A Sea Of Red

A federal judge has ruled the University of California can deny course credit to Christian high school graduates who have been taught with textbooks that reject evolution and declare the Bible infallible, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.

This is getting a little scary.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,402761,00.html

It will be overturned

Does it reject evolution but still teach what it is or does it all together leave out evolution?

SuperJon wrote:Does it reject evolution but still teach what it is or does it all together leave out evolution?

I would imagine that evolution is never mentioned in the textbooks. The school I went to used Bob Jones textbooks and the only thing mentioned in any of them was the creation story. Evolution was never covered other than any time the teachers brought it up to make fun of it.

If it wasn't even covered, then I agree with the state. You need to be taught all of the theories. I stress that last word too.

SuperJon wrote:If it wasn't even covered, then I agree with the state. You need to be taught all of the theories. I stress that last word too.

I agree with you. The only thing I knew about evolution from my Christian school (K-12) was that you had to be an idiot to believe we came from monkeys.

Why should a theory that has never been proved and has more evidence against than for be required to be taught?

ALUmnus wrote:Why should a theory that has never been proved and has more evidence against than for be required to be taught?

Ask Liberty the same question...

adam42381 wrote:

ALUmnus wrote:Why should a theory that has never been proved and has more evidence against than for be required to be taught?

Ask Liberty the same question...

if you are referring to Creation I'm pretty sure there is more evidence for it than against it

ALUmnus wrote:Why should a theory that has never been proved and has more evidence against than for be required to be taught?

From that standpoint, why should Creationism be taught? Why should any theory be taught? By that logic, we shouldn't teach e=mc2 either.

I'm in favor of no science class

RagingTireFire wrote:

ALUmnus wrote:Why should a theory that has never been proved and has more evidence against than for be required to be taught?

From that standpoint, why should Creationism be taught? Why should any theory be taught? By that logic, we shouldn't teach e=mc2 either.

I never said it did, just questioning why a more-than-likely false idea is a requirement for high-school credits to be given, by law. Besides, give me evidence against Creationism. Can't prove a negative, right? Well evolution can be proven wrong, so why is it taught as fact, by law?

ALUmnus wrote:

RagingTireFire wrote:

ALUmnus wrote:Why should a theory that has never been proved and has more evidence against than for be required to be taught?

From that standpoint, why should Creationism be taught? Why should any theory be taught? By that logic, we shouldn't teach e=mc2 either.

I never said it did, just questioning why a more-than-likely false idea is a requirement for high-school credits to be given, by law. Besides, give me evidence against Creationism. Can't prove a negative, right? Well evolution can be proven wrong, so why is it taught as fact, by law?

I don't know how it is everywhere but here in NC (my wife is a teacher), evolution is presented as theory not as fact.

As is big bang and the other secular theories.

Maybe if your teacher happens to be a creation-believing Christian. Otherwise it's a bit naive to think that. Evolution is generally taught as THE way, unless it's in a state that has required a disclaimer.

I went to school in four states and had teachers who could not be described as Christians in any way. I never heard evolution taught as fact.

Sure, it's all circumstantial evidence, so I can really only speak from what I've seen and heard, just like everyone else I guess. But back to the original point, to make this law does not make any sense.

ALUmnus wrote:Maybe if your teacher happens to be a creation-believing Christian. Otherwise it's a bit naive to think that. Evolution is generally taught as THE way, unless it's in a state that has required a disclaimer.

Not true, at least in Virginia, Florida and North Carolina where my wife has taught. They are required to teach everything regarding the origins of the universe as theory not fact.

ALUmnus wrote:Sure, it's all circumstantial evidence, so I can really only speak from what I've seen and heard, just like everyone else I guess. But back to the original point, to make this law does not make any sense.

There wasn't a law made here. The judge upheld the decision of an academic review board that the textbooks did not include important science and history topics. If those books ignored the topic of evolution entirely, I would tend to agree that an important topic was not included.

alumnus, you want an argument against intelligent design/creationism? i found some stuff on google, but limited the search to .edu addresses to help cut out some of the propaganda that would be found on .com and .org sites...

from lock haven university.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/denial.htm
make sure you scroll to the bottom to read other chapters if you are interested.

from the new yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/0 ... 530fa_fact

this one is really interesting, but more so showing scientific explanation of how creatures evolved from simple to complex organisms, not necessarily a direct criticism of creat./ID
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

a short little bit from Brandeis
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/phildesign.html

I didnt believe in evolution till I saw those Chinese Gymnast cheaters and their coaches, now I believe it might be true.

if the books dont include important science (rather you agree with the science topics is a different story) and historical topics, then that would certainly undermine the validity of the diploma. if they arent teaching important science and history topics, then what else arent they teaching? Preaching that the Bible is infallible, although complying with the schools religious beliefs, leads me to wonder if other egregious signs of bias are present in the classroom. are they teaching the children facts on topics, or are they skewing the facts to comply with their religious beliefs? whats next? are they not going to teach other theories or even facts if they dont fall inline with their religious beliefs?

its one thing to teach evolution and creationism/intelligent design together and state that evolution is only a theory and that creationism/ID is the correct way, but its another thing to keep the kids ignorant. keeping the kids ignorant is unacceptable. not teaching important information and keeping the kids ignorant is just as bad as passing people who dont understand the concepts well enough to deserve a passing grade in my opinion.

I think you guys jumped into this argument on either side without really reading what was written.

U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school's review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.

Now, I guess the basic reasoning is solid. If it failed to do those things then it failed to do those things and it makes sense not to receive credit. But who decides? I think it's pretty obvious when you throw around generic and almost insulting terms like (lack of) "critical thinking" when a certain way is presented and or omitted. (lets not even get into what is omitted in CA public schools and yet they can think critically) I would also question how "important" that particular topic (evolution) is if it truly is presented as a theory. Oh wait, it is important because it is the absolute foundation for every other biological thing taught in a public classroom. But it's only presented as a theory, as you all say. With a wink and a nod and a legal disclaimer. It's not like these kids weren't taught the scientific method. Heck they might know it better because they don't assume theories to be law. And lastly, what historical topic is being left out of the Christian curricula? The Revolutionary War? Louis and Clark? Oh wait, I think I know. But it's only presented as a theory, right? A historical theory.

flamesbball84 wrote:if the books dont include important science (rather you agree with the science topics is a different story) and historical topics, then that would certainly undermine the validity of the diploma. if they arent teaching important science and history topics, then what else arent they teaching? Preaching that the Bible is infallible, although complying with the schools religious beliefs, leads me to wonder if other egregious signs of bias are present in the classroom. are they teaching the children facts on topics, or are they skewing the facts to comply with their religious beliefs? whats next? are they not going to teach other theories or even facts if they dont fall inline with their religious beliefs?

its one thing to teach evolution and creationism/intelligent design together and state that evolution is only a theory and that creationism/ID is the correct way, but its another thing to keep the kids ignorant. keeping the kids ignorant is unacceptable. not teaching important information and keeping the kids ignorant is just as bad as passing people who dont understand the concepts well enough to deserve a passing grade in my opinion.

If creationism/intelligent design (not actually the same thing, but I'm not going to pick nits here) is as strong as we believe it is, it should be able to stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Of course, evolution should be able to as well, and it seems adherents are dedicated to making sure it doesn't have to stand up to any critical inquiry. The only way we can be intellectually honest is to make sure we address the strengths and weaknesses of all sides of the debate, and go from there.

phoenix wrote:

flamesbball84 wrote:if the books dont include important science (rather you agree with the science topics is a different story) and historical topics, then that would certainly undermine the validity of the diploma. if they arent teaching important science and history topics, then what else arent they teaching? Preaching that the Bible is infallible, although complying with the schools religious beliefs, leads me to wonder if other egregious signs of bias are present in the classroom. are they teaching the children facts on topics, or are they skewing the facts to comply with their religious beliefs? whats next? are they not going to teach other theories or even facts if they dont fall inline with their religious beliefs?

its one thing to teach evolution and creationism/intelligent design together and state that evolution is only a theory and that creationism/ID is the correct way, but its another thing to keep the kids ignorant. keeping the kids ignorant is unacceptable. not teaching important information and keeping the kids ignorant is just as bad as passing people who dont understand the concepts well enough to deserve a passing grade in my opinion.

If creationism/intelligent design (not actually the same thing, but I'm not going to pick nits here) is as strong as we believe it is, it should be able to stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Of course, evolution should be able to as well, and it seems adherents are dedicated to making sure it doesn't have to stand up to any critical inquiry. The only way we can be intellectually honest is to make sure we address the strengths and weaknesses of all sides of the debate, and go from there.

This is true, but this decision does none of that. And I hardly think that was the intent of the University of California. And no, I'm not trying to start an evolution vs creationism debate, that gets tired real quickly.