainwreck that would result in trying to apply these fantastic theological assertions to relevant scientific fields when pursuing a degree that makes extensive use of chemistry (biochemistry, geochemistry, materials science, chem. engineering, etc), I’d say the UCs were already being overly generous with what little they do allow from these Christian schools.
Sorry this is OT – but you might want to know that the TEA filed a motion to dismiss.
It is easy to teach chemistry from a Christian worldview. Science depends upon the uniformity of nature, and the law of causation. Christianity teaches that God sustains the universe and does so in a typical and consistent pattern. Thus uniformity and causation can be grounded and form a foundation for scientific inquiry. We do not have to worry that the same chemicals mixed today which produced H20 will tomorrow when mixed produce a nuclear explosion. Yep, you are living on borrowed capital when you secular science guys go to the lab. You assume there is uniformity and causation without any justification whatsoever. Now that is blind faith.
So essentially, what you are telling me is that you are taught that 2H2+O2=2H2O because God made it so instead of learning about how hydrogen is oxidized through the loss of an electron by ionization, which are in turn captured by oxygen, reducing it, to form water etc etc… I suppose atomic theory is out the window as well since by attributing the reaction to how the subatomic particles of each atom interacts with others flies in the face of “God did it.” Out of curiosity, how does God explain the synthesis of hydrogen peroxide from the very same components that make water?
Yet, this pattern, according to your beliefs, changes on your god’s whimsy. For instance, you contend that there are fundamental differences between the pre-Fall and post-Fall universe. Based on your example on a previous thread, one of these changes is that UV radiation can now permeate matter. How do you reconcile these two beliefs? Your religious chemistry books must have pre-Fall and post-Fall equations, equations based on whether the person attempting the experiment is a prophet or is capable of miracles, equations to describe how prayer can affect the outcome of an experiment…
In other words, you have reduced chemistry to alchemy. Tell me, what is the equation that allows your Jesus to walk on water?
S.Scott Says:
Thanks for the tip. That one is just getting warmed up. No real action yet.
Here’s a page about Chemistry for Christian Schools. At the bottom is a “look inside this book” link. Make sure to check that out and flip through those pages.
http://www.exodusbooks.com/details.aspx?id=4635
Wow, Brandon… some of those talking points are quite scary. I could understand why no university should give credit to anyone indoctrinated from such a course.
A mis-application of thermodynamics, theological contamination of scientific experimentation, and an outright dismissal of any evidence that doesn’t match up with scripture.
Well, looking at the sample chapter, the core concepts are present, but plenty of references and analogies to biblical passages are used to explain them. It seems that the authors made use of every opportunity to exclusively use biblical examples in their explanations, but then again, their target customer are religious schools. Overall, I find while it does teach most of what is required to understand chemistry, the preachiness is kind of annoying. To each his own, and however annoying I find its religious message, it does get the job done.
However, the emphasis on Creationism and God’s design which occurs throughout the sample chapter would predictably pose a great deal of problems in biology and shows that the UCs actually made an effort to analyze the impact that the religious influences would have on a student’s understanding of that particular scientific discipline before making their decision. So Skepy, it’s not entirely accurate to say that the UCs were dismissing based on perspective alone, but whether that particular perspective would actually hinder the student’s understanding of scientific fundamentals.
Spirula Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
“Well, “It’s a mystery, just like God’s will†is an acceptable answer when your reactions or titrations don’t work.”
Ah yes, but they will *work* if one employs standard fundamental creation science protocols!
Draw the curve THEN plot the data!