Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students
by SF Gate
Thanks to Dawn Duke for the link.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/12/BAQT129NMG.DTL&tsp=1
Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students
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 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 today 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."
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/12/BAQT129NMG.DTL&tsp=1
Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students
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 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 today 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."
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
Comments 1 - 50 of 114 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #228945 by thewhitepearl on August 12, 2008 at 9:20 pm
BWHAHAHAHAHA!
Yes, this is exciting. This really makes me want to move out there now.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
4. Comment #228951 by dazzjazz on August 12, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Nice to have some positive news regarding education - keep on marginalising the religious loons!I remember when I start Uni, we were told that we could reference the Bible in our essays - solid!!
darren
Other Comments by dazzjazz
5. Comment #228952 by Bonzai on August 12, 2008 at 9:28 pm
"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."
And that is supposed to be a problem?! Excuse me?
Other Comments by Bonzai
6. Comment #228958 by dredux on August 12, 2008 at 10:07 pm
It's still worrying that:"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."
A quick Google of "Biology: God's Living Creation" shows that it is creationist in outlook, not the relatively harmless 'God-started-the-whole-thing'.
Quotes from the preface of the textbook in question at: http://crazytalk.typepad.com/bluegrassroots/2007/02/biology_gods_li.html
Even the first Google result has a sample page talking about how 'God designed our upper extremities for both strength and dexterity'.
So while this article is a bit of good news, it's very worrying what textbooks are still 'informing' some kids going to university.
Other Comments by dredux
7. Comment #228961 by HourglassMemory on August 12, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I love controversies like this.All power to the UC. Just be straightforward. That's the way to go and make people finally realise that their myths have no place in the world except the private minds of citizens, just like any other delusion.
Other Comments by HourglassMemory
8. Comment #228962 by evolve749 on August 12, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Bloody common sense wins in California!!I second that! With all the nonsense taking place in Texas and Louisiana, it's refreshing to see reason triumph for a change. It's also quite gratifying to see the fundies blubbering like babies. Sad to say, but the more marginalized and unhappy they become, the more the world becomes a better place.
Yes, this is exciting. This really makes me want to move out there now.
Sounds like a good idea, TWP. Need a roommate?
Other Comments by evolve749
9. Comment #228963 by mordacious1 on August 12, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I don't think this is discriminatory at all, as long as these pudding brains score well on the SAT [good luck there, no e) godditit on the the test], they can still be accepted. Other Comments by mordacious1
10. Comment #228966 by thewhitepearl on August 12, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Evolve,
As long as you appreciate vodka. We're good.
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
11. Comment #228967 by Ian on August 12, 2008 at 11:16 pm
A heartening result, but what's important here to to press the point that this ruling and the stance of UC is not arbitrary or dogmatic, but based upon sound scientific principles.What's important about science is that it uses sound principles and methods to establish truth, which makes its conclusions verifiable and falsifiable.
Creationists feel all they have to do is provide an alternative 'narrative', which sounds like science; but science is deeper than than a mere narrative. Instead, they have to show how their ideas can help establish new knowledge and broaden understanding in a demonstrable way.
This they cannot even begin to do. They're failure is total.
Other Comments by Ian
12. Comment #228969 by Dow on August 12, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Oh thank goodness. Being an undergrad at UCLA, I can feel safe.. hehe ;) Other Comments by Dow
13. Comment #228971 by evolve749 on August 12, 2008 at 11:21 pm
TWP,lol I'm actually more of a beer man, but I'm sure I could develop an appreciation.
Other Comments by evolve749
14. Comment #228977 by geru on August 12, 2008 at 11:46 pm
As the Christian schools at least claim to be educators, they should probably realize that if they choose to ignore reality and fill their courses with made up fantasies, their students will probably have a hard time coping in the world.Of course they don't really care about that, they're probably just hoping that they'll someday pump out enough ignorant people from their schools, that their ignorance will become the new norm of the society.
I feel sorry for the poor bastards who after years of studying and finally graduating from some Christian school, try to apply to some university and are told that the degree that they have just acquired is worthless because they have been taught nonsense.
I wonder what it would be like if universities did accept all sorts of alternative views of the world. I can already imagine the slogan: "UC - If you believe it, that's good enough for us!"
Other Comments by geru
15. Comment #228980 by King of NH on August 13, 2008 at 12:21 am
I remember when I first started college in Georgia (US). I was in a world lit. course studying Gilgamesh. My professor asked us to compare and contrast Utnapishtim's flood and Noah's flood. More than 4/5ths of my class stood in all seriousness and claimed Utnapishtim was myth, Noah was real. I got in a little trouble for laughing out loud, but in my defense, I did think they were joking. Later, at the local bar, my professor and I continued to laugh. He transferred a few semesters after, and I transferred the following semester. Religion is destroying education. Other Comments by King of NH
16. Comment #228981 by Godfree Gordon on August 13, 2008 at 12:21 am
antitheist
I cant stop looking at your arse...
what is that avatar?
Other Comments by Godfree Gordon
17. Comment #228988 by Roland_F on August 13, 2008 at 1:12 am
Chemistry for Christian Schools
What on earth is this ?
I know creationist Biology, flat earth & young earth Geology, Sin based gravity (only planet earth with sinning humans have gravity !) but Christian Chemistry ?
What are the deluded Bronze age mystics doing there ?
Other Comments by Roland_F
18. Comment #228990 by PJG on August 13, 2008 at 1:35 am
So there is hope for American Scientists after all - so long as they are educated in California.
Pleased to hear it and congratulations! Maybe this will make our British education system take note and stop the rot before it gets as bad as the US.
Chemistry for Christian Schools
What on earth is this ?
I know creationist Biology, flat earth & young earth Geology, Sin based gravity (only planet earth with sinning humans have gravity !) but Christian Chemistry ?
What are the deluded Bronze age mystics doing there ?
I'd be interested to know this too - the mind boggles, it really does.
Other Comments by PJG
19. Comment #228991 by Tyler Durden on August 13, 2008 at 1:43 am
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"Oh good grief - how do these people actually cope in the real world?
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
20. Comment #228993 by bilge242 on August 13, 2008 at 1:47 am
"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. "Something occurs to me; perhaps these people see themselves as Über-scientists, in that they believe they have in essence an infallible scientific method of scepticism. I had always assumed that they were content with 'Goddunit', but this could be, if anything, more dangerous- they may have painted their monstrous stupidity with a veneer of faux rationality. Perhaps they really do consider themselves as having a more reasonable scientific method than scientists.
Other Comments by bilge242
21. Comment #228994 by Tyler Durden on August 13, 2008 at 1:55 am
bilge242,
That may very well be the case, sad really, so much to appreciate through science, and these idiots want to leave it all up to their imaginary friend in the sky.
How do they rationalise using the internet, antibiotics, or advances in IVF - none of which are mentioned in their Bible? How can these scientific advances contradict the "Word of God" when this "God" never thought to mention them in the first place. Some God!?!?
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
22. Comment #229004 by irate_atheist on August 13, 2008 at 2:30 am
19. Comment #228991 by Tyler Durden -Oh good grief - how do these people actually cope in the real world?These fucktards - for that is what they are - actually rely on the rest of us for technological advances. They go through life in a bubble of total ignorance, spouting shite and believing bullshit. And then use their Satnavs to get to their churches, vaccinations to protect their children from disease and computing to spread their nonsense. Meanwhile they say science is wrong and they know better than Nobel Prize winning scientists just how things actually work. Ignorant cunts.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
23. Comment #229005 by sean salvador on August 13, 2008 at 2:30 am
Wahay! you wait for round two. Backlash!Other Comments by sean salvador
24. Comment #229007 by neander on August 13, 2008 at 2:32 am
Finally. There's hope for the US yet. Other Comments by neander
25. Comment #229012 by RainDear on August 13, 2008 at 2:41 am
How can this even be an issue? How can this idiotic case even go to court? How are such schools allowed to be responsible for any child's main source of education? What century are these people living in? And given their utter ignorance about the reality, why they are allowed to vote?In a civilized nation there are laws about education. There are laws that dictate the minimum level of rational education EVERY underaged child is REQUIRED to receive. That means education about the REALITY. At best, the word of a deity is charming folklore, and that's should be the extent of it. Teaching it as science is child abuse. If this were a decent world and not run by the all powerful market forces, the UN or EU would do something about such government-sanctioned crime (then again, reading about the sectarial schools in England I'm not so sure about the EU either).
Apparently in the US, the fear of governmental control is so great that all rationality is sacrificed on the altar of Idiotic Freedoms. The American society is apparently so afraid of restricting anything that it allows, even encourages such mental child abuse.
Superficially this article is good news, I guess. But still, the US is in deep problems. And it's a nation with nuclear weapons, and the only one that has experience of actually using them. So I feel more worried about the future than I was before reading this.
Other Comments by RainDear
26. Comment #229042 by rod-the-farmer on August 13, 2008 at 3:25 am
I agree, this is great news. I wonder if there isn't something we observers can do to assist. I am thinking of simple laughter. I am not sure the people who have been rejected (for reasons of religious education in the sciences) truly understand how the rational segment of society views their complaint. If we all took the time to laugh publicly at them and their lawsuit, I think that might help. I am thinking of Pat Condell, Jay Leno, and all the other media personalities. How about 'captains of industry' ?? With enough of us displaying public derision at their cause, they might start to reconsider what they teach, or better, whether or not the parents send their kids to those schools where this nonsense is taught.EDIT. I noticed there was no mention of the university offering to run remedial science courses to help those applicants 'make up' for the lost years. It would be interesting to see that in detail, if they do. One can imagine them saying
"OK, Christian School X graduates, you had at least four years of balderdash, maybe more, in chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, archeology, history, etc. etc. so for YOU we have a three year series of courses, before you can start regular classes. You understand that we have to bring you up to speed in these areas, before you can start university level science courses, or you will be unable to understand them, for lack of knowledge of the basic concepts. If you have friends or siblings considering applying to UC, please advise them to consider carefully the high schools they attend so they do not run into the same problem. And yes, the make-up courses we recommend do not constitute a full course load in each of the three years, but we feel that it will take that long to absorb all the material, and to replace the balderdash with real science and to train you in rational thinking."
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
27. Comment #229049 by Blueboy5 on August 13, 2008 at 3:37 am
Three cheers for the good guys!Other Comments by Blueboy5
28. Comment #229069 by black wolf on August 13, 2008 at 4:25 am
For those of us who were wondering what Christian chemistry is:"Chemistry and Christian faith: most colleges see no connection between the two, but at Dordt College you'll see how both give structure and order to the universe, providing a sense of certainty for those who trust in the principles.
Students are encouraged to see the wonder and beauty of this world as God's creativity, not just the interesting results of accidents. You will learn to view science as God-ordained human activity and to understand its place in Christian life. You will be challenged to use what you learn for the glory of God and the good of creation, not for selfish or destructive ends. And you will gain a background that will help you confront and withstand the challenges of secular and unbiblical thinking."
from Dordt College
I also found this little gem:
"Thinking from a Biblical perspective about science is much different in some areas than if you believe we evolved from a rock. "
A reply on amazon in the comments to a Christian chemistry textbook.
Written by one B. Donahue.
Other Comments by black wolf
29. Comment #229073 by CJ22 on August 13, 2008 at 4:35 am
What depresses me is that the general opinion on here is that this is a victory. How little US society is prepared to settle for. Even the list of stuff that IS considered acceptable boggles the mind. This is a good article to point mainstream christians to when they play the 'No true Scotsman' card. Other Comments by CJ22
30. Comment #229085 by notsobad on August 13, 2008 at 4:49 am
These fucktards - for that is what they are - actually rely on the rest of us for technological advances. They go through life in a bubble of total ignorance, spouting shite and believing bullshit. And then use their Satnavs to get to their churches, vaccinations to protect their children from disease and computing to spread their nonsense. Meanwhile they say science is wrong and they know better than Nobel Prize winning scientists just how things actually work. Ignorant cunts.
That's a very accurate description of their hypocrisy.
Other Comments by notsobad
31. Comment #229087 by Apathy personified on August 13, 2008 at 4:51 am
Ha - good shit, we need more judgements like this, especially as this seems like an attempt to muscle in on uni applications.To the christian schools who are now appealing: 'Awww, diddums - is big nasty science bullying little, defenceless and misunderstood religion?'
Pathetic, they should stop playing the 'help, help, we're being oppressed' card and go home.
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.Well, can't be letting the students have all the evidence and the ability to analyse it critically now, can we? - Your god (he ain't mine), they might even make their own minds up.
I wonder why they don't go after physics more - though i'm very curious as to what part god plays in chemical reactions, maybe he/she/it gives encouragement to the nervous little electron?
Other Comments by Apathy personified
32. Comment #229091 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:01 am
"Thinking from a Biblical perspective about science is much different in some areas than if you believe we evolved from a rock. "
A reply on amazon in the comments to a Christian chemistry textbook.
Written by one B. Donahue.
Sounds remarkably like Wooterism.
Other Comments by Bonzai
33. Comment #229094 by Tyler Durden on August 13, 2008 at 5:07 am
Strange, they never seem to go after Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - "well, that's only a theory" - possibly because they don't actually understand it.
Of course, they don't understand evolution by natural selection either as was evident by the "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" comment by the African minister in RD's "Genuis of Darwin" programme.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
34. Comment #229096 by a non e-moose on August 13, 2008 at 5:09 am
Overall, very good news, but it does have its downside, since everybody who goes to religiously run schools are not religious nuts. They will be victims of this.Other Comments by a non e-moose
35. Comment #229099 by Bonzai on August 13, 2008 at 5:13 am
Overall, very good news, but it does have its downsidesince everybody who goes to religiously run schools are not religious nuts. They will be victims of this.
No, they are not victims, except of their religious parents who send them to these schools. As it was explained clearly in the article, UC does not discriminate against religion per se, it is just that the science curricula of some religious schools don't prepare students for university level work because they don't really teach science.
Other Comments by Bonzai
36. Comment #229117 by Awesome on August 13, 2008 at 5:38 am
Once again, California is trailblazing in the field of common sense. If only we could get the other states to follow the leader... Texas, in particular, who I think owes us an apology, especially over the events of the past eight years. Maybe we could give them back to Mexico and start hanging out with Canada more often.Also, I hardly think there will be many victims here. There are still many private universities, community colleges, and out of state public universities that they could attend.
Other Comments by Awesome
37. Comment #229120 by padster1976 on August 13, 2008 at 5:40 am
Doesn't it make you laugh when you read such things as:
'religious discrimination and stifling of free expression'
because as we well know, religious people wouldn't dream of doing the same to non-believers!
Really, the rank hypocrasy is tough to stomach sometimes! (if at all!!)
Oh, and there's irony - those non-believers could also claim the same thing!
I like the bit where religious kids need a different set of standards to others.
Lower standards I take it.
Other Comments by padster1976
38. Comment #229128 by Roger Stanyard on August 13, 2008 at 5:55 am
Tyler - 2Strange, they never seem to go after Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - "well, that's only a theory" - possibly because they don't actually understand it."
The creationists have been attacking the theory of relativity for years and years. They have no option because they can't explain why much of the universe is millions of light years away.
The hocus pocus they have come up with is truely astobnishing. One of the best known nutters in this sector is Barry Setterfield, a 1st year university drop out, who claims and still claims that he has proven that the speed of light has fallen in recent centuries.
His measurements were incompetent but he, and his equally as daft wife, are still pushing the nonsense as is the Genesis Expo creation "museum" in Portsmouth.
Setterfield also claims that modern measurements of the speed of light now show it has stopped falling. How convenient!
Never underestimate just how stupid creationists are.
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
39. Comment #229132 by Tyler Durden on August 13, 2008 at 6:09 am
Thanks Roger, I stand corrected :)
Never underestimate just how stupid creationists are.Do I have to? My brain hurts just thinking about them.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
40. Comment #229134 by Cartomancer on August 13, 2008 at 6:11 am
I wasn't actually aware that there were religious loons who wanted to usurp the teaching of history as well. I probably shouldn't be surprised, after all the Nazis and the Stalinists did it, but I do begin to wonder just what the difference is between an ideologically-approved take on history and flat out propaganda. Obviously any historian will interpret his evidence in accord with his own world view, but usually that is an unconscious process and we try to avoid it where at all possible. Coming in to the evidence with an already pre-conceived notion of what it is supposed to mean just strikes me as ridiculous and pointless.Furthermore the church fathers, Augustine in particular, tended to assert that history after the resurrection was effectively without eschatological significance anyway, and just happened according to its own rationale. I can just about understand that evolution is problematic for someone committed to the genesis account, but where in scripture does it say anything about the anglo-saxon migrations or the carolingian renaissance or the twelfth century or the french revolution?
Other Comments by Cartomancer
41. Comment #229137 by Roger Stanyard on August 13, 2008 at 6:14 am
The UC affair has a bizarre equivalent in Northern Ireland where the fundamentalists put together a petition to get equal marks in science exams for both scientific and creationist "answers". The petition called for such equal marks not only in school examinations but also in the province's universities.
Given the fact that the power brokers in the Democratic Unionist Party (including Mervyn Storey) and essentially creationists, I suspect that this demon will raise its ugly head again.
No wonder creationist organisations such as Answers in Genesis can't keep away from the province.
If anyone thinks thatthe matter involves just a handful of nutters, belief in creationism is rampant in Northern Ireland amongst Presbyterians and other Calvinistic religious denominations.
Roger Stanyard
British Centre for Science Education.
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
42. Comment #229142 by Ian on August 13, 2008 at 6:24 am
You know, it occures to me that we've missed a trick.Knowing how chronically nationalistic the US is, we should be stressing the great american evolutionists. Once we convince the US people that they came up with the theory, they'll embrace it and never let go.
I'm sure Darwin, Mendel, Mayr, Haldane, Crick and Maynard-Smith would surely approve the sacrifice in such a noble cause.
Other Comments by Ian
43. Comment #229147 by MAS2007 on August 13, 2008 at 6:37 am
My problem is the resources consumed that would have been better used else where.
UC should be able to recover its costs from the other side in this case.
If you what to play the game, you must come prepared. The fundies just don't seem to get that.
Other Comments by MAS2007
44. Comment #229154 by Lucas on August 13, 2008 at 6:59 am
From Black Wolf's comment #29: You will be challenged to use what you learn for the glory of God and the good of creation, not for selfish or destructive ends.
Ah ha! And here we may have the nut of it. They explicitly create an oppositional duality between "God science" and real science wherein real science is aimed only toward selfish and destructive ends. Funny, I tend to think it's the opposite. Learning for the glory of God and the good of creation is indeed far more selfish and destructive. We should take note, though: this is what they are teaching their children about real science.
As for California, the Lizard King once said, "The west is the best," and indeed it is (though this only refers to the continental US). This case will be an important precedent in the future.
Other Comments by Lucas
45. Comment #229157 by catskill on August 13, 2008 at 7:18 am
I am happy to hear of the court's decision, but am a bit dismayed to hear of some of the classes that ARE accepted. When I transferred from a state school in NY to a FL university some of my class credits did not transfer, including some math classes. And now I see UC honors class credits from "Chemistry for Christian Schools" and "Biology: God's Living Creation"?! Pathetic!Also, the article notes that classes are honored if they "include scientific discussions of creationism as well as evolution." Scientific discussions of creationism? Somehow I doubt this means a discussion on how creationism is not scientific.
Other Comments by catskill
46. Comment #229160 by Tyler Durden on August 13, 2008 at 7:21 am
Roger,
With regard to the recent uproar in Northern Ireland about Iris Robinson and her attempt to "cure" homosexuality:
Psychiatrist in gay storm steps down from Belfast hospital
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/psychiatrist-in-gay-storm-steps-down-from-belfast-hospital-1454104.html
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
47. Comment #229166 by canatheist on August 13, 2008 at 7:34 am
All I can say is Hallelujah! Common sense 1 Zealots 0 Other Comments by canatheist
48. Comment #229168 by lister19 on August 13, 2008 at 7:35 am
It seems at least one state has its head screwed on right; however, being the most liberal and open-minded state in the U.S., California unfortunately doesn't represent the whole. This would be much more of a shock if it occured in say, Kansas, Texas, or Louisiana. Nevertheless, it gives me some small hope for my overzealous nation. Other Comments by lister19
49. Comment #229169 by Border Collie on August 13, 2008 at 7:36 am
antitheist ... No, believe me, Texas isn't listening. To most Texans, this is just another example of the 'liberal depravity' of California, otherwise referred to as the 'land of fruits and nuts'. Things like this simply make Texans dig their heels in harder. But, I'm sure, super-duper Texas Christians will be praying for those poor deluded Californians and the little victimized students of the satanically inspired course rejection. Other Comments by Border Collie
50. Comment #229174 by Philip1978 on August 13, 2008 at 7:43 am
Cartomancer Reminds me of that practice the Ancient Wromans started called Damnatio Memoriae where by the alleged traitor, whom having cause such an insult to the senate, was "removed from memory" and history was rewritten not to include that person.
I agree with you, these idiots do want to re-write history to suit their religion. It is sickening to think about what you would miss out on just so the senate of religion can keep up the appearance of righteousness and honour without all that treacherous history that has offended them so much.
Bravo to Judge James Otero!
Other Comments by Philip1978
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #228940 by theantitheist on August 12, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Are you listening Texas!!
"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."
i.e if it's complete bollocks, the smart people at University won't give them the time of day. What we want them to do is read them ALL, understand them and then spend ages coming up with answers to why they may be incorrect, which we will then ignore and just shout louder.
and they wonder why UC is not pandering to their wishes
Other Comments by theantitheist