Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
A judge refused to toss out a suit over inadequate curricula at some religious schools in California. The schools claim that the University of California shouldn't be allowed to reject certain courses as adequate preparation for college. Or, as a lawyer for the schools explains,
The lawsuit is about theological content in "every major area in high school except for mathematics," says Wendell Bird, a lawyer for Calvary Chapel.Bird previously lost Edwards v. Aguillard, thus ending the "equal time" rules for creationism and evolution.
The University asserts a 1st amendment right to speak freely about the scientific inadequacies of the courses and their textbooks, the schools assert a 1st amendment right to teach whatever they like without the State (represented by the university) imposing Godless yada yada ....
Among the textbooks at issue is:
A biology book from Bob Jones University [which] presents creationism and intelligent design alongside evolution. The introduction says, "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second."In order to claim that rejecting a course built around such a book, you'd have to have a fairly skewed perspective about religion. The bizarreness is evident in this argument, from Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center in Virginia:
what about Muslim schools? Are they next? They teach within a Koranic framework. That doesn't mean those kids aren't well-educated.Neither does attending a Christian school (though we all remember that kids in conservative Christian schools underperform). The discrimination isn't against religious teaching, it's against bad teaching. Teaching a science class or a history class that sacrifices accuracy of the content for theological correctness is bad teaching, it's bad science and it's bad history. A university has every right to refuse admission to people who are poorly educated.
The only way this could be a First Amendment issue is if the schools claimed that accurately teaching science would infringe on their religious freedom, and that the State's requirement that the children learn accurate science is itself an establishment of religion.
But just as the opposite of love isn't hate but indifference, the opposite of religion is not anti-religion, it's indifference to religion. That sort of official indifference to religion is precisely what the University of California exhibits in its policy, and is precisely what the Constitution demands.
Wendell Bird will fail again.
Comments
Except mathematics? Why not math? Suppose I hear a voice from the Almighty telling me that Pi is really 3, not the atheistic and demonic 3.14159, etc.? Why should I have to bend to the yoke of the evil secular mathematic establishment conspiracy? Oh, 'tis a sad day for the righteous...
Posted by: CulturalIconography![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 21, 2006 10:48 PM
The article cited gives this quote,
"We're not teaching that water boils at a different temperature, or that the periodic table of elements doesn't have some of (the elements)," he says."
But in fact that is exactly what they are doing in relation to biology and evolution.
Posted by: bernarda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 22, 2006 12:54 AM
Note -- URL links are shown in bold. I have removed the http:// prefix from these links to prevent the blog from recognizing them as links, because having a large number of links prevents comments from posting immediately. Therefore, it is not possible to click on the links but they must be copied and pasted instead.
Josh Rosenau said in the opening post --
Edwards v. Aguillard was a completely different kind of case. IMO, the plaintiffs in Calvary Chapel v. UC have a very strong case.
You have presented no evidence to back up that assertion. So far as the Christian-school science textbooks are concerned, a report of a meeting with UC representatives said,
IMO, the University of California was nitpicking about the two biology textbooks. So far as I can see, the only faults that UC found with the biology textbooks were (1) their critical treatments of evolution theory, which is at most a small part of the biology courses, and (2) the textbooks' general approach to science -- e.g., one of the textbooks said in the introduction, "If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them." Those are hardly sufficient reasons to junk the whole course and deny students credit for it.
In an op-ed piece in the Decatur Daily, Charles Haynes, a senior fellow at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., wrote, This lawsuit is further discussed on my blog at -- im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/dover-aint-over-darwinists-now.html
-- and --
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/08/dover-aint-over-ii-lawsuit-against-uc.html
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 22, 2006 2:08 AM
CulturalIconography said ( August 21, 2006 10:48 PM ) --
You apparently do not know very much about mathematics. The standards of proof in mathematics are extremely rigorous -- there is no room for if's, and's, but's, and maybe's as there is in evolutionary biology. It is known that Pi is an infinite series. Even the ancients knew Pi to much greater accuracy than "3." BTW, a statement in the Bible does give Pi a value of 3, but of course no one takes that value seriously --
A recent proof of "Fermat's Last Theorem" was rejected when lack of complete rigor was discovered. Corrections were made and the proof was later accepted.
bernarda said ( August 22, 2006 12:54 AM ) --
Unlike evolution, the boiling temperature of water and the periodic table are observed facts, not theories. They are not speculations about what might have happened in the past.
I assert that evolution theory is not necessary in the study of biology -- see
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/08/darwinism-is-grossly-overrated.html
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 22, 2006 3:54 AM
Posted by: gengar | August 22, 2006 4:27 AM
Larry, evolution is observed too. Of course, we haven't examined every circle, so maybe somewhere there's a circle with pi=3.0. Right?
The periodic table is built on many theories, as is any general statement about boiling points, particular the interaction between temperature and pressure.
Thanks for pointing out the missing link to the recent Department of Ed. study showing that conservative Christian schools underperform other schools (but religious schools as a whole do not).
Posted by: Josh | August 22, 2006 8:40 AM
I'm from Missouri, too. And that makes me sad.
But anyways, evolution has been observed. Check out Stephen Wolfram, and anyone else involved in information theory. Because evolution just an application of information theory. DNA is a base 4 system, and evolution merely describes the general principles this system uses to continue making information. Computers are base 2. They depend on the base 4 system to replicate, though.
You don't need to know that computers are a base 2 system to use them, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still base 2. Kind of like you don't need to believe in god to hold christian values, but you still wouldn't really be a christian, would you?
Posted by: Kleyau | August 22, 2006 8:55 AM
I wonder if these kids were coming from a Muslim school, using a Muslim textbook, that said "If the conclusions contradict the Word of Allah/the Koran, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.", if the xian backers of this current lawsuit would still be saying "Those are hardly sufficient reasons to junk the whole course and deny students credit for it."
Somehow, while they will make the claim that they would, I don't think I'd believe most of them.
The funny (sad, really) thing about this rather frivolous lawsuit is that colleges deny transfer credits from other universities all the time, and they deny to grant credit to high school courses quite regularly (if not even more often) also. But when it happens to a couple of students coming from a xian private school, suddenly, it's persecution.
And frankly, that statment of belief alone IS quite sufficient to not grant credit in a SCIENCE class. They want credit for that, they should go to ORU, or Bob Jones, or any one of dozens of other xian schools around the country that buy into that crap.
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | August 22, 2006 9:06 AM
Larry Fafarman wrote: "1) their critical treatments of evolution theory, which is at most a small part of the biology courses" and "I assert that evolution theory is not necessary in the study of biology...."
Your assertions are not particularly relevant to the discussion. Your profile indicates you are an engineer, which suggests your proficiency in the biological sciences is limited. The blog entry you point us adds nothing to the disscusion, it merely repeats what you have writen in these comments.
As another engineer, I am well aware of my own limited knowledge of biology. Even though I enjoy reading about biology as a hobby (with a understanding sufficiently advanced such that I find the articles in Science to be much more enjoyable than Scientific American). However, I know my limitiations and would never presume to tell another profession what their students should study.
The experts in biology indicate that the overarching theory which explains the diversity of species, as well as the similarity of species, is an evolutionary theory requiring tremendous time with intraspecial varition and selection pressures on that intraspecies diversity.
As an engineer you should be familiar with variation within a population. I suspect you are also aware of selection pressures on a population. Or possibly you have never designed or built high-volume products.
As an automotive engineer, dealing with the troubles of making millions of parts a year, I see the variation among parts. I also help set up the test paramaters for our end-of-line testers to screen out parts which won't work properly. I analyze these failed parts to see where I can make improvements. In many engineering fields, all the requirements for understanding evolution are met, population variation and selection pressures.
The only point open to arguement is; what are the selection pressures? Since biologists have identified a plethora of selection pressures operating over all levels of biological systems, from the cellurlar to ecosystem, without the need for intervention by an outside intelligence, the parsimonious explaination is that there is no outside intelligence influencing selection.
Biologists may create distictions between various evolutionary fields in order to study them more closely, but evolutionary theory explains such disparate biological phenomena, e.g. the development of your immune system as well as the ecosystem of coral reefs, that is truly is the overreaching theory of biology and needs to be taught to all students.
Biology could be taught without evolutionary theory, but it would be like teaching electical engineering without discussing Ohms Law.
Cheers,
-Flex
Posted by: Flex | August 22, 2006 9:13 AM
gengar said ( August 22, 2006 04:27 AM ) --
"baldly stating that reality is trumped by personal preference, which essentially undermines the whole scientific method, still adequately prepares students for degree level science. Gotcha."
As Charles Haynes noted: if the science in the biology texts is sound, the texts should not be condemned just because they add a religious viewpoint. UC has neither the ability nor the right to stop the Christian schools from giving the students a religious viewpoint about science. Also, please note that this religious viewpoint would affect only a small part of biological science, mainly just evolutionary biology and paleontology, and also most of the students are not going to major in biology in college.
Josh said ( August 22, 2006 08:40 AM ) --
"Larry, evolution is observed too."
Microevolution has been observed -- macroevolution has not been observed.
Of course, we haven't examined every circle, so maybe somewhere there's a circle with pi=3.0. Right?
We don't need to examine every circle. We know from the definition of a circle that pi is not equal to 3.
"The periodic table is built on many theories, as is any general statement about boiling points, particular the interaction between temperature and pressure."
There may be theories about the periodic table and boiling points, but the table and boiling points are based on observed properties of matter.
Thanks for pointing out the missing link to the recent Department of Ed. study showing that conservative Christian schools underperform other schools (but religious schools as a whole do not).
So? Should otherwise qualified graduates of poor inner-city schools be denied admission to UC just because they come from underperforming schools?
Fastlane said ( August 22, 2006 09:06 AM ) --
I wonder if these kids were coming from a Muslim school, using a Muslim textbook, . . . .if the xian backers of this current lawsuit would still be saying "Those are hardly sufficient reasons to junk the whole course and deny students credit for it."
I doubt that the Xian fundies would complain, and even if they did, it would be of no consequence because they are not the ones who accredit the high school courses.
The funny (sad, really) thing about this rather frivolous lawsuit is that colleges deny transfer credits from other universities all the time, and they deny to grant credit to high school courses quite regularly (if not even more often) also
So far, UC is the first state university/college system to discriminate against graduates of Christian schools. And the lawsuit is not frivolous -- UC is guilty of egregious discrimination against the Christian schools and their graduates. I am really surprised that UC did not back off when confronted with a lawsuit.
Flex said ( August 22, 2006 09:13 AM ) --
Your assertions are not particularly relevant to the discussion. Your profile indicates you are an engineer, which suggests your proficiency in the biological sciences is limited.
We've heard the saying, "I don't know art, but I know what I like." To that I would add, "I don't know biology, but I have common sense." As an engineer, I know that an analytical tool can be used without believing that it has any connection to reality -- for example, engineers use imaginary number mathematics in analyses of AC circuits and aerodynamics. Hence, if it is easier for biologists to conceptualize biology in terms of evolution theory, they can do so even while believing that all or part of evolution theory is untrue. Also, it is not just my idea that evolution theory is not necessary in the study of biology -- many biologists agree with that idea, as shown in that article on my blog, http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/08/darwinism-is-grossly-overrated.html
"Biologists may create distictions between various evolutionary fields in order to study them more closely, but evolutionary theory explains such disparate biological phenomena, e.g. the development of your immune system as well as the ecosystem of coral reefs, that is truly is the overreaching theory of biology and needs to be taught to all students."
You just finished telling me that my assertions are not relevant to this discussion because I am just an engineer, but you are just an engineer too, so why should your assertions be relevant?
"Biology could be taught without evolutionary theory, but it would be like teaching electical engineering without discussing Ohms Law."
That is absurd and you know it. I don't even remember studying evolution theory in my high school biology classes -- it was just sort of something that we took for granted.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 22, 2006 1:37 PM
Larry, can you give me a definition of macro-evolution that will sensibly distinguish between natural selection (which is directly observed) at the micro-scale versus however you define the macro-scale? Because the observation of natural selection is as rigorous as our observation of boiling points, and rests on as solid a mathematical footing as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius.
As for the UC system, it doesn't discriminate against Christian schools. That is simply false. It discriminates against particular classes that fail to present an adequate background in their subject matter. Inadequate classes at non-religious schools would face the same sanctions.
See my recent post on fish poisons for one perspective on why evolution is central to any biology class.
Posted by: Josh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 22, 2006 2:38 PM
Josh said ( August 22, 2006 02:38 PM ) --
"Larry, can you give me a definition of macro-evolution that will sensibly distinguish between natural selection (which is directly observed) at the micro-scale versus however you define the macro-scale?"
Evolution theory is not just about natural selection but is also about natural genetic variation (including random mutations and genetic drift). Without the natural genetic variation, there would be nothing for natural selection to act upon.
As for defining macro-evolution, a lot of concepts in biology are not exact, and this is one of them. Wikipedia has a long discussion about the differences between macro- and micro-evolution, and I really have nothing to add. A lot of evolutionary biologists accept the ideas of macro- and micro-evolution.
"As for the UC system, it doesn't discriminate against Christian schools. That is simply false. It discriminates against particular classes that fail to present an adequate background in their subject matter."
UC has not shown that the Christian-school biology classes fail to present an adequate background in the subject matter. UC has not shown that the science in the textbooks is not sound, and UC has not shown or claimed that the graduates of Christian K-12 schools are not adequately prepared to study biology or other sciences at the college level. It is apparent that UC condemns the Christian-school biology textbooks just for (1) criticizing evolution theory and (2) presenting a religious viewpoint.
"See my recent post on fish poisons for one perspective on why evolution is central to any biology class."
If some people find it helpful or interesting to conceptualize or analyze biological studies in terms of evolution theory, fine. But that is no reason to ban criticism of evolution theory. And I have always found biology interesting -- I never had a need to use evolution theory to make biology interesting.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 22, 2006 6:36 PM
"A lot of evolutionary biologists accept the ideas of macro- and micro-evolution."
Indeed, and also are pretty sure both are readily demonstrable. I assumed you were using a different definition.
I also assume you aren't claiming that genetic drift can't be observed, nor that genetic variation is somehow unobservable. So I don't know what your argument is, exactly, about what can't be observed.
What you find necessary to make biology interesting is frankly not relevant. The issue is what properly prepares students for a college-level course in biology, and students who lack an adequate background in evolution are not prepared for such courses. UC can and has set reasonable standards for admission. Many of the students involved fulfilled those standards by means other than that course grade, and those that didn't either tried and failed (thus validating UC's position) or didn't try (which isn't UC's fault). No harm, no foul.
Posted by: Josh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 22, 2006 9:09 PM
Josh said ( August 22, 2006 09:09 PM ) --
"So I don't know what your argument is, exactly, about what can't be observed."
It was not my intention to get involved in a long discussion of whether evolution theory is right, wrong, or partly right. We are not even going to be able to scratch the surface of that complicated issue in this thread.
"The issue is what properly prepares students for a college-level course in biology, and students who lack an adequate background in evolution are not prepared for such courses."
Evolution theory is not taught at all in a lot of high-school biology courses, even in the public schools. Often, the theory is just taken for granted or the teacher avoids the subject because it is controversial. I think that blows a big hole in the idea that a knowledge of evolution theory is necessary in the study of modern biology.
"Many of the students involved fulfilled those standards by means other than that course grade, and those that didn't either tried and failed (thus validating UC's position) or didn't try (which isn't UC's fault)."
I don't know what you mean by "tried and failed." The Christian school grads were never tested on their knowledge of evolution theory. UC never even claimed that these grads did not learn evolution theory and has not claimed that evolution theory is not presented accurately in the textbooks. And UC has not shown that a general knowledge of evolution theory is essential in the study of biology. The textbook from Bob Jones Univ. Press (the other publisher was A Beka Book) has a section of about 15 pages on evolution theory, in Chapter 8. Chapter 8 has the following sections: "A Biblical Worldview," "Biblical Creationism," and "Biological Evolution." The chapter contains brief discussions (called "facets" in the book) on Nonliteral interpretations of Creation, Noah's Ark and the Animals, A Common Ancestor?, Anthropology, and Arguments Used to Support Evolution Theory. See
www.bjupress.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?parent_category_rn=279832&samplePage=2&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=1514951
The book's website also has a complete sample chapter -- unfortunately, it is not chapter 8.
I think that UC does not have a case in regard to the science textbooks. There are also disputes about the textbooks in non-science subjects, but here I think that the plaintiffs are correct in charging that UC is discriminating against Christian-viewpoint textbooks because UC has accepted textbooks with other narrow viewpoints on those subjects.
I think that Darwinists have become overconfident because of a string of successes in the courts, but one evolution-disclaimer decision, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, came close to being overturned on appeal, and the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker decision also appeared to be close to being overturned before it was remanded to the district court. See
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/close-votes-in-freiler-case-show.html
-- and --
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/sticker-shock-appeals-court-ducks.html
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 23, 2006 1:17 AM
Larry Fafarman wrote: "As an engineer, I know that an analytical tool can be used without believing that it has any connection to reality -- for example, engineers use imaginary number mathematics in analyses of AC circuits and aerodynamics."
Funny, I was pretty sure that the model of imaginary number mathematics works pretty well to describe electromagnetic effects (I have very little knowledge of aerodynamics so I can't comment on that). Are you suggesting that this model has no connection to reality? Seems to me that it has a great deal of connection to reality, don't get confused because the math is called imaginary.
Larry Fafarman wrote:"You just finished telling me that my assertions are not relevant to this discussion because I am just an engineer, but you are just an engineer too, so why should your assertions be relevant?"
If you re-read the last line of my second paragraph you might discover that I don't maintain that my assertions should be used to determine what is appropriate for teaching a biology class.
Here, just for your edification, is that sentance again: "However, I know my limitiations and would never presume to tell another profession what their students should study." Apparently you lack that humility.
Cheers,
Flex
Posted by: Flex | August 23, 2006 6:33 AM
Flex said ( August 23, 2006 06:33 AM ) --
The question is not whether it works -- the question is whether it makes sense. In the Joukowski transformation of conformal mapping, the aerodynamics of a rotating cylinder is used to analyze the aerodynamics of wing airfoil shapes. Common sense and intuition tell us that there is no connection, but engineers use the connection because they know that it works. I did not notice your disclaimer because it was not in the paragraph that I quoted but was several paragraphs previous. Your disclaimer is not relevant because: (1) evolution is not taught in many public-school biology classes; (2) UC never claimed that the Christian-school graduates never learned evolution; (3) at least one of the biology textbooks in question has a fairly large section on evolution; and (4) UC never claimed that the books present evolution inaccurately. One thing is very clear -- UC is wantonly using nitpicking and arbitrary standards to deny Christian-school graduates an opportunity to attend UC.Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 23, 2006 8:19 AM
Larry, the last paragraph of the USAToday article reads:
First, certifying 43 courses doesn't sound terribly nitpicky. Second, if 24 applicants got in, it suggests that it isn't that hard, and also that 8 tried and failed, as I said.
You are right that not all biology classes present an adequate grounding in evolution. Maybe that's why levels of scientific literacy in the US are so poor.
Posted by: Josh | August 23, 2006 8:39 AM
Larry Fafarman wrote; "Your disclaimer is not relevant because:...."
Hahahahaha.
My disclaimer about MY ability to judge what standards are used to teach biology is perfectly relevant. I'm not a biologist. I voluntarily excuse myself from telling biologists what their subject is. The fact that other non-biologist are trying to tell biologists what biology is and how it should be taught is pure hubris, yet it happens.
Second, when you speak of aerodynamic modeling, "Common sense and intuition tell us that there is no connection." Commen sense and intuition are often wrong. Again, I cannot comment on aerodynamics because I don't know the subject.
However, when I finally grasped the elegant relationship between electric and magnetic fields described by multiple partial differential equations in imaginary space I realized it wasn't just a question of does the math work, but the math makes sense. In my understanding, the math model moved from a descriptive model to a predictive one. Intuition and commen sense re-aligned with the math model. I can't describe the feeling, but I won't forget it. As Martin Gardner has written, it was an A-HAH! moment.
Like the recent post here on TFK where the power of evolutionary theory was used as a predictive model. That is the sign of a powerful model closely tracking reality. Why shouldn't biology students be taught this model? I know that some aren't, but that's not a reason why they shouldn't.
Cheers,
-Flex
Posted by: Flex | August 23, 2006 9:28 AM
Josh said ( August 23, 2006 08:39 AM ) --
"certifying 43 courses doesn't sound terribly nitpicky."
That doesn't follow at all. That does not show that UC had good reasons for rejecting the courses that it rejected.
"Second, if 24 applicants got in, it suggests that it isn't that hard, and also that 8 tried and failed, as I said."
It is hard enough just to get in through regular admissions -- UC accepts only the top 15% of high-school graduates in the state (I think it used to be 12.5%). If you have to get in through special admissions because some of your courses are not accepted, it is much tougher -- you have to be in the top 2-4% or so.
The acceptance rate (percentage of applicants who are accepted) is high for UC because the UC system has a policy of accepting all qualified applicants (some campuses -- notably the Berkeley campus -- are more selective and sometimes even arbitrary or discriminatory in selection; Berkeley often has to choose between applicants of equal qualifications). People generally know before they apply whether they are qualified or not.
"You are right that not all biology classes present an adequate grounding in evolution."
So why single out the Christian-school grads when a lot of public-school biology classes do not cover evolution? UC has not even shown that the Christian-school grads did not learn about evolution -- there is a fairly large section about evolution in at least one of the rejected biology textbooks.
"Maybe that's why levels of scientific literacy in the US are so poor."
I think it is very unfortunate that many people consider knowledge and even acceptance of evolution theory to be a litmus test for "scientific literacy." There is a lot more to scientific literacy than that.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 23, 2006 2:25 PM
Flex said ( August 23, 2006 09:28 AM ) --
"Hahahahaha."
I would like to know what's so funny because I enjoy a good laugh too.
"My disclaimer about MY ability to judge what standards are used to teach biology is perfectly relevant."
I am saying that there is a practical reason why your disclaimer is irrelevant, that reason being that even a lot of public-school biology courses do not teach evolution.
"I finally grasped the elegant relationship between electric and magnetic fields described by multiple partial differential equations in imaginary space I realized it wasn't just a question of does the math work, but the math makes sense."
The relationships are often "elegant," but physically they sometimes do not make sense. Of course, we can go through the lengthy mathematical derivations that show that the relationships actually work. Intuitively it seems that the relationships shouldn't work, but we use them because we know that they work.
My point is that even if evolution theory is helpful in biology, it is OK to tell people that the theory is a lot of hokum because they can use the theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 23, 2006 3:05 PM
"I think it is very unfortunate that many people consider knowledge and even acceptance of evolution theory to be a litmus test for "scientific literacy." There is a lot more to scientific literacy than that."
Indeed. But given the appalling levels of science literacy out there, there's no reason to use current practice as a guide to how science ought to be taught.
As for courses that use textbooks and curricula that do cover science adequately, why should they be treated like courses that don't?
Science is science. If it works, it isn't hokum, and evolution works. If your science class teaches otherwise, it's dishonest and inadequate. QED.
Posted by: Josh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2006 12:44 AM
Josh said,
I hate to keep repeating myself, but as I said, at least one of the two rejected Christian-school biology textbooks has a fairly large section -- about 15 pages -- on evolution theory. This textbook just adds a religious viewpoint. I know that the other textbook covers evolution, but I don't know how much coverage is given.
So far as I am concerned, you have not shown that UC was justified in taking the drastic action of denying credit for the biology course. You think it is OK for UC to shut out Christian-school grads just because of some nitpicking disapproval of their textbooks. I think that a judge is more likely to agree with me than agree with you, and that is what counts.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 24, 2006 7:02 AM
That there are 15 pages on evolution doesn't make the book adequate. Are those 15 pages accurate? Do they provide necessary background? Do they misinform the student?
That you don't have or don't discuss those details suggests what the answer is.
Posted by: Josh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 24, 2006 9:30 PM
Josh said ( August 24, 2006 09:30 PM ) --
You are jumping to conclusions. Furthermore, reviewers' comments about the books were shown in two of the blog pages which I linked to here.
I have not seen the books personally. The books come from two publishers, A Beka Book and Bob Jones University Press.
A Wall Street Journal reporter said that one of the books -- she does not say which one -- presents evolution "straightforwardly": "As for the biology textbook, it is certainly true that it includes a presentation of creationism and intelligent design, but it presents evolution as well, straightforwardly."
I see no reason why evolution would not be presented in a straightforward manner in the books.
One reviewer said of the book from A Beka Book,
Well, that is just one reviewer's opinion. I have known Darwinists to be nitpicking and arbitrary in their criticisms of the way evolution is taught. Things that are important to them might not be important to others. Also, there are different versions of evolution theory, e.g., punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism, and a reviewer might be critical of a book that does not present his favorite version.
The preceding reviewer said that he also read the BJU biology texts, but he did not comment on them.
For more information, I suggest the following pages on my blog (http:// prefixes have been removed to prevent the links from causing failure to post) --
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/dover-aint-over-darwinists-now.html
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/08/dover-aint-over-ii-lawsuit-against-uc.html
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 25, 2006 1:37 AM
The followng citation should have been added to my preceding comment:
There is no mention here that UC found the books' presentation of evolution to be inadequate or inaccurate.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 25, 2006 1:47 AM
Flex wrote: "Hahahahaha."
Larry Fafarman replied "I would like to know what's so funny because I enjoy a good laugh too."
What is so funny is that you keep on trying to tell me that my opinions about biology are important to determine how to teach biology.
Okay, I'll give you my opinion on what's important about biology and necessary to be taught in biology classes. My opinion is that my opinion is not important. I will defer to biologists, you know, the experts in the field, as to what is important to teach in biology class.
You keep making two points over and over. First, some biology classes don't cover evolutionary theory. This point is irrelevant as our disscussion is not what biology courses are currently teaching, but what biology courses should be teaching based on what the experts in biology think the students should be learning.
The experts are universally (as far as I can determine) saying that teaching evolutionary theory is important in a biology class. Why are your assertions more relevant than the experts in the field?
Second, you have several times stated that the theory of evolution is hokum, and you apparently feel the same way about other system models.
Now you are entering in the realm of philosophy and leaving the realm of science. Questions about the truth of a model are not discussed in science classes, models used in science have to meet some qualifications, among other requirements they have to be accurate, consistant,and testable. The theory of evolution meets the criteria of a scientific model. It is not hokum.
Truth is not part of scientific models simply because we still don't know what the word means. Instead, science has determined that accuracy, testability, etc. are better ways to define scientific models and leaves truth to philosophers.
But if the theory of evolution is not TRUE in the philosophical sense, what is true? Is quantum mechanics true? It is a scientific model which is accurate, consistant, testable and predictive. Some of the products you use everyday were developed because of the predictions of the quantum mechanical model. Just like your flu vaccine was developed with evolutionary model. Is arithmatic true? There is no physical manifestation of the idea of arithmatic, I can't point at something and say, "This is arithmatic and nothing else." Maybe arithmatic is not true in the philosophical sense.
Let's review. You assert that the theory of evolution need not be taught in biology classrooms because it is,
1) not taught in all biology classrooms, and
2) it may be an accurate scientific model, but it may not philosophically true.
Finally, I'm supposed to rely more on your assertions than on biologists.
I'm unswayed by your arguments.
Cheers,
-Flex
Posted by: Flex | August 25, 2006 7:54 AM
Flex said ( August 25, 2006 07:54 AM ) --
I disagree with your assertion that the point is irrelevant to the discussion. Considering that many public-school biology courses do not teach evolution at all, is it reasonable for UC to reject the Christian-school biology texts just because those texts criticize evolution?
No, I never said that -- that is not relevant to my arguments.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 25, 2006 12:55 PM
Larry Fafarman: "My point is that even if evolution theory is helpful in biology, it is OK to tell people that the theory is a lot of hokum because they can use the theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.
and later,"No, I never said that"
So basically, you personally believe the theory of evolution is the foundation of modern biology, but you think it's all right for teachers to tell students that it's it hokum? Is that what you are saying?
That's great.
Teacher: "We have this really great theory describing how all life on earth is inter-related. A theory with so much evidence supporting it that we could spend every day from now until you are 35 just reviewing the evidence supporting this theory. A theory which is predictive enough to be used to develop vaccines or suggest research topics. A theory which is being tested and refined on a daily basis. But it's all hokum, your 1600 year old, unchanging, bible is inerrant. Just use this theory to get the results you are looking for."
I apologise if I miss-understood you previously. Somehow, when you continually state that it's okay for teachers to teach that evolutionary theory is hokum, I leapt to the conclusion that you believe it to be hokum yourself.
For clarification, this is the first time our side discussion has mentioned the UC attitude toward christian-school biology texts. Within the framework of that discussion, the point of other public-school biology courses not teaching evolutionary theory is still irrelevant.
Why? It's the difference between taking no position on an issue and taking an antagonistic position.
If your belief is true, that some public-school biology classes don't mention evolution (and I haven't seen evidence to back up this assertion), at worse it's a disservice to the students who are not being taught contemporary scientific knowledge in a science class.
Try reading this sentance from the original article again, "A biology book from Bob Jones University [which] presents creationism and intelligent design alongside evolution. The introduction says, "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second."
This is clearly a case where what is being taught is not representative of the state of the science. Further, by including creationism and ID in a biology testbook they are teaching non-science in a science class. Finally, as most of what I've seen written from the creationist and ID camps are critiques of evolution, the text is likely very critical of evolutionary theory.
[Or only contain a single page on creationism and ID because there is no science to either of these beliefs.]
This goes beyond negligence and enters the area of deliberate missrepresentation.
To connect UC's decision to select against students from schools which deliberately missrepresent scientific knowledge with schools which may have not even exposed students to that knowledge does not follow.
The question of reasonablity doesn't arise because the situations are not equivalent.
Cheers,
-Flex
Posted by: Flex | August 25, 2006 1:48 PM
Flex said ( August 25, 2006 01:48 PM ) --
I only said that it is OK to tell people that evolution theory is hokum. That is different from saying that evolution theory is hokum.
No, I never said that I believe that evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
I am just saying that my personal beliefs about whether evolution theory is wholly or partly hokum are not relevant to my arguments.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that evolution is not taught in a lot of public-school biology classes. I myself do not remember studying evolution in my high-school biology classes.
You call it "non-science," but a lot of the criticism of evolution theory is scientific, and contrary to popular belief, not all scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticism of evolution theory is ID (there are also criticisms regarding co-evolution, the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction, etc.). Also, the textbook presents a religious viewpoint.
Evolution is still just a theory, not a proven fact. Not only are you Darwinists trying to suppress criticism of evolution in the public schools, but you are now also trying to suppress criticism of evolution theory in the private schools.
Also, UC has not claimed that the Christian-school graduates who took the biology course are not prepared to study biology at an advanced college level.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 25, 2006 3:15 PM
Larry's argument that "some public school biology classes don't teach evolution" is lamentably true in some states. However, the California biology standards have been rated among the best in the nation, largely on the basis of their comprehensive, integrated coverage of evolution. The vast majority of UC students graduated from the California public schools, and so UC introductory science courses assume that the student is familiar with the concepts in the relevant high school standards.
Reviews of the disputed biology textbooks are available online, as are excerpts. It is clear that the books teach a straightforward young earth creationism. What little real biology exists in the sample chapters is presented in a confusing and distorted fashion. There is no way that any objective observer would agree that the books teach the material in the California biology standards, and so any course based on such a textbook would not be an appropriate prerequisite for an introductory biology course which assumes that students are familiar with the material in the standards.
All UC will have to prove in court is that its admissions prerequisites are reasonably related to a valid, academic goal (selecting students who are well prepared to take the courses required to graduate) and that the standard used to decide whether a course meets those prerequisites is appropriate. UC's standard is that courses must reflect "material generally accepted in the relevant academic community". I don't think UC will have any trouble demonstrating that its biology departments don't teach young-earth creationism.
Note that Calvary Chapel students aren't penalized in the admissions process for having taken classes which are not certified. They must simply take a minimum of 15 classes over four years which did meet UC standards, or have demonstrated that they mastered the required material in other ways. SATII or Advanced Placement subject tests, or classes at a community college can be used to make up deficiencies.
What the Calvary Chapel students seem to be demanding is an exemption from the requirement that they demonstrate a broad-based, academically rigorous high school education. Unfortunately for them, the First Amendment doesn't include a right to be admitted to a top-noch university. That's a privilege that must be earned.
Posted by: Mary | August 26, 2006 2:41 PM
Mary said ( August 26, 2006 02:41 PM ) --
the California biology standards have been rated among the best in the nation, largely on the basis of their comprehensive, integrated coverage of evolution.
I attended an urban California high school in the early 1960's and took a year of biology, and I do not recall studying evolution. It was just something we sort of took for granted.
Reviews of the disputed biology textbooks are available online, as are excerpts.
I posted on my blog all the online excerpts and reviews I could find, at --
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/08/dover-aint-over-ii-lawsuit-against-uc.html
-- and --
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/07/dover-aint-over-darwinists-now.html
If you know of any others, I would very much like to know about them.
It is clear that the books teach a straightforward young earth creationism.
I don't know about the biology text from A Beka Book. The biology textbook from Bob Jones Univ. Press has sections on both biblical creationism and evolution theory.
What if the school taught YEC to the students outside of science class -- would that disqualify them from regular admission?
What little real biology exists in the sample chapters is presented in a confusing and distorted fashion. There is no way that any objective observer would agree that the books teach the material in the California biology standards,
A report on a meeting between UC officials, Christian-school officials, and attorneys said,
The UC officials did not say that the science itself was bad. If UC wants to win this lawsuit, I think that UC needs to find more fault with the books than that. The main issue here is whether the books may add a religious viewpoint to the standard curriculum.
Note that Calvary Chapel students aren't penalized in the admissions process for having taken classes which are not certified.
No, they are penalized. Taking the non-certified courses disqualifies them from general admission, which admits the top 15%, and therefore they can only apply for special admission, which admits only the top 2-4% or so.
Unfortunately for them, the First Amendment doesn't include a right to be admitted to a top-noch university.
Admission to UC undergraduate school is almost considered to be a right for all qualified California residents. UC-Davis medical school has more discretion in choosing applicants than the UC undergraduates schools have, but the Supreme Court required this medical school to admit Alan Bakke after determining that the school had discriminated against him because of his race.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 26, 2006 10:49 PM
Larry, this is simply not how science is done, and is not an adequate basis for a science class: "they appeared to state the perspective … faith is more authoritative than the observations of science, especially if there were a conflict over a 'factual scientific issue.'"
In a theology class, that would be one thing. But we're talking about science class, and in science, faith isn't worth squat. You take the evidence and you let it guide you. If you find a conflict between scientific results and other teachings, you have to resolve that outside of science class.
The textbook is inadequate based on the evidence you've offered in its defense.
Posted by: Josh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 26, 2006 11:34 PM
Larry Fafarman said (August 26, 2006 10:49 PM)
" I attended an urban California high school in the early 1960's and took a year of biology, and I do not recall studying evolution. It was just something we sort of took for granted."
Larry, the early 1960s was over 40 years ago. The science standards have been updated a few times since then, as have UC's standards for admissions.
Larry also said, "No, they are penalized. Taking the non-certified courses disqualifies them from general admission, which admits the top 15%, and therefore they can only apply for special admission, which admits only the top 2-4% or so."
Taking uncertified classes certainly does not disqualify a student from general admissions to UC. All students take at least some uncertified classes, since classes like shop, home ec, and phys ed also don't count towards UC admssions. The only time the Calvary Chapel students would be penalized is if they tried to substitute the Young Earth Creationism class for one of the two to three qualified science classes UC demands.
The UC admissions standards aren't exactly a secret. Any guidance counselor in any California school, public or private, knows exactly which courses qualify at their particular school. If the students were wrongly told that the Young Earth Creationism class was an accredited biology class for UC admssions purposes, they should be sueing their high school, not UC.
Admissions to UC is indeed "almost considered a right for all qualified California residents". However, a "qualified" student is one who can demonstrate that he or she has taken the required 15-18 credits of certified courses in the proper areas. A student who has taken shop, home ec, or Young Earth Creationism intstead of the required two science classes is by definition not qualified for admissions to UC by the standard pathway.
Posted by: Mary | August 27, 2006 2:25 PM
Josh said ( August 26, 2006 11:34 PM ) --
"In a theology class, that would be one thing. But we're talking about science class, and in science, faith isn't worth squat."
In biology, generally only mainstream evolution theory and paleontology are in conflict with biblical creationism, and they are only small parts of a general biology course (paleontology might not be covered at all).
And you didn't answer my question -- what if the Christian-school students are taught biblical creationism outside of a biology class? And what if public-school students are taught biblical creationism in Sunday school? What's the difference? Should that disqualify any of them from UC general admission?
Mary said ( August 27, 2006 02:25 PM ) --
Evolution theory was certainly not new when I went to high school. I think that there was as much reason to include it then as there is now.
Taking uncertified classes certainly does not disqualify a student from general admissions to UC.
The Christian-school students who took the decertified courses are disqualified from UC general admission, period. Otherwise there would be no basis for the lawsuit.
The only time the Calvary Chapel students would be penalized is if they tried to substitute the Young Earth Creationism class for one of the two to three qualified science classes UC demands.
It is not a YEC class -- it is a standard biology class with maybe a little YEC thrown in. The BJU textbook sections titled "A Biblical Worldview" and "Biblical Creation" together cover only about 20 pages out of a two-volume set of about 1100 pages.
If the students were wrongly told that the Young Earth Creationism class was an accredited biology class for UC admssions purposes, they should be sueing their high school, not UC.
Apparently UC is applying the course decertifications retroactively, so there was no chance to warn the students that the courses would disqualify them from general UC admission. Anyway, UC is still subject to suit on the grounds that there was no good reason to decertify the courses.
Anyway, I think we have just about exhausted this subject -- I am mostly just repeating myself now. All I can add is this: don't be surprised if UC loses the lawsuit.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 27, 2006 7:41 PM
Boy Larry, you twist and turn quite a bit,
Finally you say this: "I am just saying that my personal beliefs about whether evolution theory is wholly or partly hokum are not relevant to my arguments."
Yet, then, later on you say: "Evolution is still just a theory, not a proven fact."
And as justification for that statement you provide a list of topics wholly within evolutionary theory as examples of criticisms of the overall theory.
That's like saying that because we don't have a complete model of turbulance in fluid systems, we can't teach students about powered flight. And, by extension, a high school physics textbook should give equal time to the theory that it's the hand of god holding up the plane. (Or in the ID world, an unspecified, unmeasureable, supernatural force, wink-wink.)
The areas within evolutionary theory which are being debated by the experts shows the theory is not dogma. The debate does not invalidate the theory. Evolutionary theory is the best scientific model we have to explain the diversity of life, just like fluid mechanics is the best scientific model we have to explain turbulance. Science classes are supposed to teach scientific models. Teaching those models which are best supported by scientific evidence.
What evidence do you have that creationism or ID is scientific? [sounds of crickets] Well, then why should creationism and ID be taught in a science class?
Face it Larry, your personal opinions are getting in the way of logical thought, regardless of what you assert. This is why you should trust the experts in the field to determine what is and isn't science, and what should and shouldn't be taught in a science course.
Good health,
-Flex
Posted by: Flex | August 28, 2006 8:13 AM
Larry,
You obviously haven't bothered to research this lawsuit before commenting upon it. The four rejected courses were NEW ones that had been submitted for PRE-approval, meaning that they had not yet been taught. Therefore, none of the six students in whose name the suit has been brought had taken them. If they chose to take the classes _after_ the suit was filed, they can hardly complain that they didn't know UC wouldn't accept them as core requirements.
Also, at the time of the lawsuit none of the six students had actually applied to the UC system, so none had been rejected. If I recall correctly, several of them announced in interviews that they had no intention of going to a secular school like UC, even if they were admitted.
So, we have six students engaged in a lawsuit to gain admissions to a university they don't want to attend, on the basis that coursework they didn't take might not have helped their application if they had bothered to apply.
Sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to me, at least as regards the students.
The real reason for the lawsuit, I expect, is that Calvary Chapel and its fellow ASCI schools know or suspect that much of their curriculum would not pass a close inspection. UC is a trend setter. If it starts rejecting classes that are more bible study than academics, other universities will follow. Parents who want their children to go to a reputable college will leave, and take their $6000 a year with them.
All of which is the normal operation of a free market. Calvary Chapel is free to teach bible study instead of academics, UC is free to reject students who haven't taken sufficient academics, and parents who want their kids to go to UC can enroll their kids in public school and do bible study on the weekends. Alternatively, Calvary Chapel can keep the college-bound students by maintaining a core sequence of academically rigorous courses.
UC has a very high-powered legal team, and the right of a university to choose its students is pretty well established in law. All they have to prove is that the courses were rejected because they failed to meet basic academic standards. With ten campuses full of world-class biologists who do cutting-edge research to call on, I don't think they're going to have any trouble at all showing the judge why the two disputed creationist books aren't acceptable as primary texts. The same goes for the history class; the English and government classes were apparently rejected because the applications weren't filled out properly.
ASCI would have done better to leave well enough alone.
Posted by: Mary | August 28, 2006 9:42 AM
Larry, this is getting embarassing for you. Quit while you're behind. No, learning about creationism outside of a science class wouldn't make a student unqualified. The issue is that the science classes the students took were deemed inadequate.
You write: "The Christian-school students who took the decertified courses are disqualified from UC general admission, period."
No. Again, "UC … has admitted 24 of the 32 applicants from the high school in the past four years." That students took the class doesn't prevent their admission, it just means they have to show that they have an adequate scientific background by other means. So, by your own admission, the suit has no merits.
Posted by: Josh | August 28, 2006 10:11 AM
There seems to be some doubt expressed in the discussion above about teaching or not teaching Physics students how a plane is able to stay in the air viz: hand of god vs. Bernouilli effect.
Just to put you all straight, planes are, of course, held up by the tentacles of his Noodliness, The Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessings be upon Him)
Posted by: John | August 28, 2006 12:14 PM
Flex said,
There is no inconsistency here. The statement "Evolution is still just a theory, not a proven fact" only means that there is no proof that evolution is not hokum. That statement has nothing to do with my belief as to whether or not evolution is hokum.
Mary said,
You are the one who has not bothered to research this lawsuit. None of your claims, i.e., that the students did not take the decertified courses, that the students were not disqualified from UC general admission, that the students never applied for admission to UC, and that the students did not want to attend UC, is supported by news reports. None.
Mary said,
Wrong. The schools and the students cannot sue UC on the grounds that UC might decertify the courses -- UC would actually have to decertify the courses before it could be sued.No, the issue here seems to be that the students learned about creationism inside of science class rather than outside it.
Josh said,
As I said, this means nothing. Discrimination against qualified applicants cannot be excused by the acceptance of other qualified applicants. And the high acceptance rate is the result of UC's policy of admitting all qualified applicants.Josh said,
The practical effect is likely to be prevention of the students' admission. Instead of having to be within the top 15% to qualify for general admission, they now have to be within the top 2-4% to qualify for special admission. It is not just a matter of passing a test showing knowledge of evolution theory.John said,
A straw man argument. The physics text does not dispute the Bernoulli effect or any other scientific fact or theory.
Anyway, as I said, I am mostly just repeating myself now.
As I said, don't be surprised if UC lo