Thoughts from Kansas

2

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 | August 22, 2006 12:54 AM

4

CulturalIconography said ( August 21, 2006 10:48 PM ) --

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.?

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 --

It is sometimes claimed that the Bible states that π = 3, based on a passage in 1 Kings 7:23 giving measurements for a round basin as having a 10 cubit diameter and a 30 cubit circumference. Rabbi Nehemiah explained this by the diameter being from outside to outside while the circumference was the inner brim; but it may suffice that the measurements are given in round numbers. Also, the basin may not have been exactly circular.

-- from Wikipedia article on Pi

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 ) --

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.

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

6

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

8

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

10

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

12

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

14

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

16

Flex said ( August 23, 2006 06:33 AM ) --

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?

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.

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."

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

18

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

20

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

22

Josh said,

As for courses that use textbooks and curricula that do cover science adequately, why should they be treated like courses that don't?

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

24

Josh said ( August 24, 2006 09:30 PM ) --

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.

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,

The A-Beka books are shoddy and inadequate in biology. They give short shrift to evolution, describing the theory inaccurately and incompletely, and ignoring the practical effects of evolution in genetics and population dynamics, and other places, throughout the 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

26

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

28

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

30

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

32

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 | August 26, 2006 11:34 PM

34

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 ) --

" 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.

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

36

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

38

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

40

Larry 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."

Larry is wrong, on all counts.

That the courses were new, and therefore that the students on whose behalf the lawsuit was brought hadn't taken them: a SF Chronicle article refers to, "courses that Calvary Chapel planned to offer this fall", implying that the courses were not offered previously. Other sources agree that the courses were new offerings, and that they were never taught due to the dispute.

That the students wouldn't have been penalized for taking the classes (as long as they took the proper number of other, certified classes), from the UC fact sheet on the case: "In addition to completing the a-g curriculum, UC-bound students of course are free to take whatever additional courses they wish, including any religion courses their schools offer."

That the students had not applied to UC when the lawsuit was filed (I made no claim that one or more hasn't applied since), from multiple news sources, "None of the students has been rejected by the university. Two are seniors and will apply this winter. The others are juniors and sophomores who plan to apply."

This in the first six pages of Google results.

As far as the six student's intentions go, if they were actually serious about attending UC, they wouldn't be trying to skirt the long-established admissions criteria. Competition for UC slots is fierce, especially among students from large suburban areas with good public schools. Many fully qualified students with good test scores get rejected. If the Calvary Chapel students are in the position of having to substitute uncertified courses for certified ones because they don't have enough certified courses, they might as well save their application fees and go to the local community college.

Posted by: Mary | August 28, 2006 10:45 PM

42

Mary --

The school and the students are being penalized by UC -- otherwise, under the "injured-in-fact" principle, they would not have standing to sue. UC never claimed that they were not being penalized.

Mary said,
Competition for UC slots is fierce, especially among students from large suburban areas with good public schools.

The fierceness of competition is relative -- you have to be in the top 15% of high-school graduates to get into UC. However, it is UC's policy to admit all qualified applicants. Some campuses -- notably the Berkeley campus -- are more selective than the UC system as a whole.

Josh said,
Larry, you claim that "The practical effect is likely to be prevention of the students' admission." But most of the students who applied were admitted. Therefore your prediction is falsified.

No, it is not falsified. The admission of some qualified students does not excuse the rejection of other arguably qualified students.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 29, 2006 2:53 AM

44

On what basis are the small number of students not admitted "arguably qualified"? The issue of whether the students suffered actual harm is a matter of fact to be established by a trial, no one disputes that the alleged harm is real. UC clearly disputes that the students suffered harm. That's why the issue of how many of these students were admitted is relevant. If the goal were to discriminate against these schools, UC clearly failed.

Posted by: Josh | August 29, 2006 8:45 AM

46

Flex said --

And you have yet to indicate how creationism is science.

If students are taught that biblical creationism or creation science is right and that evolution theory is wrong, what difference does it make whether they are taught that in a science class or in a non-science class? The end result is the same, isn't it? And the biology textbooks just add a religious viewpoint -- it seems to me that that is protected by the 1st Amendment.

[Larry Fafarman wrote, "Darwinists ... are now also trying to suppress criticism of evolution theory in the private schools."]

Well, it's true, isn't it?

Josh said,

On what basis are the small number of students not admitted "arguably qualified"?

When I said "arguably," I was referring to the students who sued UC. UC's general-admissions policy is to admit all state-resident students who qualify according to objective criteria. Some students may be borderline on the objective criteria but apply for admission anyway in the hope of getting a break. Also, some students might apply for special admission and be rejected.

First Josh said, "no one disputes that the alleged harm is real," and then he said, "UC clearly disputes that the students suffered harm." The two statements are clearly contradictory.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 29, 2006 11:11 AM

48

Hhahahaahaha.

Larry, you really are a barrel of fun. You won't say that science should be taught in science class. Instead you try to change the subject and suggest that the results are the same if students are taught creationism in, say, a comparative religion class.

Go ahead. Teach creationism in a religion class. Very few will complain, I certainly won't, and based on their comments, neither will Mary or Josh.

But shouldn't we restrict science classes to science? And English courses to the study of English? And history courses to the study of history? We don't ask biologists to teach grammer? Why not? because it's not appropriate to a science class.

But you won't say that creationism isn't science, even if you can't produce any evidence showing it to be science. And you imply that creationism is acceptable to be taught in a science course.

Hahahahahahah.

Oh, and as for your other comment:

In a previous post, [Larry Fafarman wrote, "Darwinists ... are now also trying to suppress criticism of evolution theory in the private schools."]

And when I reminded you of it, you replied, "Well, it's true, isn't it?"

I don't know Larry, say I'm from Missouri, it's your claim, why don't you provide evidence to prove it?

But this recent court case is not evidence of conspiracy.

I do have to give you some credit, you are certainly one of the more patient and reasonable defenders of creationism, and you have avoided name-calling. All of which have made this an enjoyable conversation.

Cheers,

-Flex

Posted by: Flex | August 29, 2006 4:42 PM

50

Larry finally said something with which I can agree, to wit: "the whole issue is whether UC unjustifiably discriminated against the students on the basis of religion."

In other words, did UC have secular reasons to reject the four courses as not being comparable to certified public school courses in English, government, social studies, and biology?

The English course was rejected because the application listed an anthology as the only textbook. The guidelines for certified English courses require that students read at least some entire novel-length works. This is a reasonable, and wholly secular, requirement for a college-prep class. There were additional problems with the course, as well: it was supposed to be an "American Literature" class, but only two of the twelve authors to be studied were American.

The government class was rejected primarily because of its format. It was a year-long course, and UC generally only allows a half-semester credit for courses in this category. Also, the course outline started with a bogus Madison quote, which leads to the question of what other bogus material was included.

The American History class was rejected because, "The content of the course outline submitted for approval is not consistent with the empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community." In other words, the history outlined in the textbook to be used did not cover the facts that professional historians feel are important for a college freshman to know. Reviews warn that the book is full of anti-Catholic rants, which suggests that in addition to cutting out some material that should have been included, material of questionable accuracy may have been added.

The biology course was rejected because the textbook was a standard young earth creationist tract. A book that teaches that the world is only 6000 years old, that there was a worldwide flood survived only by the people and animals on Noah's Ark, and that scientific data must be rejected if it conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible is not a science textbook. If science--as defined by the scientific community--is not being taught, then UC is not engaged in unlawful discrimination when it refuses to accept the class for a biology credit.

It can be argued that Calvary Chapel had religious motivations for wanting to offer the classes. However, what UC is discriminating against is the secular result of that religious zeal: courses which lacked academic rigor and in some cases would have taught bogus material. With ten campuses full of academic experts to call on, UC's legal department should have little trouble demonstrating that the courses as outlined on the applications were inadequate by secular standards.

Posted by: Mary | August 29, 2006 7:15 PM

52

Mary --

I don't know very much about the controversy over the non-science texts. All I know is that the plaintiffs' discrimination charge regarding these texts is based on the claim that the university has accepted non-science texts that have a narrow non-Christian perspective.

Josh said,

"First Josh said, 'no one disputes that the alleged harm is real,' and then he said, 'UC clearly disputes that the students suffered harm.' The two statements are clearly contradictory."

Only if you don't know what "alleged" means.

You are playing word games with me. I thought that you meant that the harm was initially just "alleged" and that everyone later concluded that it is "real."

Flex said --

But shouldn't we restrict science classes to science? And English courses to the study of English? And history courses to the study of history?

If there is too much mixing up of the subjects in the different courses, then of course it is not clear that the UC entrance requirements are being satisfied. But the BJU biology textbooks' sections on a biblical worldview and biblical creationism together cover only about 20 pages out of about 1100 pages in a two-volume set -- hardly enough coverage to justify rejecting the entire textbook set.

In a previous post, [Larry Fafarman wrote, "Darwinists ... are now also trying to suppress criticism of evolution theory in the private schools."]

And when I reminded you of it, you replied, "Well, it's true, isn't it?"

I don't know Larry, say I'm from Missouri, it's your claim, why don't you provide evidence to prove it?

But this recent court case is not evidence of conspiracy.

I didn't say that there is a conspiracy -- I only said that the Darwinists are trying to suppress criticism of Darwinism in private schools as well as public schools. The "conspiracy" thing was your idea.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | August 30, 2006 2:16 AM

54

Larry said, "I don't know very much about the controversy over the non-science texts. All I know is that the plaintiffs' discrimination charge regarding these texts is based on the claim that the university has accepted non-science texts that have a narrow non-Christian perspective."

Yes, but in what category?

UC has different standards based on which requirement a particular course is supposed to fulfil. Courses in science must teach science, courses in English must read entire books, courses in history must provide an overview of particular mateirals, courses in the arts must involve hands-on practical experience, and so on.

Elective courses, on the other hand, can have a more narrow, specialized focus. They still must meet standards for academic rigor, and they must take a scholarly approach to the material, however. So, a course on "The Bible as Literature" would be acceptable, but a course on "The Bible as the Word of God" would not be.

Even the plaintiffs aren't claiming that non-science texts of any kind are being used as primary texts for courses accepted for science credit. A standard text using a standard, secular approach must be used, although it seems likely that UC would still accept the course if a small amount of time was devoted to giving a denominational perspective on what the standard material means.

The complaint lists a number of certified courses offered by other schools that have a narrow focus. Unfortunately, it doesn't list what category they were certified under or where they were taught, making the information difficult to look up. My suspicion is that the course taught from the feminist perspective was an elective, though, as were many of the others. The religious literature course might have been accepted for English credit, although only if it required students to read entire novel-length works.

Once again, it appears that this lawsuit is a frivolous attempt to pass off substandard classes as college-prep material. There's no religion-based discrimination going on, unless it's Calvary Chapel's apparent discrimination against secular scholarship. Which is fine, but they shouldn't expect top secular universities like UC to sanction their approach.

Posted by: Mary | August 30, 2006 9:41 AM

56

Thanks for the correction Josh, I'll remember that in the future. That's the trouble with being an engineer, I have little knowledge outside of my own speciality.

I had the impression there was a sub-group of biologists who are called Darwinists who specialize on the mechanisms proposed by Charles Darwin to the exclusion of other, more recent, evolutionary concepts like genetics or evo-devo. Not that they ignore or question these newer mechanisms and the knowledge gained in those areas, but that they are really more focused on differential reproductive rates due to the variation of expressed traits within a species. But, my mistake. It only goes to show how much I can expand a concept far beyond the evidence for it.

I like your definition better anyway, it makes the idea of Darwinist group of historians conspiring to prevent any criticism of the life of Darwin even funnier.

Cheers,

-Flex

Posted by: Flex | August 30, 2006 3:03 PM

58

Larry said, "A course should not be judged by its title. Two courses with different titles might cover the same material."

Indeed they might. Which is why UC judges courses based on the textbook, supplementary readings, course syllabus, sample lesson plans, and other materials. If the application is complete (as those for two of the rejected Calvary Chapel courses were not), UC has a pretty good idea what is being taught, and how.

It can certainly distinguish between a course that teaches solid introductory material in an academic fashion, and one that teaches bogus material mixed with religious advocacy.

Larry also said, "You are really getting nitpicking. UC never criticized the texts for failing to suffuse evolution theory through all of the chapters. Furthermore, I assert that it is possible to learn basic biology without knowing evolution theory -- all evolution theory provides is a possible "why" for observations. "

UC rejects biology courses using A Beka and Bob Jones University texts because they are basically religious tracts, not science textbooks. As the introduction to the BJU text makes clear, no empirical fact or scientific theory which conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible is accepted by the authors.

That's the opposite of the scientific approach, where religious texts are considered so irrelevant that they don't even make it into the conversation.

I admit to being a bit confused as to what "basic biology" you think can be taught without mentioning evolution. Taxonomy? Anatomy? Biochemistry? Genetics? Ecology? Without the evolutionary framework to tie them together, all you'd be left with is a few random factoids and a long vocabulary list, none of which provides a good background in biology.

It's like teaching a basic physics course by having the students memorize a lot of random data on the specific forces, masses, and accelerations of objects, without introducing the uniting concept of F=ma. Or like teaching an introductory chemistry course by having students memorize an alphabetical list of elements, without introducing the periodic table. Or for that matter, like attempting to provide instruction in Christianity without mentioning Jesus.

You are right, evolution does provide the "why" for much of biology. As such, there's no legitimate pedigogical reason not to make it the centerpiece of any introductory biology course. When a course or textbook systematically dismisses evolution, downplays it, or "balances" it with non-scientific religious doctrine, one of two things is happening. You've got an academically unsound biology class, or you don't have a biology class at all. In either case, UC is perfectly within its rights not to certify such a class as fulfilling the science requirement for admissions.

Posted by: Mary | August 30, 2006 7:10 PM

60

Larry Faraman wrote, "all evolution theory provides is a possible "why" for observations."

Larry Fararman also wrote, "F=ma and the periodic table are laws. Evolution is just a theory."

F=ma is a mathematical model which holds true in all situations with the caveat that it is sometimes difficult in a particular real world application to identify all the forces being applied to a mass to determine acceleration.
The equation does not attempt to explain "why" F=ma works, but through repeated observations and experiments we know it does.

The periodic table is a model which helps to explain how elements react, and is used to show similarities between elements. There are several varient periodic tables, all useful in different ways to help explain how elements react with each other. The periodic table does not explain "why" it exists, but through repeated observations and experiments we know that the model is accurate. And through more advanced theories we can explain how the periodic table is necessarily accurate.

The theory of evolution is a model which helps to explain how the observed diversity of life developed on our planet. The theory of evolution does not explain "why" this diveristy exists, only how it developed. Through repeated observations and experiments we know that this model is accurate.

Is that the root of the difficulty Larry? You think that evolutionary theory is attempting the answer the question of "Why are we here?" It doesn't. It doesn't try to.

Evolutionary theory is the best explaination as to "how" life on this planet has developed in the myriad of forms life takes. Evolutionary theory does not speak directly to the question of "Why are humans on this planet?" It is, by itself, neutral on questions of "why?" That's more a question of philosophy and not science.

Now, I recognize that evolutionary theory strongly implies that the question "Why are we here?" cannot be answered in any way that suggests humanity is innately privledged over other life on this planet.

Evolutionary theory strongly implies that humanity is not special when it comes to any physical measure. Even in those areas where we appear to have an advantage over other creatures, that advantage was not due to a special ability granted by an outside source, but developed through natural, explainable, predicable processes.

This doesn't mean that the question of "why are we here?" is a bad question. I think, in fact, that it's a very good question.

It does mean, however, that the evidence supporting the evolutionary model prevents the answer for 'how' being, "The bible says so."

But that's similar to the evidence for F=ma preventing the number of biblical stories of stopping rivers, destroying walls with a shout, or parting seas. Or the periodic table preventing water from being used as a firestarter as I seem to recall from one old testament passage.

Evolutionary theory, which teaches how all biology is related, is necessary to be taught in biology class. Biology no longer can be learned with any clarity without studying evolutionary theory. Forty years ago, when you were in biology class, it may have been possible to discuss taxonomy, biochemistry, genetics, ecology, or anatomy without discussing evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory has advanced greatly since then, and all those fields have changed because of the advances in the studies of evolution.

It's gotten to the point where the experts in the field, the biologists, tell us that it's necessary to study evolutionary theory to understand how biology works. You have yet to explain why your assertions are more valid than biologists.

But if you think that evolutionary theory is about providing a possible "why" for biology you are mistaken, it provides a "how".

Cheers,

-Flex

Posted by: Flex | August 31, 2006 9:07 AM

62

"I learned that stuff without studying evolution."

Apparently not.

Posted by: Josh | August 31, 2006 11:34 AM

64

Larry,

I'm starting to wonder if you read the quotes you copy before you cite them, because you have a habit of citing evidence that disproves your own position.

You cite a meeting where UC rejected the books because they said that the Bible, revelation, and faith were more authoratative than empirical scientific observations. That may or may not be good religion, but it's bad science. That is such bad science that a course based on that approach can not possibly act as a prerequisite for college-level biology courses.

In science, the Bible is not authoritative. It is so unauthoritative that no one bothers to check whether or not experimental results are in agreement or in conflict with it, because it doesn't matter either way.

Posted by: Mary | August 31, 2006 10:03 PM

66

Larry said, "You have no idea how much I know about biology."

As before, your own statements are proving the opposite of what you claim. You claim to have taken one high school level course in biology some 40 years ago. Your writings elsewhere make it clear that you don't really have even an "educated layman" knowledge of biology, which is probably why you keep repeating the same long-disproved creationist nonsense year after year.

Or do you claim to have a biology PhD from a reputable, secular university and to have published scholarly papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals? If so, give me the citations of your last three papers and a short run-down of your research program.

Larry also said, "It is not necessary that the Christian-school biology courses conform to your prejudices."

Very true. It just has to conform to the expectations of the UC biology professors on the examining committee. One of which is that the textbook will present science and not religious dogma. I've spent a large part of the last 20 years doing biological research at UC Davis, and I haven't yet met a professor who'd pass those two books as adequate college-prep material.

Larry said, "The courts may very well rule that so long as the textbooks present evolution theory correctly, it does not matter whether the students are told inside or outside biology class that evolution is bad science."

First of all, the court hasn't been asked to rule on how well the books cover evolution. A judge isn't qualified to make such a ruling. The issue at hand is whether UC's evaluation process for course certification constitutes illegal discrimination on the basis of religion. "We get a faculty committee of experts in the relevant field together, and they look over the texts and other material to be taught and decide if the course teaches what the kids need to know" is about as religiously neutral a method of course evaluation as you can get.

It's true, no group of biology faculty from a UC campus will accept a course in young earth creationism for biology credit. Maybe that should tell you something? Like, perhaps, that young earth creationism was disproved over 150 years ago, even before Darwin publish the ORIGIN? It's crackpot science, and I'm told it's lousy theology as well.

Larry also said, "But most students are not going to major in biology or paleontology or become professional biologists or paleontologists. If they are going to major in those subjects and did not learn evolution in high school, they can very quickly pick up a high-school level knowledge of evolution."

Again, not relevant. The ability of students to make up deficiencies in their education is not at issue. Admissions is an elimination game, especially when a third or more of the fully qualified applicants must be turned down each year. If UC can fill all available slots and more with students who took real biology classes, why should they admit one who took a creationist course instead?

An Amish child who exercises his right to leave formal schooling after seventh grade to take a traditional appreticeship will no doubt learn many useful skills. Those skills are arguably more important to an Amish adult than the skills he would have learned if he had stayed in school. However, he doesn't have the right to go back and demand a high school diploma on the grounds that he successfully completed his apprenticeship. He learned many things, but he did not learn the specific subjects whose mastery is required for a high school diploma.

Likewise, the First Ammendment protects the right of Calvary Chapel to teach creationism classes instead of biology, and the right of its students to take such classes. It doesn't protect either the school or its students from the secular consequences of not having offered or taken a certified biology course. The course may or may not be useful--the two of us certainly disagree on that. But we do agree that the approach to science in the Calvary Chapel texts is substantially different from the approach to science seen in, say, California public school biology classes.

UC rejects Calvary Chapel's approach and accepts the public school approach, not because they hate Christians, but because the latter approach reflects the way real biologists do real biological research. That's not unlawful religious discrimination, it's sound pedagogy.

Posted by: Mary | September 1, 2006 10:32 AM

68

Larry said, "Here is a sample of my writings on the scientific issues."

Once again, you have proved my point. You don't understand the fundamentals of biology.

Larry then said, "We don't know who made the final decision to reject the books. Maybe that decision was made by bureaucrats rather than biology professors."

The UC web site goes into mind-numbing detail on exactly how the course approval process works. Look it up.

Larry also claimed, "As I said, it is the policy of UC to admit all students who qualify according to objective criteria."

While you're educating yourself on the course approval process, you might also look up the number of students applying to UC and the size of the freshman class. UC simply doesn't have the space in its facilities to accept all qualified applicants, even with the new Merced campus. That's why they recommend that students who are serious about attending take more than the minimum required courses.

Then Larry asked, "Then how was a judge in Pennsylvania qualified to rule on the question of whether ID and irreducible complexity are scientific?"

He didn't. He ruled that ID was religious apologetics, and accepted the expert testimony of the scientists that ID isn't science.

Larry also stated that, "It is an issue because even many public-school biology courses do not teach evolution. You admitted that yourself."

There are plenty of states where the standards do not require biology classes to teach evolution. However, California's standards do cover evolution in a comprehensive fashion. Out-of-state public school students, like in-state private school students, must demonstrate that their coursework covered the essentials. If it didn't, they don't qualify. UC has no state mandate to accept any out-of-state students at all, much less ones with a high school education that doesn't meet California's public school standards.

And finally Larry claimed that, "Nothing can stop Calvary Chapel from telling students outside of biology class that evolution theory is bad science. So the end result is the same."

The end result is actually quite different. If a student takes a standard secular biology course, and then learns in religion class that her church rejects evolution and all other science that conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis, she at least has an honest view of what science is and what it teaches. If instead the religious doctrine is presented in science class, as legitimate science, she hasn't a clue what science is, nor can she distinguish which "facts" are derived from Biblical interpretation rather than empirical data.

Posted by: Mary | September 1, 2006 5:32 PM

70

Larry asked, "What don't I understand about the fundamentals of biology?"

It's not that you're agreeing or disagreeing with PZ Meyers, it's that you don't seem to understand what he is saying, what Haekel said, why Haekel's observations are still relevant enough to modern embryology to be mentioned in textbooks, or even the essential differences between what an illustrative drawing and a photograph are intended to do.

Maybe it's the modern, college-level textbook you were using for your extensive research into embryology. Which one was it, again? All you cited was Wikipedia.

Larry then charged, "First you said that he did not decide on the question of whether or not ID is science, then you said that he did."

I did not. I said that he ruled on his own authority that ID is religious dogma, and on the authority of the expert witnisses that it wasn't science. The two actions are quite different. He was not defining science himself, he was applying the definition offered by actual scientists.

Larry also claimed, "Under the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Constitution, California is supposed to accept the biology-course standards of other states."

The full-faith-and-credit clause applies only to legal contracts such as marriages, bills of sale, child support orders, and so on. A curriculum standard isn't a legal contract. Or can you cite a judicial opinion to the contrary? Full citation, please, so I can look it up on FindLaw and determine that it was an actual settled legal case, not a speculative article written by a hopeful lawyer.

Then Larry obfuscated, "That has nothing to do with the acceptance rate. Students who apply and are accepted often decide to go to another institution or not enter college."

UC, like any university, accepts enough students to make up for these losses. It is still forced to reject a large number of the fully qualified applicants. The statistic I remember reading last spring was that about a third of the qualified applicants were being turned away.

And finally Laary said, "Practically all public-school graduates who disbelieve evolution were not taught to disbelieve it in public schools."

This is relevant how? The issue isn't whether or not the student believes the science teacher or the pastor, the issue is whether the student understands that science does not operate by the same rules as religion. Specifically, that faith, revelation, and Biblical interpretation are not valid scientific methodology. A creationist student who has taken a standard biology class at least knows what the scientific community has concluded and why it has reached conclusions different from his church's. A student whose primary biology instruction comes from a text like those UC rejected won't understand that crucial distinction.

Posted by: Mary | September 2, 2006 10:06 AM

72

Larry said, "Wikipedia is a darn good reference. In a comparative study, Wikipedia compared favorably with the touted online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica."

An encyclopedia is a handy place to quickly look up an unfamiliar word or concept. It's not a good place to research anything in depth. Quite apart from accuracy issues, the space limitations prohibit covering a complicated subject in any comprehensive fashion. Remember those grade school term papers where the teacher marked you down if you based your report solely on the encyclopedia? There was a reason for that.

To learn the basics of a scientific subject like embryology, you want a college-level textbook, preferably one that is currently widely used at good universities. From there, you can pick up the details by reading a few review articles published in an appropriate journal. PubMed is a good resource to locate such material.

Larry continued to demonstrate problems with reading comprehension when he said, "And I am saying that he was not particularly well-qualified to make that judgment. Also, arguably he did not have the authority to make that judgment -- judges have no express constitutional or legal authority to decide scientific questions"

I repeat, Judge Jones didn't decide any scientific issue. He accepted the evaluation of the expert scientists in the field who gave testimony. That's why courts have expert testimony in the first place: to inform the judge in areas outside his expertise.

And he issued his legal opinion that the scientific judgement of the scientists on the merits of ID was more credible than Behe's because both sides asked him to rule on that issue.

As far as UC's acceptance rate goes, you are the one who has been claiming that UC accepts all students who meet the minimum qualifications. They don't. They reject about a third of the qualified applicants outright. Meeting the minimal qualifications is no guarantee that a student will be accepted, and so a student who is serious about getting in will make sure to take more than the minimum.

And finally, Larry demonstrated skill at dodging the issue when he pointed out the undisputed fact that, "UC is unable to prevent religious schools from indoctrinating students in the idea that religion trumps science."

UC isn't trying to do so. It simply requires that all students who wish to apply to UC have taken at least two science courses that teach accurate science. In a science class, students must learn that IN SCIENCE, the evidence trumps religious preconceptions, and that the Bible is not used as a reference book.

Posted by: Mary | September 2, 2006 3:41 PM

74

"The issue here is that rejection of the textbooks means that the Christian-school students cannot even compete for regular admission."

False. As demonstrated by the excellent rate at which this school gets students accepted by UC. Students can compete for regular admission. QED.

"He can't just "accept" the evaluation from one side -- he has to weigh the evidence from both sides and then make a decision."

Precisely what Jones did. You don't like his conclusion, but that's life.

"UC is unable to prevent religious schools from indoctrinating students in the idea that religion trumps science." Nor are religious schools able to force UC to accept unqualified applicants.

But I had to laugh at this claim: "I would be ashamed to call someone else wrong without saying why."

Really? It's clear that you think Judge Jones is wrong about whether ID is science, but you don't seem to be explaining why.

In your review, you write that Darwin refers to Haeckel's drawings, when in fact he doesn't. You quote Darwin writing: "In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters, but receives aid from homologous and rudimentary organs." "The several series" refers to "what [Haeckel] calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings." Not to actual drawings. This isn't even scientific literacy that you're failing, it's just plain literacy.

It also isn't clear why you'd prefer the Wikipedia's description of developmental biology to the description of a developmental biologist.

Posted by: Josh | September 3, 2006 1:26 PM

76

Josh said --
False. As demonstrated by the excellent rate at which this school gets students accepted by UC. Students can compete for regular admission. QED.

Students who take the courses that use the rejected textbooks cannot compete for regular admission in the future. Period. QED Also, I don't know if UC is applying the new rules retroactively.

"He can't just "accept" the evaluation from one side -- he has to weigh the evidence from both sides and then make a decision."
Precisely what Jones did. You don't like his conclusion, but that's life.

But he still made a decision. Mary said that he did not make a decision. That's absurd.

It's clear that you think Judge Jones is wrong about whether ID is science, but you don't seem to be explaining why.

Most of my arguments against Judge Jones have been against his procedural rulings, e.g., his denial of the Of Pandas and People book publisher's motion to intervene. I have said very little about his judgment on whether ID is science.

You quote Darwin writing: "In drawing up the several series he trusts chiefly to embryological characters, but receives aid from homologous and rudimentary organs." "The several series" refers to "what [Haeckel] calls phylogeny, or the lines of descent of all organic beings." Not to actual drawings.

The words "drawing up" are ambiguous -- it is not clear what Darwin meant. He could have been referring to the drawing of pictures. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that Darwin's statements might be interpreted as referring to recapitulation theory, but there is apparently no evidence that he considered recapitulation theory to be -- as Wells claimed -- the best evidence for evolution theory.

Mary said,

Larry demonstrated selective memory when he said, "Anyway, you never said what was wrong with my review."

See my explanation a few messages up.

Your criticisms were just vague -- nothing specific. You Darwinists think that you can win arguments just by waving your arms and saying, "trust me." Here is what you wrote --

"It's not that you're agreeing or disagreeing with PZ Meyers, it's that you don't seem to understand what he is saying, what Haekel said, why Haekel's observations are still relevant enough to modern embryology to be mentioned in textbooks, or even the essential differences between what an illustrative drawing and a photograph are intended to do."

I didn't initially understand what PZ and Ballard were saying because they said it very poorly. I explained all this on my blog. After I did some research, I understood what they were saying.

And why would a modern textbook depend on inaccurate drawings that are over a century old?

Yes, he made a decision. It wasn't, however, a decision about the scientific merits of ID. It was a decision about whether or not the scientific consensus accepts the alleged scientific merits of ID.

At least you finally admit that he made a decision. Even deciding whether a consensus exists is still making a decision. But under the new federal court rules of the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision, he was not obligated to accept the consensus of scientists. Personally, I feel that he should not have decided on the scientific merits at all -- it was neither necessary nor wise to do so.

UC tries to accept the best of the applicants under a merit-based system, but no one disputes that many qualified students who would probably do very well at UC are also rejected.

It is pointless to argue about UC's acceptance rate -- the issue here is that the students who sued are not eligible to compete for regular admission. Whether UC is unconsitutionally discriminating against them is a matter for the courts to decide.

Calvary Chapel does offer science courses that passed UC certification.

How do you know that Calvary Chapel is not now using these Christian-school science textbooks in all of its courses? Why would the school use different textbooks? The Calvary Chapel students who were admitted to UC might have taken the same courses but were admitted before UC changed the rules.

Bakke doesn't apply.

Bakke does apply, because Bakke was denied the opportunity to compete for admission because of his race.

This is the approach taken by a lot of Catholic schools: the course is taught in a secular manner from a secular textbook, with the addition of a short unit that adds the Catholic perspective on various scientific matters.

The criticism of Darwinism only covers only about 15 pages of the BJU text. That is hardly enough material to justify a whole separate course.

As I said, you Darwinists were not happy just to suppress criticism of Darwinism in public schools under the guise of maintaining separation of church and state -- now you want to suppress criticism of Darwinism in private schools as well.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 3, 2006 5:01 PM

78

Josh said --

"Students who take the courses that use the rejected textbooks cannot compete for regular admission in the future. Period."

False. They may get accreditation by other means.

That is why I said "regular" admission. They are not eligible for regular admission. They are eligible for special admission, which is much harder.

Are you ashamed at calling Judge Jones wrong without saying why?

I always say why I call him wrong.

"The words 'drawing up' are ambiguous."

No. They really aren't.

Yes they are. The subject was Haeckel's drawings, so I naturally thought that "drawing up" referred to making drawings. "Drawing up" is not an expression I would use to describe making drawings, but I thought that maybe it was just a 19th century English idiom. Anyway, as I said, the interpretation of those words is unimportant -- my point was that the quoted paragraph of Darwin arguably referred to recapitulation theory.

"why would a modern textbook depend on inaccurate drawings that are over a century old?"

They don't. Most textbooks use photographs or modern drawings from photographs to make the same point.

Well, then the charge that modern books are still using Haeckel's drawings is false. Mary claimed that modern books are still using Haeckel's ideas, and maybe some of his ideas are valid, but there appears to be a general consensus that his drawings were faked.

"I didn't initially understand what PZ and Ballard were saying"

And still don't.

Again I ask you to identify specific errors in my review of PZ Myers' review of Chapter 3 of Wells' new book. If you can't do it, then you are just a bag of hot air.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 4, 2006 12:20 AM

80

Mary said --

There is no penalty in UC admissions for taking a class that is not certified.

There is a penalty -- the class does not count towards meeting the UC admission requirements, and those requirements allow little or no margin for the deletion of uncertified courses from a student's record.

To add to that, their lawyer is a hack with a history of losing creationism-related cases.

Just try to argue in court that the opposing attorney has a history of losing cases and see how far you get.

They've got a weak case to begin with, because the only "harm" they can allege is that their students who want to go to UC have to fulfil the same, secular requirements as everybody else.

For the umpteenth time, UC has never complained that the science textbooks contain bad science -- UC has only complained that the textbooks add a religious viewpoint.

A loss by Calvary Chapel would make it much harder to convince scientifically illiterate school boards and parents that creationism/ID is legimiate science.

The primary effect of the outcome of this lawsuit will be on religious schools. Public schools are not allowed to adopt Christian-school textbooks.

Most public and private schools whose courses flunk UC approval either revise the course to remedy the deficiencies or offer the course as an unaccredited elective. All religion classes at parocial schools that focus on the sponsoring denomination's teachings fall into the latter category.

How do you know that UC does not approve any religion courses for credit? A number of public schools have courses on the bible as literature. Anyway, this is a side issue -- this lawsuit does not include any dispute over accreditation of courses that are strictly about religion.

You can keep repeating your arguments until you are blue in the face, but that won't make them true.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 4, 2006 2:52 PM

82

Larry asserted somewhat incoherently, "There is a penalty -- the class does not count towards meeting the UC admission requirements, and those requirements allow little or no margin for the deletion of uncertified courses from a student's record"

If by this you mean that meeting UC eligibility somehow deprives Calvary Chapel students from taking religious courses, that's nonsense. A typical high school student takes 6-7 classes a day, most of which run for the entire year. The exceptions are usually half-year courses like civics, P.E., or driver's ed, which are paired with each other to make completing graduation requirements easier for students. So, a typical high school student will take at least 30 total courses over four years, and probably more than that.

A brief calculation will show you that fulfilling the UC requirements uses up less than half of the total courses a student will take in high school. Most of the UC-required courses are also required to get a high school diploma, so they don't even add a significant additional burden to a student's coursework. That leaves the student free to take a dozen or more electives, which don't have to be certified courses. These can include shop, home ec, typing, fashion design, religious apologetics, sports, auto mechanics, or any other certified or uncertified course that catches a student's fancy.

While it's true that using some of those elective spots to take additional academic subjects will help a student's application to UC, your claim that students are somehow unable to fit in any uncertified religious courses because of the UC requirements is bogus.

Larry showed additional confusion when he said, "For the umpteenth time, UC has never complained that the science textbooks contain bad science -- UC has only complained that the textbooks add a religious viewpoint."

No, Larry. YOU are the one who keeps saying that UC only objected to an added religious viewpoint when rejecting the two creationist texts. What UC actually objected to was "content not consistent with the empirical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community." Translation: the textbooks got the science wrong. Since the books teach young earth creationism, complete with a 6000-year-old Earth and Noah's ark, that shouldn't surprise you.

And Larry asked disingenuously, "How do you know that UC does not approve any religion courses for credit?"

First of all, I didn't say that UC doesn't approve any religion classes for credit. Classes which take a scholarly approach are acceptable, albeit usually only in the elective category. Classes whose primary purpose is indoctrination in a specific religious tradition are generally not acceptable towards UC admissions, although there is no penalty attached to taking them.

I know this because I read the relevant guidelines posted on the UC admissions site. Which you apparently still have not bothered to do, despite the fact that your ignorance of them has been making you look ridiculous.

Then Josh asked, "The procedure by which students from the schools apply is no different than the process that home schooled children would go through, or that children whose school wasn't part of UC's evaluations might have to go through. What in UC's procedures marks that admission process as "special"? "

Larry's just getting confused again, Josh. The most common general admissions path is available to both public and private school students from in-state high schools who participate in the certification process, including Calvary Chapel. All that's required is that the student take at least 15 UC-certified courses in the required categories. If a student is short one or two certified courses, he or she can demonstrate proficiency by taking the SATII subject test in that area and scoring well.

A student who is lacking a large portion of the required coursework has a much harder time demonstrating that he or she is ready for college work. Such students who score in the top few percent on their aptitude tests are allowed to try a "dog ate my homework" special admissions application, which is basically an attempt to convince the admissions committee that they are prepared for college even if they haven't done enough college-prep coursework to qualify for general admissions. As one would expect from a "dog ate my homework" excuse, the acceptance rate under special admissions is lower and the required test scores are significantly higher than for students applying through general admissions.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that UC really, really wants students to have completed the required college-prep coursework.

Posted by: Mary | September 4, 2006 8:39 PM

84

Mary said --

Larry asserted somewhat incoherently, "There is a penalty -- the class does not count towards meeting the UC admission requirements, and those requirements allow little or no margin for the deletion of uncertified courses from a student's record"

If by this you mean that meeting UC eligibility somehow deprives Calvary Chapel students from taking religious courses, that's nonsense.

You are the one who is asserting incoherently. You expect the students to take two science courses with virtually the same content: one no-credit course with a small amount of religious viewpoint and one for-credit course without a religious viewpoint. Probably the only religious viewpoints in the biology textbooks are in the introduction and the 20 pages titled "biblical viewpoint" and "biblical creationism."

How do you know that Calvary Chapel now even offers a biology course using a non-Christian textbook?

The conflict is not just with Calvary Chapel -- the conflict is also with other Christian schools and non-Christian religious schools. That is why the Association of Christian Schools International has joined the suit. Here is what Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the 1st Amendment Center, wrote in an op-ed article in the Decatur Daily:

Of course, the University of California has every right to establish academic standards for admission and disapprove courses from any school that don't cover the core content in science, history, literature or other subjects. But under the establishment clause of the First Amendment, no state university should keep a course from the "approved list" because it includes religious ideas or is taught from a religious perspective.

Until we know all of the facts behind UC's decision-making, it's hard to sort out why some of these Calvary courses were rejected. But past approval of courses with a viewpoint such as "Feminist Issues throughout U.S. History" lends credence to ACSI's contention that the university is targeting textbooks and courses with an evangelical perspective. If true (and that's what trials are for), that would be a form of viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.

This high-profile fight over courses taught in Christian schools has already sent a chilling message to other religious schools. They worry that if these courses can be rejected, what's next? After all, most subjects in religious schools are taught from a faith perspective and may well include religious viewpoints of science, literature or history that the university could deem not "generally accepted" in the secular scientific and educational communities.

-- from http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/other/060312a.shtml

YOU are the one who keeps saying that UC only objected to an added religious viewpoint when rejecting the two creationist texts. What UC actually objected to was "content not consistent with the empirical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community." Translation: the textbooks got the science wrong.

"content not consistent with the empirical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community" is too vague an objection. Here are UC's specific objections, from articles on my blog --

The lawsuit's official complaint says that the UC rejected high-school biology textbooks from two Christian-textbook publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book, on the basis of "both the 'way in which these texts address the topics of evolution and creationism' and 'their general approach to science' in relation to the Bible." (page 23 of the complaint).

A description of a 2004 meeting between UC personnel, Christian school personnel, and attorneys from both sides said the following:

"As the discussion continued about the biology books, it became evident that they were rejected because they appeared to state the perspective that the Bible is revelation and along with faith is more authoritative than the observations of science, especially if there were a conflict over a "factual scientific issue." -- from Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?", page 3

A student who is lacking a large portion of the required coursework has a much harder time demonstrating that he or she is ready for college work.

My answer is the following quote from my blog --

An article titled "Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?", by the Association of Christian Schools International, said the following about a meeting between UC personnel, Christian school personnel, and attorneys on both sides of the issue (page 3):

When asked whether poor college performance by students from religious schools prompted the rejection of the textbooks, UC representatives responded negatively. They also acknowledged that UC did not have any objective evidence that students from religious schools are deficient in science when they arrive for their freshman year of college .....

UC as an organization has already lost round one of this suit -- its attempt to block the suit against university (only the charges against individual defendants were dismissed).

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 4, 2006 11:21 PM

86

Josh said,

Then they should sue their school, not UC.

Why should they sue their school if UC is the one who is violating their constitutional rights? Maybe you should read Charles Haynes' words again:

.... under the establishment clause of the First Amendment, no state university should keep a course from the "approved list" because it includes religious ideas or is taught from a religious perspective . . . . .past approval of courses with a viewpoint such as "Feminist Issues throughout U.S. History" lends credence to ACSI's contention that the university is targeting textbooks and courses with an evangelical perspective. . . .most subjects in religious schools are taught from a faith perspective -- and may well include religious viewpoints of science, literature or history that the university could deem not "generally accepted" in the secular scientific and educational communities.

UC has already lost round #1 of this lawsuit.

"The quote refers to "drawing up the several series," and the term "several series" is not defined in the quote. "
For the third time, it is. "The series" are phylogenies. From the immediately preceding sentence. Stop embarassing yourself.

You are the one who is embarrassing yourself. Maybe a hidden sentence preceding the quote says or indicates that the "series" are embryo drawings. And with everyone always talking about "Haeckel's drawings," it is quite understandable that I would interpret "drawing up" as referring to drawings. Anyway, as I said, even if I misunderstood, my argument that the quote possibly referred to recapitulation theory still applies.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 5, 2006 5:52 AM

88

My sources are cited on my blog in the following posts (articles):

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

===============================

Mary said,

There are reviews with excerpts from the rejected books available online, including the entire first chapter of one biology text.

What reviews? Where? Why can't you give links to your sources to save others the time and trouble of searching for those sources? Having two or more links can cause a comment to bomb here, but that can be prevented by removing the http:// prefixes from the links, as I have done above.

The BJU Press website gives the complete 4th chapter as a sample. A complete online copy of the 1st chapter in an independent review would probably be a violation of the copyright.

The religion is infused into every page, as promised in the introduction.

I did not see religion infused into every page of chapter 4 of the BJU textbooks. Most of the conflict between biology and Christianity occurs in evolution theory and paleontology. There was no sample chapter on the A Beka Book website, but the biology text was described as, "Thoroughly Christian in perspective and tone. Truly nonevolutionary in philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study."

Larry's abysmal lack of research . . . .

Speaking of abysmal lack of research -- just compare the research and documentation that go into my writings and the writings of you and Josh. You state a lot of information but do not give links to your sources.

This coming year, Calvary Chapel offers one accredited physics course, two accredited chemistry courses, and four accredited biology courses.

Why would Calvary Chapel offer both Christian and non-Christian versions of science courses? And Calvary Chapel's offering of non-Christian versions does not excuse UC's non-accreditation of the Christian versions. Anyway, this suit is not just about Calvary Chapel -- there are presumably some Christian schools out there that do not offer non-Christian science courses.

At least you looked a little beyond Wickipedia when you offered two quotations in support of your claim that UC does not object to the science in the textbooks.

Now I know that you are crazy -- neither quote came from Wikipedia.

The plaintiff's complaint isn't necessarily the best place to research the defendent's reasons for doing anything.

The plaintiffs' complaint apparently quoted a UC source. As noted on my blog,

The lawsuit's official complaint says that the UC rejected high-school biology textbooks from two Christian-textbook publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book, on the basis of "both the 'way in which these texts address the topics of evolution and creationism' and 'their general approach to science' in relation to the Bible."

A legal brief can get into big trouble by not accurately and completely quoting a source. Also, it would have been difficult or impossible for me to find the source -- maybe it is not even available online.

UC's lead lawyer on the case says that the problem with the disputed texts was, "more fundamental and had to do with its scientific and academic quality and accuracy."

That is too vague -- they have to be more specific. Even the description given above in the plaintiffs' complaint is not very specific.

The Charles Haynes op-ed piece is also irrelevant, since he admits in the editorial that he doesn't know the details of the case.

He doesn't know all the details of the case, but he knows enough of the details to make comments. Even the court does not know all the details -- there is a lot to be discovered.

"The curriculum case is 'cut and dry,' said Michael Broyde, a law professor at Emory University and a fellow in the Center for Study of Law and Religion. 'If the way a Christian school manifests its Christianity is by changing the curriculum, then it's clear the state of California doesn't have to accommodate them,' he said."

Does Broyde know all the details of the case? If Haynes' comments are "irrelevant," shouldn't Broyde's be also?

IMO, Haynes' reasoning is much better than Broyde's. Haynes said that if the school presents the core material correctly, it should not matter if a religious viewpoint is added. And why should the Christian schools have to "accommodate" all of the whims of the UC bureaucrats?

A motion to dismiss rarely succeeds, because the judge decides it using the assumption that all allegations in the plaintiff's brief are true.

On the contrary, motions to dismiss often succeed. In this case, I presume that UC argued that it had immunity and that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

The burden of proof is still on Calvary Chapel.

I never said otherwise.

Judge Otero has already taken the unusual step of expressing skepticism as to whether Calvary Chapel can provide sufficient proof, and with good reason.

It is rather early for the judge to make that assessment -- there are still discovery, briefs, and maybe courtroom hearings.

Calvary Chapel can't claim a statistical pattern of discrimination: their qualified students get accepted and their courses certified at pretty much the same rate as other schools.

There is a statistical pattern of discrimination -- 100% of the students who took too many of the uncertified courses are not eligible for regular admission.

Wendell Bird's peculiar argument that it is impermissiable discrimination when UC evaluates the academic rigor of a course by examining what is actually being taught is weak, as is his contention that UC ought not to base an applicant's qualifications on demonstrated achievement in rigorous, college-prep courses.

I have not read all of his arguments, but it is absurd to suggest that he made the arguments that you state above.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 5, 2006 4:55 PM

90

Oh, and Larry, while you're at it, could you answer my question?

Why should your assertions about what should be taught in biology class be given more weight than experts in the field of biology?

Cheers,

-Flex

Posted by: Flex | September 6, 2006 6:46 AM

92

Flex said --

Oh, and Larry, while you're at it, could you answer my question? Why should your assertions about what should be taught in biology class be given more weight than experts in the field of biology?

My argument is not based on what I believe should be taught in biology class (though I personally believe that a knowledge of evolution theory is not necessary in the study of basic biology). My argument is that if the Christian biology textbooks present the core material correctly, they should not be rejected just because they add a religious viewpoint.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 6, 2006 7:40 AM

94

Larry Fafarman wrote (in his second post on this thread), "I assert that evolution theory is not necessary in the study of biology."

Then, recently, Larry Fafarman wrote, "My argument is not based on what I believe should be taught in biology class."

Okay, good to see that you have changed your mind, or at least the goalposts.

Now you write, "My argument is that if the Christian biology textbooks present the core material correctly, they should not be rejected just because they add a religious viewpoint."

Who judges whether the core material is presented correctly? The biologists or the religious? In this case, it seems that UC judged that the core material was inadequate to meet their requirements for certification.

Now, I don't particularly care about the lawsuit. It's within everyones right to sue for whatever reason they want.

But your complaint seems a bit strange. Here is a public educational institution, which has more applicants than they can possibly take. This institution must use some criteria to ensure the students who will profit the most from the teaching they provide will be admitted. So the institution publishes guidelines of minimum requirements to be considered for admission. These guidelines, publicly available, stipulate that a certain number of credits of UC certified courses must be taken as a minimum requirement to be considered for admission.

There doesn't seem to have been any secrecy here. It seems very open and above board.

Your sole complaint seems to be that a non-certified course taught at Calvary Chapel should be certified because, in your opinion, the textbooks they use cover the material properly. Even though you admit that you don't know enough about the material to know if it is covered properly.

And you wonder why I laugh at your hubris.

Cheers,

-Flex

Posted by: Flex | September 6, 2006 3:22 PM

96

Flex said --

Larry Fafarman wrote (in his second post on this thread), "I assert that evolution theory is not necessary in the study of biology."

Then, recently, Larry Fafarman wrote, "My argument is not based on what I believe should be taught in biology class."

Okay, good to see that you have changed your mind, or at least the goalposts.

There is no change of mind or the goalposts -- I am just saying that this is something I believe but I am not using it as an argument here.

BTW, I believe that a knowledge of evolution theory is helpful for professional biologists because the scientific literature is often written in terms of evolution theory -- but otherwise, no.

There doesn't seem to have been any secrecy here. It seems very open and above board.

Something can be very open and above board and still be unconstitutional.

Your sole complaint seems to be that a non-certified course taught at Calvary Chapel should be certified because, in your opinion, the textbooks they use cover the material properly.

I have not even read or skimmed the whole textbooks (only Chapter 4 is available on the BJU website and nothing is available on the A Beka Book website) and as you note I have admitted that I am not qualified to judge the contents. All I am saying is that UC has not complained that the books do not present the core science completely and correctly.

Who judges whether the core material is presented correctly? The biologists or the religious? In this case, it seems that UC judged that the core material was inadequate to meet their requirements for certification.

UC never said that the core material is inadequate. UC only complained that the textbooks add a religious viewpoint.

UC does have one point in regard to the BJU textbook -- the introduction says that all the science presented is consistent with scripture. But UC does not point out anywhere that the science that is presented is actually wrong.

Posted by: Larry Fafarnan | September 6, 2006 4:47 PM

98

Mary said --
Taking an uncertified course in any subject whatsoever, using any textbook whatsoever, doesn't affect eligibility for regular admissions. UC ignores uncertified coursework completely when determining eligbility. Only the certified courses taken count.

I KNOW that. I never said otherwise. But students who take the uncertified courses are not likely to be able to meet the course requirements for UC regular admission. The plaintiffs are complaining that the denial of certification for those courses was improper, so they are suing. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I am getting tired of your "let them eat cake" arguments.

Do you really believe that a Calvary Chapel student who took a course in Young Earth Creationism

Another straw man argument. These are not YEC courses. UC never claimed that they are.

This matters because if UC were systematically discriminating against parochial schools' coursework because the schools have a religious viewpoint, it ought to be affecting schools from many denominations, rather than just evangelical schools.

Wrong. If only one school is affected, that is enough. But hundreds or even thousands of schools may be affected.

Larry finally got way out in left field when he claimed, "I cited a source for this claim, a report of a meeting between UC officials, Christian-school officials, and attorneys."
Larry, you have heard that UC is ten-campus university system employing thousands of faculty and staff, haven't you?

I presumed that the UC officials at the meeting were authorized to represent UC in this matter. Sheeesh.

And you do know that a one-paragraph account of even a short meeting can't possibly cover all that was said?

It is all I have available to go by in regard to UC's answer to the question of whether poor performance by the Christian school graduates prompted rejection of the textbooks. More sheeesh.

And that even if UC didn't go into the specifics of why the textbooks were rejected during that one meeting (something we don't know), that doesn't prohibit UC from stating its reasons elsewhere? Like perhaps in its position paper on the lawsuit?

Nothing in that position paper said that students who used the rejected textbooks are inadequately prepared to study biology at the college level. Still more sheeesh.

Anyway, it is clear that I am wasting my time here with this asinine discussion. I said some time ago that I was going to quit this discussion, and I should have done it then. Goodbye.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 6, 2006 6:50 PM

100

I'm outta here.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 6, 2006 9:34 PM

102

Mary said --

Hmm, I guess Larry doesn't have a good reason why UC should make a special exception to its course requirements for Christian schools and their students.

No, you are the one who doesn't have a good reason why UC should not make an exception for Christian schools. And it is not a "special" exception -- it is just the same exception that UC has granted other groups with particular viewpoints.

It's been fun.

It has not been fun for me. It has been boring and a waste of time.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 7, 2006 11:17 AM

104

Larry pulled another whopper out of thin air when he said, "And it is not a "special" exception -- it is just the same exception that UC has granted other groups with particular viewpoints."

What other groups would those be? The ones you wish were out there, because otherwise Calvary Chapel's case doesn't look so good?

The section of the UC admissions page that deals with course approval makes no exceptions in its standards for any school. All courses must be of sufficient rigor and reflect "material generally accepted in the academic community." Unless you mean unaccredited and home schools, which are not allowed to participate in the certification process at all, and whose students are only allowed to apply by special admissions?

Josh expressed bewilderment at Larry's failure to see the weakness of Calvary Chapel's case when he asked, "But you are certain that UC will lose. Why? Because they didn't win the motion to dismiss. Why bother with trials at all?"

Josh, I expect Larry got his initial information from some of the conservative religious blogs, which in turn got it from Calvary Chapel's press release. At least, the ridiculous notion that UC would ban a student for life for using the wrong textbook was prominant on a lot of homeschool blogs, as was the idea that students had to choose between taking the uncertified courses and attending UC.

So it appears that Larry reads well enough, as long as it's something that agrees with his preconceptions.

Posted by: Mary | September 7, 2006 8:31 PM

106

Mary said --

The section of the UC admissions page that deals with course approval makes no exceptions in its standards for any school. All courses must be of sufficient rigor and reflect "material generally accepted in the academic community."

Charles Haynes said in the Decatur Daily,

Until we know all of the facts behind UC's decision-making, it's hard to sort out why some of these Calvary courses were rejected. But past approval of courses with a viewpoint such as "Feminist Issues throughout U.S. History" lends credence to ACSI's contention that the university is targeting textbooks and courses with an evangelical perspective. If true (and that's what trials are for), that would be a form of viewpoint discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 8, 2006 12:07 PM

108

Of course, Larry must have done the five minutes of research to find this position paper:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/factsheets/courseapproval.pdf#search=%22UC%20Calvary%22

And found the following statement directly addressing the textbooks in question:

The University has declined to approve courses that use as their primary source the books named in the case, not because they have religious content, but because they fail to meet the University's standards for effectively teaching the required subject matter.

and maybe this one:

Had the courses at issue used these textbooks as supplementary, rather than primary, texts, it is likely they would have been approved.

However, Larry wrote, apparently without reading anything by UC, "UC never said that the core material is inadequate. UC only complained that the textbooks add a religious viewpoint."

So, Larry, your claim that the only reason UC didn't approve the course because of religious reasons is bunk. The texts did not meet the UC standards for science.

And before you claim that this is a cover-up, let's find another course the UC has not accepted. How about this one?

In one case, a literature course was rejected because the use of an anthology as the only textbook was in direct conflict with UC's policy that students read assigned works in their entirety, meaning anthologies may not be the only texts required in literature courses.

Let's try a quote from Larry again, "All I am saying is that UC has not complained that the books do not present the core science completely and correctly."

Wrong. UC has publicly stated that the books do not present the core science to the level UC requires in an approved college prepatory course. Read the above block-quotes from their position paper again.

Oh, and one more thought, from the same paper, "More than 80 percent of courses submitted to UC are approved." Which means that about 20% are not approved. That means around 1 in every 5 courses submitted for approval by UC fail to get approval. It doesn't appear that Calvary Chapel is being singled out for special treatment.

Cheers,

-Flex

Posted by: Flex | September 8, 2006 1:46 PM

110

Flex said,

And found the following statement directly addressing the textbooks in question:

The University has declined to approve courses that use as their primary source the books named in the case, not because they have religious content, but because they fail to meet the University's standards for effectively teaching the required subject matter.

But other statements by UC show that the textbooks' religious content was a factor in their rejection:

A description of a 2004 meeting between UC personnel, Christian school personnel, and attorneys from both sides said the following:

As the discussion continued about the biology books, it became evident that they were rejected because they appeared to state the perspective that the Bible is revelation and along with faith is more authoritative than the observations of science, especially if there were a conflict over a "factual scientific issue." -- from "Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?", page 3

The lawsuit's official complaint says that the UC rejected high-school biology textbooks from two Christian-textbook publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book, on the basis of "both the 'way in which these texts address the topics of evolution and creationism' and 'their general approach to science' in relation to the Bible." (page 23 of the complaint).

Anyway, UC has to be specific about describing any scientific errors in the textbooks.

And before you claim that this is a cover-up, let's find another course the UC has not accepted. How about this one?

In one case, a literature course was rejected because the use of an anthology as the only textbook was in direct conflict with UC's policy that students read assigned works in their entirety, meaning anthologies may not be the only texts required in literature courses.

Has nothing to do with the science courses.

That means around 1 in every 5 courses submitted for approval by UC fail to get approval.

Irrelevant.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 8, 2006 4:19 PM

112

Larry, books that "state the perspective that the Bible is revelation and along with faith is more authoritative than the observations of science" are misrepresenting science. These books teach bad science, and don't belong as the sole texts in a class meant to teach science. That sort of discussion belongs elsewhere.

Posted by: Josh | September 8, 2006 7:03 PM

114

Mary said --
. . . . one book says scientific theories and data must be rejected out of hand if they contrast with a literal interpretation of the Bible. That is a scientific error of stupendous magintude, which in itself is enough to make the book unsuitable as a primary text.

Josh agreed --

Larry, books that "state the perspective that the Bible is revelation and along with faith is more authoritative than the observations of science" are misrepresenting science. These books teach bad science, and don't belong as the sole texts in a class meant to teach science.

If these Christian school graduates later become professional biologists and/or major in biology in college, the attitude that the Bible comes first could later cause them problems and they may have to change that attitude (assuming that they even adopted this attitude in the first place). But they can cross that bridge when they come to it. Right now the important question is whether or not they learned the core material correctly.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 8, 2006 8:46 PM

116

Dave S. said --

Should universities require entry exams on every subject before letting new students take them?

An article titled "Should Some Students Be Denied College Entrance Because They Used These Textbooks?", by the Association of Christian Schools International, said the following about a meeting between UC personnel, Christian school personnel, and attorneys on both sides of the issue (page 3):

When asked whether poor college performance by students from religious schools prompted the rejection of the textbooks, UC representatives responded negatively. They also acknowledged that UC did not have any objective evidence that students from religious schools are deficient in science when they arrive for their freshman year of college .....

See? I have an answer for everything.

BTW, the SAT Exam offers (or at least once did) achievenment tests in various subjects.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 9, 2006 8:41 AM

118

One thing people tend not to understand is that science is not an encyclopedia. Memorizing a bunch of facts isn't science. Science is a process, and you aren't teaching an adequate science class if you aren't teaching the process correctly. What Larry is describing above is a textbook that misrepresents science in the most fundamental way possible.

It is inadequate and his defense is laughable. In a highly technical age, we need everyone to have adequate understanding of the scientific process, not just people who choose a scientific career. Non-scientists must still assess the effectiveness of medical treatments, must still make choices at the ballot box or in the grocery store, and understanding the scientific process is important to all of those.

That is the core material of any science class. And the textbook doesn't cover it.

Posted by: Josh | September 9, 2006 9:51 AM

120

Larry obfuscated, " So far as I know, UC has not provided evidence that these Christian school students do not have an understanding of the scientific process."

No, all UC has is evidence that one particular course offered at this school would not have taught the scientific process accurately. Which is why even an A in that one particular course would not have provided UC with evidence that a student knows how science works.

Calvary Chapel students who want to apply to UC by general admissions must demonstrate, among other things, that they understand some of the basics of the scientific process. They can do this by getting an A or B in one of the seven science courses offered at their school which were judged to teach it properly.

Public school students wanting to apply to UC by general admissions must demonstrate exactly the same knowledge in exactly the same fashion, by taking at least two of the certified science courses at _their_ school.

Where's the discrimination? I'm still waiting for you to answer that question.

Larry then asked flippantly, "And shouldn't UC see this as an opportunity to straighten out these misguided people?

UC is the top tier of a three-tier higher education system. It doesn't offer remedial classes. Nor can a professor who's teaching a big introductory class spare the time to spoon-feed the material to an ill-prepared student. That's why UC demands that incoming students demonstrate a good grasp of the basics: a student who doesn't is going to have a very difficult time passing a typical UC freshman courseload.

Some of them might manage to beat the odds, of course. But why should UC give an ill-prepared student a chance, when to do so means turning away a student who is demonstrably more qualified? If the ill-prepared student does have the aptitude for college-level work, he or she can demonstrate that by making up the deficiencies at a lower-tier institution and then transferring to UC.

Posted by: Mary | September 9, 2006 2:32 PM

122

Larry speculated without offering evidence, "Well, we don't know that. As I said, maybe the students were taught the scientific method and were then told that it does not apply if the results conflict with the bible."

Maybe they would have been. On the other hand, maybe they wouldn't have been.

If the primary textbook for the class taught that religious doctrine trumps empirically-based scientific conclusions, the class wasn't a science class. Particularly when the same primary text has a chapter presenting Bible stories as legitimate science. The preface for the BJU text makes clear that the book presents no science which might challenge this religious indoctrination.

UC must decide whether or not to certify thousands of courses each year. They can't send observers to every classroom, and most schools asking for certification want the decision to be made before the class is offered anyway, so that students know whether it will count. So, UC bases its decisions on the instructional materials such as lesson plans, proposed laboratory exercises and textbooks.

Apparently the course's application for certification omitted the lesson plan where the teacher is to tell the students that much of the material in their "science" textbook is unscientific nonsense.

Larry then showed that he is pedogogically challenged when he asserted, "Anyway, the scientific method can be taught to them in a few minutes."

No, it can't. Particularly not if the student is accustomed to being rewarded for proposing supernatural causes for natural events. It takes time and practice to learn skepticism. It takes more time to understand why rejecting supernatural causes allows science to find answers that are both more accurate and less certain than those provided by religion.

It's hard enough to learn a new way of thinking when you have an hour a day to practice it. A few minutes of explanation followed by a year-long disclalimer isn't adequate.

Larry apparently still hasn't read up on UC's actual admissions policy, because he once more put forth his claim, "For this they should be denied admission to college?"

No student needs to fear being denied admission to UC because they took a course in creationism. UC ignores all religious and nonreligious uncertified classes when evaluating a student's transcript.

A student does have to demonstrate that he or she knows how science works, by taking two certified science classes with primary texts that teach the scientific method and its findings accurately and without disclaimers. Or by scoring a high grade on the SATII subject test, although a student who has no classroom science time would be at a disadvantage compared with equally qualified applicants who have taken such coursework.

You know this, because I've explained it to you before. I've told you where I got the information, so that you could look it up yourself if you don't want to take my word for it. You haven't bothered to do so, nor have you explained why you think your view of UC's policies is more accurate than UC's view.

That you continue to advance your bogus "UC intended to deny admissions to students who took the creationist course" hypothesis shows that you, at least, never learned an important principle of doing science: if the data conflict with your pet idea, it's your idea that's wrong. Toss it out and find a new one that fits the data.

Don't you think it's time to toss out that "ban for life" bit? Or at least to stop embarassing yourself by repeating it over and over to people who know what UC's real policy is?

Posted by: Mary | September 9, 2006 6:45 PM

124

Mary,

The BJU biology textbooks' chapter on the "History of Life" covers only about 40 pages in a two-volume set of about 1100 pages. This chapter has sections on both biological evolution and biblical creationism. UC is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, Charles Haynes said in the Decatur Daily op-ed,

This high-profile fight over courses taught in Christian schools has already sent a chilling message to other religious schools. They worry that if these courses can be rejected, what's next? After all, most subjects in religious schools are taught from a faith perspective and may well include religious viewpoints of science, literature or history that the university could deem not "generally accepted" in the secular scientific and educational communities.

Mary said --
A student does have to demonstrate that he or she knows how science works, by taking two certified science classes with primary texts that teach the scientific method and its findings accurately and without disclaimers. Or by scoring a high grade on the SATII subject test,

I could find nothing in the regular admission requirements that allows a good score on a subject test to be substituted for one of the course requirements. Also, requiring such a test of the Christian school students would be justified only if it were shown that their courses do not cover all of the core material (an added religious viewpoint doesn't count).

Also, you are wrong in expecting me to do research to support your position -- I don't expect you to do research to support my position.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 10, 2006 4:50 AM

126

Larry complained, "The BJU biology textbooks' chapter on the "History of Life" covers only about 40 pages in a two-volume set of about 1100 pages. This chapter has sections on both biological evolution and biblical creationism. UC is making a mountain out of a molehill."

The primary text for a UC-certified course must present mainstream material in a mainstream, secular fashion, and with sufficient rigor. A religious viewpoint can be added, but only in the supplimental materials. Not in the primary text.

Creationism is not mainstream science. It's not science at all. The approach to science in the book mangles it beyond recognition for the sake of religious advocacy.

There is no way that the BJU and A. Beka books qualify as primary texts for a certified science class by UC guidelines. So the class was rejected for having an inadequate text, just like the English class that only read short exceprts instead of complete works, or the history class that taught bogus history. I bet UC would also reject a World History and Geography course if the primary text claimed that the earth was flat.

What's unfair about this? The course Calvary Chapel wanted to teach from the BJU text was one of religious advocacy, which sought to instruct students in the reasons why their faith rejects evolution. Those reasons aren't scientific or academic, so why in the world would a secular university like UC accept such a class as one which teaches academic science?

You do realize, don't you, that it's the high school which has the burden of proof during the certification process? UC has a list of areas that it wants incoming freshmen to have studied at a particular level. The high school is petitioning UC to certify that a particular course covers one of these areas in an appropriate fashion. If it provides UC with adequate evidence to evaluate the petition, UC will examine that evidence and make a decision. To avoid wasting everybody's time, UC has set up extensive guidelines to tell high schools exactly what it's looking for in each category.

If whoever submitted those four courses to UC on Calvary Chapel's behalf had bothered to read those guidelines, the courses would probably never have been submitted.

As far as Charles Haynes goes, we've been over that before, too. He appears to have been basing his op-ed piece on ASCI's original press release, which was long on wild accusations of large-scale persecution and very short on facts. He certainly didn't bother to look up UC's actual policies, or he would not have been so easily persuaded.

Instead, he took the easy way out and pointed out that if UC really were systematically discriminating against Christian school students because of the religious viewpoints expressed at their schools (rather than because of poor academic quality), it would be unconstitutional.

That's the equivalent of saying that if the earth really was flat, the flat earthers would be right. It's a meaningless statement. The issue is whether or not UC's policy that primary texts for certified college-prep courses meet secular standards for rigor and accuracy constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, or whether UC's secular interest in determining whether applicants are qualified is sufficient to justify requiring that prospective students demonstrate that they're educated in something besides their own religion.

Larry once again showed complete lack of understanding of the word "research" when he complained, "Also, you are wrong in expecting me to do research to support your position -- I don't expect you to do research to support my position."

In a debate, when I dispute your facts, I tell you where I get my information. You then have three choices: you can take my word that my information is correct and yours isn't, you can show that your information comes from a more definitive source, or you can go back to my source and show how I have misread or misinterpreted the information there.

In this case, I have offered information on UC's policies as actually published by UC, and you are trying to oppose it with a poorly researched op-ed piece based on a highly inflammatory and not particularly accurate press release. I think there's no question that my source is more definitive than yours, and so you're left with either conceeding that my information is better than yours, or showing how I've misread or misinterpreted the information on UC's policies.

If you can figure out a way to do that without actually reading UC's policies, you will have discovered the most exciting advance in education since the invention of the alphabet.

Oh, and Larry...you still haven't explained why it's unfair for UC to judge Christian school courses and students by exactly the same standards used to judge public school courses and students.

Posted by: Mary | September 10, 2006 10:29 AM

128

Larry opined

"-- because the standards should be based on whether or not the students learn the core material correctly regardless of whether a religious viewpoint is added."

Again, that is exactly the point. If they were taught that they have to ignore facts and evidence which conflict with their religious beliefs, they have not learned the "core material" of a science course correctly. They have not been taught the scientific method, and no amount of obfuscation will allow you to hide the fact that you have already admitted this.

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 10, 2006 1:05 PM

130

Larry asked Josh, "What's the difference between being lied to inside of science class and being lied to outside of science class? You may see a big difference, but I don't."

The difference is that UC doesn't run a quality-control check on any courses that have not been proposed by the high school as possibly filling one of the a-g requirements. It might well have some interesting things to say about Calvary Chapel's other offerings if it did, but that's beside the point.

Larry complained, "You are really getting nitpicking."

No, I am really not, and UC is not. Alternative religious viewpoints taught using supplimentary materials allow the student to clearly distinguish what materials are standard science and what materials are religious dogma. A primary text that teaches alternative viewpoints gives students the impression that the alternative viewpoint is a standard one. In addition, books that advocate viewpoints rejected as bogus by the vast majority of people working in the field usually make their case by leaving out inconvenient information that might lead a reader to agree with the mainstream view. The available exceprts from the BJU text appear to have taken this approach.

I suspect that it's precisely this opportunity for confusion that led Calvary Chapel to select the disputed texts for the course in the first place. If the purpose of the course is indeed religious advocacy rather than science instruction, as appears to be the case, than using a pimary text which teaches sound science would be counterproductive. There's too much danger that the students might notice that creationism is crackpot science.

Then Larry professed ignorance of how a bureaucracy works when he wonderd, "What is to prevent UC from rejecting a course because the supplemental material presents a religious viewpoint?"

What prevents UC from doing so is the same policy that requires UC to reject courses which have religious advocacy as their primary purpose. You know, the policy that you keep refusing to read? The one that's explained in detail on the UC admssions page?

The guidelines for course evaluation listed there are exactly the same guidelines used by the actual people doing the course evaluations. There are no hidden surprises waiting to trip up unwary applicants, and the decisions to accept or reject a course are not arbitrary.

Posted by: Mary | September 10, 2006 3:06 PM

132

Larry red-herringed:

"The courts may very well agree that it is OK to add religious perspective so long as the core science is completely and correctly taught."

But not in this case, since, by his own admission, the core science is neither completely nor correctly taught. The "science" course in question teaches that facts and evidence should be ignored when they conflict with doctrine; this "science" is neither complete nor correct. If other "religious-school science classes" do manage to teach the scientific method properly, then perhaps Larry's prophesy will be fulfilled. But not this time...

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 10, 2006 8:23 PM

134

Larry

The organization of the book chapters is irrelevant. If these kids are taught some deviant version of the scientific method (whether in that chapter or another one), the answer to your question is "No, the science has not been taught correctly." Since you yourself agree that this particular deviant version of the scientific method is "a regligious viewpoint, not science", that admission alone should end this discussion.

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 11, 2006 6:19 AM

136

Larry wrote:

The lawsuit's official complaint says that the UC rejected high-school biology textbooks from two Christian-textbook publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book, on the basis of "both the 'way in which these texts address the topics of evolution and creationism' and 'their general approach to science' in relation to the Bible." (page 23 of the complaint).

Let's see, you wouldn't suspect the lawyers suing UC to stress this point in their complaint would you? After all, this is the point of contention in the case. In the same vein, UC is going to put their position as having rejected the course due to the lack of science content. Understood.

However, your claim was that UC indictated that they rejected the course solely because of the religious nature, not because of inadequate science. A very short web search shows that UC does claim to have refused accreditation because of the poor science.

Larry then wrote, "Anyway, UC has to be specific about describing any scientific errors in the textbooks."

Why? Maybe there are so many errors in the texts that it is not worth their while to list them individually. Further, to whom should this list of errors be submitted? Larry Farafman? Calvary Chapel? How do you know they didn't, and why would you think they need to now that a lawsuit has been filed?

I wrote, "That means around 1 in every 5 courses submitted for approval by UC fail to get approval."

To which Larry replied, "Irrelevant."

Larry is once again revealing his lack of reading comprehension, or deliberatly trying to miss-understand my point. For my next sentance reads "It doesn't appear that Calvary Chapel is being singled out for special treatment."

As I understood it, one of your claims from way, way, back was that UC was singling out Calvary Chapel for special treatment in rejecting their application to get this course approved. Which makes my point relevant. UC is not singling out Calvary Chapel, or religion, if almost 20% of courses applying for approval are rejected.

But I really love this comment from Larry, "Darwinists were able to use the church-state separation issue to get creationism and ID banned from public-school science classes -- but it won't be so easy in the case of religious-school science classes."

No one is trying to ban creationism and ID from religious-school classes. Not UC, not myself, not Mary or Josh (if I'm reading their opinions properly). The courts won't prevent religous schools from teaching creationism or ID.

My opinion is that it's a shame that private religious schools are doing a disservice to their pupils by teaching creationism and ID in a science class.

However, that doesn't mean that other educational institutions have to accredit courses which do not meet the educational standards they expect in incoming students.

Among questions you have yet to answer:

1. Why should religious dogma trump the experts in biology when deciding what is important to teach about biology?

2. From Mary, "why is it unfair for UC to judge Christian school courses and students by exactly the same standards used to judge public school courses and students?"

3. Why should something like creationism or ID, which is not science, be taught in a science class? In fact, what subject should it be taught in other than a religion class?

4. Why should UC be required to accredit a course which doesn't meet it's educational standards?

Oh, and I loved this statement too, Larry wrote, "See? I have an answer for everything."

No Larry, you have a response for everything, not an answer. That entire post was amusing because none of the questions which were asked got an answer.

Dave S. asked a question about university policy and entrance exams, which wasn't answered. The title of the paper in the blockquote asked a question about whether students should be denied entrance into college because of using the textbooks, which wasn't answered by the quote you provided from the paper in question.

A response is not an answer.

Cheers,

-Flex

Posted by: Flex | September 11, 2006 8:49 AM

138

Wow -- I am under attack from five commenters here -- Josh, Mary, Flex, Albatrossity, and Dave S..

Albatrossity said,
The organization of the book chapters is irrelevant. If these kids are taught some deviant version of the scientific method (whether in that chapter or another one), the answer to your question is "No, the science has not been taught correctly."

We are just going in circles here. For the umpteenth time, my answer is that in IMO it does not matter much whether the students are told inside of science class or outside of science class that the scientific method is wrong if the results conflict with the bible.

Flex said,
Why? Maybe there are so many errors in the texts that it is not worth their while to list them individually.

They could at least give some examples.

Further, to whom should this list of errors be submitted? Larry Farafman?

Why me? I never asked them for a list of the errors. And after I have spelled my last name umpteen times on this thread, maybe you could get the spelling right. Maybe I will just start posting under my first name or my first name and initial.

How do you know they didn't, and why would you think they need to now that a lawsuit has been filed?

People who have independently reviewed the book have not pointed out any specific errors other than the "error" of saying that the scientific method is wrong if the results conflict with the bible. Anyway, as Charles Haynes said, we might not yet know all the reasons why UC rejected the textbooks.

Mary said,
First of all, as Josh pointed out above, "Darwinism" is a subspecialty in the field of history: a Darwinist is an historian who studies the life of Charles Darwin.

No -- "Darwinist" is usually synonymous with "evolutionist."

Only about 1% of its students apply to UC each year.

UC accepts the top 10-15% of high school grads in the state, so it would very much surprise me if only 1% of graduating Calvary Chapel students apply each year.

Anyway, the matter is now in the hands of the courts and we shall see what the courts decide. The fact that you Darwinists have not been defeated in court since the 1925 Scopes trial does not mean that it can't happen. You were nearly defeated in the Freiler v.Tangipahoa evolution-disclaimer case (came within one vote of a full appeals court rehearing and within one vote of review by the Supreme Court) and may yet be defeated in the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker case as well as the Calvary Chapel v. UC case.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 11, 2006 7:16 PM

140

Larry complained, "Wow -- I am under attack from five commenters here -- Josh, Mary, Flex, Albatrossity, and Dave S.."

Maybe that should tell you something? Like, that you just might be wrong about UC's policies? And that it might be worth while to look up the actual policies and see if you really are wrong, rather than continuing to embarass yourself by looking ignorant in public?

Larry showed that he has not been following the news coverage of the Calvary Chapel case, either, when he said, "UC accepts the top 10-15% of high school grads in the state, so it would very much surprise me if only 1% of graduating Calvary Chapel students apply each year."

News reports state that Calvary Chapel has around 700 students, nine of whom applied (and were accepted) to UC for the coming academic year. This appears to be a little more than their average, if there have been 32 applicants over the past four years.

Either Calvary Chapel attracts students who always intended to go to Bible colleges, or its academics are such that only a few percent of its students score among the top 10%-15% statewide.

Larry showed that he does not hang out with scientists when he claimed, ""Darwinist" is usually synonymous with "evolutionist.""

"Darwinist" and "evolutionist" are seldom used as synonyms outside of the creationism/ID community, or by journalists reporting on them. Everyone else refers to a scientist whose research involves the implications of the modern descendent of Darwin's theory as a "biologist".

I notice you still haven't answered any of the questions Flex listed. Most particularly, you haven't given any reason why Calvary Chapel's students and courses should be held to a less stringent standard than public school students and courses.

Posted by: Mary | September 11, 2006 9:38 PM

142

Larry complained, "What that tells me is that the commenters on this blog tend to be very narrow-minded."

Or perhaps, that we are better informed than you are?

Being openminded doesn't mean accepting every claim presented to you uncritically. It means being open enough to the possibility that you might be wrong that you take the time to actually determine the facts. From the best source available, whether that's primary documents or a lab bench.

The narrow-minded person is one who comes to a conclusion based on preliminary information, and refuses to change it when better information is available.

Sound familiar?

Larry then confirmed his aversion to becoming an informed debater when he whined, "You keep citing all sorts of irrelevant statistics."

You were the one who expressed surprise when I said that only about 1% of Calvary Chapel students are applying to UC. Calculating that percentage is a simple matter of taking the average number of students applying each year and dividing by the total enrollment, then multiplying by 100. You do know how to multiply and divide, don't you?

I admit, I did round the results off.

Either Calvary Chapel doesn't attract many students who are interested in a secular education, or its academics are such that a disproportionately small percentage of its students make the cut.

Larry then made another questionable statement when he claimed, "'I've already answered the questions several times over -- you've just been ignoring the answers."

No, Larry, you haven't answered them. You've weaved, bobbed, and obfuscated, but you haven't presented evidence to support your "facts" or logic to support your opinions.

For instance, your statement that taking the necessary UC-certified classes would leave Calvary Chapel students less time to pursue other interests is true, as far as it goes. But since public school students wanting to go to UC are equally likely to have outside interests they wish to pursue, this does not answer the central question of discrimination which I raised.

Perhaps you'd like another go at it. Just why IS it unfair for UC to judge Calvary Chapel courses and students by exactly the same standards by which public school courses and students are judged? Are devotional religious classes so much more important than the electives offered in a public school that a secular university should make a special exception for them?

Posted by: Mary | September 12, 2006 12:00 AM

144

Hi Larry.

Could you answer this question of Mary's please. You seem to have forgotten to do so in your last posting.

Just why IS it unfair for UC to judge Calvary Chapel courses and students by exactly the same standards by which public school courses and students are judged?

Posted by: Dave S. | September 12, 2006 8:17 AM

146

Wow! When five different people question your arguments and opinions, is it a reasonable response to say that the only thing that means is that "commenters on this blog tend to be very narrow-minded"? What are the odds that five different people, probably with very different backgrounds and experiences, are the narrow-minded half of this discussion?

But that is irrelevant as well. Larry, I too would be interested in your response to Mary's key question.

Just why IS it unfair for UC to judge Calvary Chapel courses and students by exactly the same standards by which public school courses and students are judged?

If indeed you have answered this before, please point me to the message where that answer appears. This has been a long thread, and I couldn't find it in any of the messages above.

thanks in advance

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 12, 2006 9:26 AM

148

Dave S. said,

Could you answer this question of Mary's please. You seem to have forgotten to do so in your last posting.

Just why IS it unfair for UC to judge Calvary Chapel courses and students by exactly the same standards by which public school courses and students are judged?

I have answered this question a zillion times already, and this is the last time. If the standards are what they should be -- i.e., whether the students are taught the core science correctly and completely, regardless of whether a religious viewpoint is added -- then the Christian-school students should be able to meet the same standards as the public-school students. UC cannot prevent the Christian-school students or even the public-school students from being given a religious viewpoint outside of science class.

Mary said,
The closest you have come to advancing a coherent argument as to why Calvary Chapel deserves a special exemption from UC's science-classs standards for their creationism class was when you claimed that it would be an undue hardship for UC-bound Calvary Chapel students to have to take two real science classes in addition to the creationism class.

It is not a "creationism class" just because creationism is taught for maybe a few days at most.

Hardship is one reason but not the only reason. Constitutional rights are not just matters of convenience.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 12, 2006 3:47 PM

150

Larry,

I'm afraid Albatrossity is right. If the religious viewpoint is allowed to warp the science content beyond recognition--as in redefining the scientific method to allow revelation and scripture as the final authority, or claiming that the Earth is only 6-10,000 years old--then the issue becomes the warped science curriculum, not the religious viewpoint that caused it. Likewise, for the history text that viewed historical events as caused primarily by supernatural fiat, rather than by the social and political forces accepted by historians, the issue was that the religious viewpoint had been allowed to alter the academic content.

UC doesn't penalize a course for offering a religious perspective on the secular material. Catholic school biology classes do this routinely when they present the Catholic doctrine that evolution is directed by God as part of his creation. However, what the BJU and A. Beka texts do goes far beyond this, and in the process fails to present the methods, findings, and theoretical structure of the science of biology accurately. The texts are not academically sound, if the goal is to provide students with a good introduction to modern biology. (Their soundness for the purpose of indoctrinating students in Fundamentalist theology is of no interest to UC.)

It may be true that Catholic doctrine is more compatible with the science of biology than Calvary Chapel's rather extreme version of Protestant Fundamentalism. As a public institution, however, UC can't make an exception to its science requirement because a particular parocial school's doctrine rejects much of modern science. All it is allowed to do is judge whether or not a particular course is rigorous and academically sound, by the same standards used to judge all public and private school classes in that area.

I can't think of any other way UC could handle its course approval process that would both avoid illegal discrimination and allow it to determine whether incoming students have an adequate background in the appropriate areas.

Posted by: Mary | September 12, 2006 5:51 PM

152

Larry

"If the standards are what they should be -- i.e., whether the students are taught the core science correctly and completely, regardless of whether a religious viewpoint is added -- then the Christian-school students should be able to meet the same standards as the public-school students."

The sentence is just overly complicated, from my perspective. Your grammar mileage may (and obviously does) vary. I understand the sentence (or at least you haven't told me that I obviously misunderstood it). Don't sweat it.

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 12, 2006 7:37 PM

154

Larry demonstrated a tendency towards wishful thinking when he said, "You folks are only concerned with whether UC's denial of certification is right in a general sense and not with whether it is constitutional. UC's actions could be right in a general sense but still be unconstitutional."

The constitutionality issue hinges on whether the courses were rejected due to religious-based (illegal) discrimination, or whether the rejection was due to academic quality issues, a form of discrimination which is completely legal as long as it's applied in a consistent fashion to all courses from all schools.

Even Larry has admitted that the rejected biology books misrepresent what is arguably the core material in any science class, the scientific method. They also get facts such as the age of the earth wrong. Their academic quality as science texts is well down into the "garbage" range, which is why UC won't accept them as primary texts for college-prep classes. The same can be said for the rejected history text.

The other two classes flunked certification on structural issues: incomplete applications, failure to have at least a few complete works on the reading list for the English class, and a government class that would have ran all year instead of half a year. (This was an issue because UC generally only allows a half-year credit for government classes.)

The fact that all four class outlines were permeated with religious concepts doesn't automatically make UC's rejection of them unconstitutional religious discrimination. Nor does the fact that the biology and history classes warped the core concepts and facts for religious reasons. To prove unconstitutional religious discrimination, Calvary Chapel would have to prove that UC is applying one set of standards and requirements to Fundamentalist schools and another, easier set of requirements to everybody else. If they had such evidence, it would have been mentioned in their brief, so we must assume that they do not.

Instead, Wendell Bird appears to be arguing in his brief that it's unconstitutional for UC to have standards at all, if they prevent Christian schools from getting whatever courses they want approved as college-prep material. I don't think that's going to impress the judge very much, especially when UC's lawyers are able to demonstrate exactly why those textbooks don't meet UC's clearly described requirements for rigor and quality.

Posted by: Mary | September 13, 2006 9:09 AM

156

Mary said,

Even Larry has admitted that the rejected biology books misrepresent what is arguably the core material in any science class, the scientific method.

No, I never admitted that. I have not seen the books (except for what is shown on the publishers' websites), so for all I know the books may present the scientific method correctly and then add the religious viewpoint that the method is invalid when the results conflict with the Bible. Furthermore, the argument that the scientific method is the core material in any science class is absurd -- the scientific method can be covered in just a few minutes of class time.

They also get facts such as the age of the earth wrong.

I suspect that the BJU biology textbook set (there are 2 volumes) presents evolution theory correctly in the section titled "Biological Evolution" but attacks it in the sections titled "A Biblical Viewpoint" and "Biblical Creationism." But only a few pages are affected. Practically all of the conflict between the Bible and modern biology is in evolution theory and paleontology.

The fact that all four class outlines were permeated with religious concepts doesn't automatically make UC's rejection of them unconstitutional religious discrimination.

I went through the online copy of a sample chapter of the BJU biology textbooks and it is not "permeated" with religious concepts.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 13, 2006 4:11 PM

158

Larry claimed, "No, I never admitted that."

Actually, Larry, you have admitted that the textbooks teach both the scientific method and the facts of science wrong, and that they don't meet your own standards for an acceptable course that should be accredited, although you may not realize it.

Let's take the third part first. You've repeatedly said that if a course teaches the normal science content and then adds a religious viewpoint, it ought to be acceptable. The logical converse of this statement is that if a course or textbook does not teach the normal science content, with or without a religious viewpoint, it should not be acceptable.

It may surprise you to find that I agree with your position, as does UC. Catholic schools take the first approach: they teach a normal biology course and then add the Catholic doctrine that God directs the evolutionary process.

If Calvary Chapel had taken this approach-- if it had chosen a textbook which taught the normal science content, and then presented the religious viewpoint that students should reject what they have learned in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis--UC would have accepted the course.

What Calvary Chapel did instead was select a primary textbook which presented the religious viewpoint AS SCIENCE, rather than as a religious viewpoint with no scientific significance. (That chapter section which presents creationism as an alternative theory to evolution, which you admit is there in the BJU text.) Anything presented _as science_ at the high school level must reflect the consensus of the relevant scientific community, or by your own standard UC is fully justified in nixing the textbook and the course as suitable preparation for college-level biology classes.

I think we can agree that creationism is not the consensus science of the biological research community. As science, it's well into the "crackpot science" category. By presenting creationism as an alternative scientific theory, which you agree it does, the book failed to get the facts of science correct.

And, by setting up revelation and the Bible as the final authority in scientific matters, the book fails to teach the scientific method properly.

By your own standards, the book and course should not be eligible for UC certification.

You've also claimed repeatedly that evolution and the scientific method aren't core concepts of the science of biology, to the point where omitting or altering them should not severely compromise a student's education.

It might interest you to know that according to the College Board, which sets standards for Advanced Placement courses nationwide, "The two main goals of AP Biology are to help students develop a conceptual framework for modern biology and to help students gain an appreciation of science as a process. The ongoing information explosion in biology makes these goals even more challenging. Primary emphasis in an AP Biology course should be on developing an understanding of concepts rather than on memorizing terms and technical details. Essential to this conceptual understanding are the following: a grasp of science as a process rather than as an accumulation of facts; personal experience in scientific inquiry; recognition of unifying themes that integrate the major topics of biology; and application of biological knowledge and critical thinking to environmental and social concerns."

Later on in the AP Biology curriculum, the first two of the eight "major themes" of biology are: "I. SCIENCE AS A PROCESS--Science is a way of knowing. It can involve a discovery process using inductive reasoning, or it can be a process of hypothesis testing. Example: The theory of evolution was developed based on observation and experimentation. II. EVOLUTION--Evolution is the biological change of organisms that occurs over time and is driven by the process of natural selection. Evolution accounts for the diversity of life on Earth. Example: Widespread use of antibiotics has selected for antibiotic resistance in disease-causing bacteria."

As you see, the College Board agrees with UC that understanding the theoretical structure underlying modern biology (especially evolution and the scientific method) is more important for a college-prep biology course than memorizing a vocabulary list.

You might also find it of interest to check out the specific benchmarks students taking the AP biology exam are expected to master. The AP Biology course outline is a largeish pdf file, which you say you have trouble downloading, but the University of Georgia has a very readable and concise annotated version of topics to be covered at http://apbio.biosci.uga.edu/course/course_out.html

You will note that the central third of the outline is devoted to concepts in "Heredity and Evolution". Evolutionary concepts are also prominantly addressed in the other two sections: students are required to understand how each area of biology is impacted by evolution.

This is the conceptual framework that is completely missing from the BJU chapter on cell biology. There is nothing in that chapter to tie the material together and make sense of it; the content has deliberately been reduced to a list of vocabulary words and factoids. In its attempt to prevent students from learning anything that might contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis, the BJU text fails to offer any substantial treatment of the science at all.

As a science textbook, it's so far below minimal standards that UC is fully justified in rejecting out of hand any course which uses it as the primary text.

Posted by: Mary | September 14, 2006 10:43 AM

160

Flex said,

Your speculative chain of reasoning appears to be:
(first link of alleged chain of reasoning)
1. The textbooks in question teaches biology sufficient for a high school education.

To my knowledge, UC has never specifically said otherwise. As I pointed out before, the lawsuit's official complaint says that UC rejected high-school biology textbooks from two Christian-textbook publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book, on the basis of "both the 'way in which these texts address the topics of evolution and creationism' and 'their general approach to science' in relation to the Bible."

(second link of alleged chain of reasoning)
2. UC wouldn't accredit the course the textbooks were used in for strictly religious reasons.

No, I never made any such assumption. UC might not have intentionally targeted Christianity at all -- the effect on religion might just be incidental.

(third link of alleged chain of reasoning)
3. UC is forbidden by the federal constitution from not accrediting a course for religious reasons.

The courts might rule against UC even if the courts decide that UC's reasons for not accrediting course were not religious at all -- or even if the courts do not decide whether or not UC had any religious reasons for not accrediting the course. The courts might just decide that UC loses because it had no truly compelling reasons for violating the religious and free-speech rights of the school and the students, even if the courts decide that those violations were unintentional and just incidental. That is just the way courts often think -- for example, the judicial Lemon Test that is often used for judging alleged violations of the Constitution's establishment clause is now usually divided into two "prongs" (a third prong has been largely incorporated into the second): there is the "purpose" prong, which examines the intended purpose of the government, and the "effect" prong, which examines the effect of the government's actions.

So, once again, why does Larry Fafarman think that the biologists, who teach biology at UC, who reviewed and rejected the textbooks as a primary source of biological science, are less expert in biology than Larry Fafarman or the theists who included religious dogma in the textbooks?

Nope -- I never said that. Also, bureaucrats rather than biologists might have been the ones who made the final decision to reject the textbooks, even if those bureaucrats were advised by biologists (e.g., the biologists might have told the bureaucrats that the textbooks' science minus the religious viewpoints is OK).

I agree with Charles Haynes' article in the Decatur Daily.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 14, 2006 12:41 PM

162

Larry claimed, "To my knowledge, UC has never specifically said otherwise."

This is disingenuous, Larry. Your alleged lack of knowledge on this point is due entirely to your adament refusal to read UC's legal briefs, position paper on the lawsuit, or the actual standards used by UC to judge courses and textbooks. It's about as credible as telling the highway patrol that you had no idea your car was going 80, when the spedometer was right in front of you.

Larry's willful ignorance was even more glaringly apparent when he speculated, "Also, bureaucrats rather than biologists might have been the ones who made the final decision to reject the textbooks, even if those bureaucrats were advised by biologists (e.g., the biologists might have told the bureaucrats that the textbooks' science minus the religious viewpoints is OK)."

Ah, yes, those faceless "guvmint bureaucrats" everybody loves to hate, overruling the creationism-friendly recommondations of the real scientists. It would certainly make Calvary Chapel's case easier to win if it were true, but it isn't.

I give you credit for a decent try at an appeal to emotion, but you've forgotten that the rest of us don't share your aversion to doing the minimal work necessary to determine the actual facts.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the composition and membership of the BOARS board is as transparent as the rest of the course-accreditation process. It is a committee of the UC Academic Senate made up largely of professors, with a few administrative types from Admissions thrown in. There was no lack of science expertise among the people who took the unusual step of refusing to allow the BJU and A. Beka texts as primary texts in accredited biology courses. They did so because the books don't cover the science properly. Compare the material in the posted BJU text excerpts to the relevant portions of the California biology standards and the AP standards. It isn't even close.

Posted by: Mary | September 14, 2006 2:30 PM

164

Larry wrote:

I haven't moved any goalposts. My goalposts have been in the same place from the beginning.

Riiiiight. I guess we just haven't figured out that location yet.

So answer the question, previously posed for you:

Do you believe that religious viewpoints (either yours or those espoused by Calvary Chapel) "trump science" when it comes to education of high school students? If so, please justify this perspective.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 14, 2006 7:24 PM

166

Mary said,

Your claim that UC doesn't object to how the science is presented in the BJU and A. Beka textbooks is false.

I have not be shown a single example of how the section titled "biological evolution" in the BJU textbook presents the subject incorrectly. NOT ONE.

You have been provided with voluminous evidence to the contrary from the only source which can offer a definitive view on UC's admissions and certification policies: the UC admissions department.

I don't ask a fox for advice on how to protect a chicken coop.

Why should we take Charles Haynes's word for anything connected to UC?

Because he talks sense.

He didn't study there, and there's no indication that he's ever worked for UC.

How do you know? He may be a UC grad. He may have even worked there. But that has nothing to do with it. . Maybe the judge (or future judges if the case is appealed) didn't go to UC, either.

So it appears that Charles Haynes has a bit more scholastic integrity than you do. He is honest enough to admit that UC did have academic issues with the science, even if he doesn't believe that they are justified.

I said that I agree with his op-ed piece, so how could he have more "scholastic integrity" than I do in regard to his being "honest enough to admit that UC did have academic issues with the science"?

Since he's a theologian, not a biologist,

The Decatur Daily op-ed does not say he is a theologian -- it only says that he is a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va.

his opinion on whether the biology presented in the texts is accurate is as uneducated as yours.

He doesn't express any opinion about that -- he said, "Until we know all of the facts behind UC's decision-making, it's hard to sort out why some of these Calvary courses were rejected." I go beyond that statement by saying that UC has given no specific example of how the chapter "biological evolution" presents the subject incorrectly.

The entire process of course approval is spelled out in nauseating detail on the UC admissions site.
No it isn't -- the details of the procedure for approving or rejecting courses is not described.

Anyway, the issue here is not whether UC's procedure for approving courses is good or bad -- the issue is whether UC violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 14, 2006 11:08 PM

168

Larry shifted the goalposts again when he asserted, "I have not be shown a single example of how the section titled "biological evolution" in the BJU textbook presents the subject incorrectly. NOT ONE.

You have been shown plenty of statements from UC that show it rejected the textbooks for unsound academics, however. Even Charles Haynes agrees that UC's position is that the academics were lousy. That was the point under discussion, not whether there was a point-by-point critique of a particular chapter available.

Larry then went over the top when he said, "I don't ask a fox for advice on how to protect a chicken coop."

So UC's position somehow isn't UC's position because you don't trust them? I'm sorry, I don't see the logic here.

Charles Haynes's biography is available online. You can find it in two clicks of a mouse. Hint: the first click should be "www.google.com".

He studied theology at Harverd Divinity School and Emory University and works in the field of religious education. He lists no background in the biological sciences, and no connections with UC. He apparently believes that public education should accomodate religious views more than it does. He does seem to oppose teaching creationism in public school science classrooms, but mostly because he doesn't think that science teachers have the training to present it plausably without making its religious origins unconstitutionally apparent.

So, he has an agenda that puts him squarely in Calvary Chapel's camp in this dispute, and he does not have the educational background to evaluate whether or not creationism is acceptable as science. Actually, he appears not to care whether students learn good science at all, as long as they are exposed to the appropriate religious concepts.

Larry showed a tendency towards sloth when he complained, "No it isn't -- the details of the procedure for approving or rejecting courses is not described."

Yes, it is. You have to pull bits and pieces from all those essays on UC's philosophy of education, and examine the details of those pages of instructions, application forms, and examples, but it's there. It also helps if you check out the California public school standards and AP standards for the subjects, so you can get some idea of how UC defines an "academically rigorous" course. In addition, the UC course listings for introductory freshman classes give a clear picture of what freshmen will be studying, and therefore what UC faculty think is important in various areas.

If this sounds like too much work for you, you have the option of accepting my findings, reached after doing just such an investigation.

Posted by: Mary | September 15, 2006 9:49 AM

170

Larry whined, "I am not interested in broad, general statements."

It is unfortunate that UC doesn't see fit to consult you about phrasing before it issues its policy statements. Nonetheless, that doesn't change the fact that UC's position on the case is that the BJU and A. Beka texts were rejected because they were not academically sound, not because they added Christian viewpoints to otherwise standard material.

Charles Haynes's editorial does indeed say that UC's position is that it rejected the courses due to lousy academics. See my quote from it above. It's clear that Haynes doesn't agree with UC's position, but he isn't trying to pretend that it's something other than what it is. That's what makes him a more honest scholar than you.

Larry complained, "I don't go on witch hunts into people's backgrounds to check for signs of bias."

Maybe if you did a little more background checking, on facts and people, you wouldn't be caught out looking foolishly uninformed so often.

Unlike news reporters, who are supposed to be fair and impartial in reporting the facts, columnists are supposed to take sides. Guest columnists especially are usually picked because they have a history of passionately advocating for one side of a controversy. So, it is quite fair when reading such a column to ask questions about the writer's qualifications, biases, and agenda.

In this case, Charles Haynes turns out to be a theologian working for an East Coast conservative think tank that among other things seeks to overturn a series of Supreme Court cases enforcing strict church-state separation.

Larry showed he's never delt with a public bureaucracy before when he complained, "Those instructions, application forms, etc. are just for outsiders. I was talking about details of the internal UC procedures for course certification -- e.g., the composition of the certification committees and whether and when administrators can override the decisions of the experts."

UC doesn't have one set of instructions for insiders and another for outsiders. The policies, rules and requirements listed on the admissions web page are the same ones used by the admissions staff to make decisions. They are worked out by the BOARS subcommittee of the Academic Senate, and any changes are reported to the Senate for debate. Since the minutes of UC Academic Senate are also public documents, you can even look up what changes are being proposed from month to month. You can also find out committee memberships.

The bottom line is that UC is a highly respected university, and as with most top colleges and universities, academic matters remain firmly under the control of the faculty. Admissions standards, including standards for required coursework, fall firmly into that domain where unqualified administrators fear to tread.

Posted by: Mary | September 15, 2006 4:21 PM

172

Mary moaned,

Larry whined, "I am not interested in broad, general statements."
It is unfortunate that UC doesn't see fit to consult you about phrasing before it issues its policy statements.

Then I have no reason to believe that the section on biological evolution does not present the subject correctly.

Charles Haynes's editorial does indeed say that UC's position is that it rejected the courses due to lousy academics.

Wrong. Here was what his op-ed piece said,

Solely on academic grounds, the most problematic textbook may be the one used in biology. If UC can show that the text presents inaccurate or misleading science, then the university may have a legitimate basis for not accepting the course. If, however, the textbook presents the core information students need to know about biology, then the additional religious content should not disqualify the course. -- from http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/other/060312a.shtml

The policies, rules and requirements listed on the admissions web page are the same ones used by the admissions staff to make decisions.

Wrong. As I said, internal rules and procedures are not discussed.

The bottom line is that UC is a highly respected university, and as with most top colleges and universities, academic matters remain firmly under the control of the faculty. Admissions standards, including standards for required coursework, fall firmly into that domain where unqualified administrators fear to tread.

Except that administrators may have the authority to overrule the faculty when non-academic matters -- e.g., constitutional matters -- are involved. Anyway, we don't even know who made the final decision to reject the textbooks. For all we know, the biologists might have said that the science in the book is OK and that the religious stuff should just be ignored.

Anyway, it is impossible to carry on any kind of discussion with you when you repeatedly misrepresent references.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 15, 2006 7:04 PM

174

Larry grasped at straws when he said, "Then I have no reason to believe that the section on biological evolution does not present the subject correctly."

That's true, technically. It's a pretty fair bet that it doesn't, however.

We do know that one of the nation's top universities, which makes billions every year off of patents and research grants in the field of biology, has had some of those remarkably successful biology faculty examine the books. Furthermore, we know that those same experts ruled that the science in the books was so bad that it was not appropriate to use them as a primary text in a college-prep class.

We also have excerpts from one book that openly declare the primary purpose of the book is religious advocacy, rather than science education. The chapter on cell biology does not integrate the concepts of deep time, relatedness of all organisms, or even adaptation to ecological niches where it would be appropriate to do so. These concepts, of course, if fully integrated the way they are in the AP Biology curriculum, would make the chapter section on creationism look pretty silly.

Larry's inability to read was glaringly apparent when he said, "Wrong. Here was what his op-ed piece said"

The section I quoted, where Haynes says, "UC claims that these courses can't be counted because they don't meet the university's academic standards." is the first sentence, two paragraphs up from the spot you're quoting. I'm sure you can find it if you try.

Larry put his fingers in his ears and chanted, "I can't hear you" when he said, "Wrong. As I said, internal rules and procedures are not discussed."

Larry, I've worked for UC for most of the past 17 years. There are a few kinds of official records at UC which are not in the public domain: payroll information with exact salaries, private emails, medical records, and so on. There are also some paper records that don't make it onto the Internet, and are therefore a little harder to search. However, if they law doesn't require a particular piece of information to be kept private, it usually isn't. The only way a large institution like UC can function at all is if everybody knows and plays by the same rules.

Admissions and Human Resources are the two departments which routinely have to turn down people who very much want to join UC as students or employees or both. Because of this, they are also the departments most likely to get UC sued if they don't have and follow clearly stated rules, procedures, and policies.

There is no set of "secret internal instructions" telling UC course evaluaters to nix any course taught from a Christian viewpoint, much as you wish there were. Instead, there's a checklist of very clear criteria that each kind of course must meet, and a similar checklist of valid reasons for turning down a course if it fails to meet them.

Larry was also grasping at straws when he fantasized, "Except that administrators may have the authority to overrule the faculty when non-academic matters -- e.g., constitutional matters -- are involved."

Larry, I realize that you would love to believe that the science faculty accepted the texts as valid, and were overruled. However, the group with final oversight authority over admissions and course approval is the Faculty Senate, which is made up of the collected faculty members.

UC administrators certainly don't have the authority to overrule the Faculty Senate for the express purpose of violating the US Constitution. That is one of the silliest ideas you've come up with yet. Besides, UC doesn't view this as a constitutional issue at all, but one of shoddy academics. That falls squarely in the purview of the faculty, not administration.

I'm afraid there's no way around it: the people who rejected Calvary Chapel's courses and the BJU and A. Beka textbooks were highly trained experts and educators in the relevant academic areas. Calvary Chapel is going to have a very hard time convincing the judge that he should overrule their expert opinions on the academic quality of the courses and textbooks.

And what in the world do you mean by "misusing references"? Are you now claiming that it's a misuse of references to cite them in support of points that you don't like?

Posted by: Mary | September 16, 2006 10:27 AM

176

Larry

You really are a literalist, arent't you? When give you examples to prove a point (e.g. Schleidenist), you fail to see them as examples, but instead try to argue with them. The point of that part of the message, just because you didn't see it the first time, is not that one example is better or worse. It is merely that arguments proceed best, and respondents don't seem to be ignoramuses, if terms are used properly. It is becoming more apparent that you would prefer to not have the argument proceed (because you have lost it), and don't mind being viewed as an ignoramus. I can't help you any more with either of those.

As for Judge Jones "trying to tell people what their religious beliefs are supposed to be", that is simply not true. Judge Jones is merely telling folks that if they call their religious beliefs "science", that there is a problem with that. "Science" (like lots of words) has a specific meaning. You can believe whatever poppycock you want to belive, but just don't rename it and expect those mistaken definitions to convince either a scientist or a jurist.

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 16, 2006 2:01 PM

178

Mary moaned ( September 16, 2006 10:27 AM ) --

Larry grasped at straws when he said, "Then I have no reason to believe that the section on biological evolution does not present the subject correctly." That's true, technically. It's a pretty fair bet that it doesn't, however.

So you don't really know, either. But I have good reason to believe that the section presents evolution correctly, because:

(1) UC has not presented any specific examples of how it does not.

(2) The publisher would have no reason to risk the book's reputation by presenting evolution incorrectly. Evolution theory has so many holes that it looks bad enough even when presented correctly.

The chapter on cell biology does not integrate the concepts of deep time, relatedness of all organisms, or even adaptation to ecological niches where it would be appropriate to do so.

What in the hell does cell biology have to do with deep time? And of course the chapter presents the relatedness of different organisms -- cell biology is presented in general terms. And you have not presented any example of where the chapter did not discuss adaptation to ecological niches where it would be appropriate to do so. You just bluster in vague generalities without getting down to specifics. You Darwinists are much worse than the fundies -- you want your religion of Darwinism to be mentioned on every page.

. . . Haynes says, "UC claims that these courses can't be counted because they don't meet the university's academic standards."

But contrary to your claim, he didn't say that he agrees with UC. Sheeesh.

There are a few kinds of official records at UC which are not in the public domain: payroll information with exact salaries, private emails, medical records, and so on

I didn't say that the internal procedures for course certification are not available to the public -- I only said that they are not where you told me to look for them. You are just sending me on wild goose chases and playing keep away.

Larry, I realize that you would love to believe that the science faculty accepted the texts as valid, and were overruled.

Yes, I think that would be very nice.

UC administrators certainly don't have the authority to overrule the Faculty Senate for the express purpose of violating the US Constitution.

You have it backwards -- I was talking about the administrators overruling the faculty in order to prevent violation of the Constitution.

I'm afraid there's no way around it: the people who rejected Calvary Chapel's courses and the BJU and A. Beka textbooks were highly trained experts and educators in the relevant academic areas.

A lot of "highly trained experts and educators" commit constitutional violations.

Calvary Chapel is going to have a very hard time convincing the judge that he should overrule their expert opinions on the academic quality of the courses and textbooks.

As I said a googolplex number of times already: UC has not presented any examples of where the science -- as opposed to the religious perspective -- is bad.

And what in the world do you mean by "misusing references"?

I mean misrepresenting the contents of the references. It would help if you made more quotations of the references.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 16, 2006 3:05 PM

180

Albatrossity said,

As for Judge Jones "trying to tell people what their religious beliefs are supposed to be", that is simply not true. Judge Jones is merely telling folks that if they call their religious beliefs "science", that there is a problem with that.

-- and Mary said,
Neither UC nor the Dover ruling tells anybody what their religious beliefs ought to be.

Wrong. Jones said that it is wrong for people to believe that there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and Darwinism. Here again is what he said in the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion:

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

Remaining quotes are from Mary --

Judge Jones followed a long series of legal precidents when he ruled that it's unconstitutional to teach or promote religious beliefs in public school science classes

None of the precedents said that it is wrong for people to believe that there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and Darwinism.

In intent and effect, Judge Jones's ruling prevented the Dover School Board from dictating to the school children in their care what their religious beliefs should be.

The school district did not tell the students that it was wrong for any of them to believe that there was no conflict between their religious beliefs and Darwinism.

UC is insisting that courses accepted as fulfiling a science requirement teach actual science, fully and correctly.

And as I have stated a googolplex number of times already, UC apparently never claimed otherwise in the case of the Calvary Chapel texts. UC apparently only complained about the religious viewpoint.

For these publishers, failing to present evolution in an academically appropriate way is a selling point.

For the zillionth time, I have seen or heard no evidence that the section titled "biological evolution" does not present the subject correctly. There were separate sections titled "biblical creationism" and "a biblical viewpoint." The authors apparently tried to keep the science and the religious views separate.

I didn't say he agrees with UC.

Here is what you said, "Even Charles Haynes agrees that UC's position is that the academics were lousy," and "Charles Haynes's editorial does indeed say that UC's position is that it rejected the courses due to lousy academics." Now if you intended "lousy academics" to mean "bad science," even UC does not clearly say that the science is bad -- UC is just complaining that the religious viewpoints are bad.

Neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion allows Calvary Chapel to force an outside institution like UC to accept instruction in its religious doctrines as science.

The difference is that Calvary Chapel is private whereas UC is a public tax-supported institution, so Calvary Chapel has more freedom to get away with stuff than UC has.

From previous post of Mary (September 16, 2006 02:35 PM ) -- I meant to respond to this point but I forgot --
Religious beliefs can be taught using supplimentary material, but they can't be taught in place of the science. What's unfair about that?

How do we know that UC would not have rejected the course if the religious viewpoint had been presented in supplemental material?

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 16, 2006 6:41 PM

182

Larry

Actually, what is really said in that passage from the Dover decision is this: The notion that evolutionary theory and religion are in conflict is not correct; the doctrine itself is not addressed. That notion (evolutionary theory is at odds with my religion) is not a religious doctrine, it is a consequence of religious doctrine (and there is a difference between those two). Put another way, hopefully your religion's doctrine does not require you to ignore scientific facts. If that is the case you should probably turn off your computer now and sell it. There is no conflict, and should be no conflict between religion and factual reality.

Furthermore, that decision said that those religious folks who do deny reality have no business foisting that viewpoint on public school students. I presume that you would not like to have Moonie, Scientology or other reality-denying doctrines taught to your kids; why do you deny other parents this right?

I do find it amusing that in lots of cases (including this current UC case) the fundamentalists are just itching for a court or judge to address a constitutional question. And yet, when Judge Jones actually did that, West and Luskin (parroted by the likes of you) excoriate him for "going too far" and not restricting himself to the narrow question of school board policy. You are hoping to have it both ways (perhaps more evidence of denial of reality, by the way). I suspect that when a court rules that UC is right, and if that court addresses a constituional question, there will be another outcry about an activist judge going to far and ruling on a constitutional question when he/she didn't really need to.

PS to Mary - I don't know who you are, but your attention to detail and your dogged attempts to drag this discussion back towards reality are very much appreciated! Bravo!

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 17, 2006 5:14 PM

184

Albatrossity,

Thank you for your kind words.

I admit that I do have a personal stake both in UC's reputation as an institution with high academic standards and in the quality of undergraduates admitted. For obvious reasons, I don't want students who learned their science from BJU texts mucking around with my experiments.

I've also been waiting for Larry to bite the bullet and start checking his facts before he writes. No luck there so far, but I keep hoping.

For some reason, this particular lawsuit seems to be attracting more than its share of nonsense, speculation, and rumors. Most of it appears to be traceable to some early press releases by Calvary Chapel and ASCI that were long on innuendo and dramatic accusations and short on facts.

Anyway, I hope you are finding the discussion both educational and entertaining.

Posted by: Mary | September 17, 2006 7:17 PM

186

Mary says:

Albatrossity,

Thank you for your kind words.

I admit that I do have a personal stake both in UC's reputation as an institution with high academic standards and in the quality of undergraduates admitted. For obvious reasons, I don't want students who learned their science from BJU texts mucking around with my experiments.

I've also been waiting for Larry to bite the bullet and start checking his facts before he writes. No luck there so far, but I keep hoping.

For some reason, this particular lawsuit seems to be attracting more than its share of nonsense, speculation, and rumors. Most of it appears to be traceable to some early press releases by Calvary Chapel and ASCI that were long on innuendo and dramatic accusations and short on facts.

Anyway, I hope you are finding the discussion both educational and entertaining.

I heartily agree with Albatrossity here, that you have done us all a terrific service in this thread, discussing this case. As for Larry, if he doesn't look at the facts, then obviously they don't exist. His hypothetical situations then take the place of reality in his mind. At least he serves as a catalyst for finding new info from people who actually know.

Anyway, thanks again.

Posted by: Dave S. | September 18, 2006 8:05 AM

188

Larry

There is nothing in the U.S. v Ballard ruling that is contradicted by the Dover ruling. And there is a (non-nitpicking) difference between religious belief and its consequences. The believer is the one who has to deal with the consequences; these cannot be imposed on other non-beleivers. Although you seem to be impervious to the use of examples as argument, I'll try another anyway. If you are a Christian Scientist, and get appendicitis, you can, as a believer in that doctrine, accept the consequence of your belief and forego medical treatment. You cannot, as a consequence of that belief, make me or anyone else do the same thing.

And thank you, sincerely, for that absurd projective comment that Mary has "failed to substantiate most of her assertions." That was the best laugh I had in a long time!

Apropos of your failure to understand or appreciate how to substantiate your assertions, however, you might take a clue from the fact that the "bibleists" have failed in all court cases so far. Unlike comments in a blog, arguments in a court case need to be substantiated, and mistakes in those arguments will be ruthlessly exposed. Unlike a blog comment thread, rules of evidence apply in court, and you cannot get by with goal-post moving, back-filling, or bogus assertions. That is why you lose in court. When it counts.

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 18, 2006 12:08 PM

190

I'll give you credit for one thing, Larry. You sure don't seem to mind the smell of dead horses...

Good night.

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 18, 2006 9:02 PM

192

Mary said --

Larry, while I expect that the evolution section of the BJU text is a doozy when it comes to scientific inaccuracy,

You have no idea of what the evolution section is like. Your blatant prejudice disqualifies you as an evaluator of the textbooks.

and that the creationism section is even worse,

Of course! The section on "biblical creationism" does not pretend to be modern science.

Biologists have areas in which we specialize, but you can't do meaningful research if you don't put your specialty in proper context with the big picture . . . . Chapter 4 of the BJU text doesn't take this approach

Some areas of biology don't lend themselves to an "integrated" approach.

Have you evaluated regular public-school biology textbooks? How can you be sure that all of them meet your high, probably unrealistic expectations? Why should the Christian-school students be denied admission just on the basis of the nitpicking prejudices of you and the UC course accreditation department?

Here is what Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute says about the supposed importance of an "integrated" approach that includes evolution in all areas of biology:

-- from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3739&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage

It is a simple task to find quotes from scientists or scientific organizations saying evolution is crucial or key to all of modern biology. Over twenty years ago an Australian anthropologist explained in a secular journal why he thinks this is true:

[M]any scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences.

This explains why Mr. Mooney?s statements about the grandeur of evolution are unlikely to impress those who are not already convinced of the accuracy of Neo-Darwinism. More recently, some eminent scientists -- including some evolutionary biologists -- are taking a different view. Writing in The Scientist, Philip S. Skell, member of the National Academy of Science and Emeritus Professor at Pennsylvania State University stated that, ?my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution ?. [and] [n]or did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin.?Skell goes on to report his experiences with evolution in empirical research:

I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Skell finds many major discoveries in experimental biology were not aided by evolution. These include the discovery of the DNA double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries. If evolution won?t save the world, can it yield commercial benefits? In August, 2006, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote in an article entitled ?Selling Darwin? in Nature, explaining that the answer is again, ?No?:

[I]f truth be told, evolution hasn?t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn?t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of "like begets like". Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

One of the two commercial uses Coyne does find for evolution includes the use of "directed evolution" to produce commercial products (such as enzymes to protect crop plants from herbicides). "Directed evolution" is otherwise known as intelligent design.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 19, 2006 4:44 AM

194

Albatrossity writes:

What are your qualifications for judging biology textbooks? Mary is a biologist. I am a biologist, with a PhD from Stanford (ironically, Cal's arch-rival in sports. I teach intro biology to university students. I regularly review textbooks. I suspect that what you call "prejudice" is actually expertise. Which is much better than the deep-seated ignorance you apparently view as a qualification.

Larry pontificates in many fields where he has not the slightest background. For instance he considers biology mostly just philosophy and really anyone can talk about it and all those details like the facts are just nitpicking.

As for Casey Luskin, he is a lawyer. His expertise was on display in a recent CSPAN video, wherein he actually conflated a conclusion with an hypothesis. His ignorance may (or may not) be deeper than yours, but I have no delusions that he is qualified to judge biology textbooks either.

He is a lawyer, but he also likes to flaunt his awesome scientific background around...I think he has a masters in geology or something like that. In any event, his arguments themselves have been extensively refuted, whatever his claims to scientific authority.

And finally, if you really find those arguments from Mooney and Skell to be convincing, please make sure that you do not take any medicines the next time that you fall ill, and please travel to parts of the world where the insect vectors have evolved resistance to DDT. In other words, please practice what you preach. Otherwise you are just another hypocrite, taking advantage of scientific advances while pretending to believe only the parts of it that don't personally offend you, and that you don't really understand.

To be clear, these are Skell's arguments, not Moony's. Moony is the one Luskin is arguing against. And reading the Luskin quote posted you'd think for all the world Skell was an evolutionary biologist. In fact, he's not a biologist of any kind, he's a retired chemist. And Luskin also forgets to mention that virtually every biologist who's had the pleasure of being innundated with Skells pet 'biologists don't need evolution' schtick have vehemently disagreed with his simple-minded arguments. For instance Skell seems to think that since Fleming discovered bacterial inhibition by penicillin by accident, that all antibiotics were discovered that way. In fact, evolution has elucidated every single one of the points listed as not aided by evolution.

Posted by: Dave S. | September 19, 2006 8:06 AM

196

Let's see: every person in this discussion who's got some expertise in biology and biology textbooks agrees with UC that the approach in the BJU texts is academically worthless, and against that Larry pits a quote from a lawyer who don't know anything about either biology or teaching.

Better try again, Larry; that was a pretty weak effort.

Hint: look for someone who has both an advanced degree in biology from a reputable institution of higher learning and teaching experience. Lawyers, engineers, and other non-biologists don't have the specialized knowledge of the subject required to judge what is and is not appropriate material and approaches for teaching biology.

Larry tried to salvage his out-of-sight goalposts when he said, "You have no idea of what the evolution section is like."

Although I can't easily lay my hands on a copy of the textbook, the introductory material makes it very clear that the book puts Biblical literalism ahead of science, and the available chapter confirms that this religious viewpoint has been allowed to alter the science presented. BJU Press's other biology textbooks are advertised as "totally non-evolutionary", and reviews confirm that their presentation of evolution consists mainly of a rehash of long-disproved Creationist "evidences against evolution".

To summarize, we have a publisher that's committed to teaching bad science as part of its religious mission, and that has issued a textbook that has a preface and introduction which openly state the particular text in question is part of that mission. The cell biology chapter confirms that the science has been altered to reinforce the religious message, and one of the nation's premier university systems has rejected the text as inadequate for college-prep classes.

Somehow, that doesn't add up to an accurate evolution chapter to me.

Larry bluffed, "Some areas of biology don't lend themselves to an "integrated" approach."

Such as? I can't think of any, off hand.

Cell biology is certainly not such an area, which is why the lack of integration in the BJU textbook chapter is so telling.

Posted by: Mary | September 19, 2006 10:10 AM

198

Larry wrote, maniacally

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I am the one who has been restrained.

There is a verb tense problem with that sentence, Larry. You should be restrained, and I recommend a straitjacket.

As for your quote from the "expert", anyone who uses the word "Darwinism" in a sentence is automatically disqualified in my book, because that usage (as flogged here before) indicates a serious lack of understanding of modern biology or science. A little google research vindicated that disqualification, since the author (Jerry Bergman) was apparently dismissed from his academic job, and one of his degrees is from a diploma mill (Columbia Pacific University). This is your weakest effort yet. Got any more?

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 19, 2006 11:02 AM

200

Larry wrote, "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I am the one who has been restrained.

Hahaha,

I see that. You've restrained yourself from reading and understanding. You've restrained youself from researching the academic standards. And you've restrained yourself from answering direct questions concerning your point of view.

No hard feelings though. If you are content with quoting a couple of lawyers and a teacher (whom I consider Dr. Bergman to be), as representative of the state of modern biology, go right ahead.

By the way, why didn't you put in the attribution for your quote? Your quote is from Dr. Jerry Bergman who has also argued that, "The reason God created toxins is because they are necessary for life, especially in a post-Fall world." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/poison.asp)
and, "Firmly convinced that Darwinian evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern saviour of mankind." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp)

Maybe because his major training, juding by the transcript in the essay you linked to, seems to be in psychology, sociology and behavioral science? Maybe because he is well known as a creationist apologist?

But the core argument you are making is that none of us are qualified to judge the textbooks as adequate to meet the UC acceptance standards. I can accept that. I'm willing to abide by the experts at UC who did judge the book didn't meet the UC criteria. There is no evidence that Dr. Bergman evaluated the textbooks, so why bring him up?

Of course you didn't mention that in that same essay he reviews a total of three basic biology course testbooks. He finds that the 1998 text devotes 9% of the text to an evolution section, with mention in other chapters. The 2002 text devotes 11% of the text to evolution, which is also mentioned in other chapters. Further the 2004 text discusses evolution in every chapter. Do you see a progression here? The more recent texts have a more comprehensive coverage of evolutionary theory.

But even though you admit you are not competant to judge these textbooks, you also want to claim that the UC experts are not competant to judge these textbooks.

That's wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Good health,

-Flex

Posted by: Flex | September 19, 2006 11:55 AM

202

Larry opined (without reflecting on his previous words)

In my book, that is a darn sight better than judging things without having seen them!

Absolutely. Unfortunately for your argument, when you search through this thread, you will note that I have not passed judgement on these textbooks without seeing them. On the other hand, you have repeatedly defended them, while admitting that you haven't read them either...

I am comfortable with the processes by which public universities accredit high school courses and courses from other community colleges or universities, because I have been involved in that process at my own institution. You, besides judging books that you have admittedly not read, also feel qualified to pass judgement on those processes, even though it has been explained to you in excruciating detail that the process is open, fair, and unbiased.

You also feel correct in your opinion that biology doesn't have to be taught in an integrated way, even though your credentials as a biologist, or an educator, are non-existent.

It appears that the opinions you hold most strongly are precisely in the areas where you know nothing. Can you see the problem with that?

Posted by: Albatrossity | September 19, 2006 1:38 PM

204

Flex observed, "Over the six years of the different publishing dates of these textbooks, a steadily increasing level of integration of evolutionary theory."

This coincides with a reorganization of the College Board's AP Biology curriculum. AP courses are supposed to duplicate the material found in introductory college-level classes at good universities: the AP Biology curriculum is actually a composite of most-frequently taught material in some 15,000 college and university-level freshman biology courses.

Not surprisingly, the resulting curriculum requires that the course spend 25% of its time on "Heredity and Evolution", and evolution is also prominantly integrated into other sections. The AP curriculum is the basis for the AP subject test in biology, which also emphasizes a student's knowledge of evolution and how to applied to other areas in biology.

Most universities will give students extra points towards admissions for doing well in AP classes and subject tests. Many also give actual college credit, and/or allow students to place out of introductory classes. So, offering AP classes is a relatively big deal for private high schools who want to attract college-bound students.

Schools wanting to offer courses with the "AP" designation must have them certified by the College Board, to determine that the material being taught conforms tightly to the required curriculum. The process is very similar to UC's certification procedure for the a-g requirements. In fact, the two are similar enough that UC will automatically accept AP courses as certified for admissions purposes in the appropriate category.

Like UC, the College Board takes a close look at the textbooks used in certified AP classes. There is a list of acceptable texts on their site. (Hint to research-challenged Larry: try googling on "AP biology textbooks" and looking for hits on the College Board site.)

Strangely enough, neither BJU Press nor A. Beka has a textbook on the list, although most of the big players in the textbook industry are well represented. It appears the College Board share's UC's opinion of their quality.

I agree that Calvary Chapel is in trouble with this lawsuit. Getting creationism/ID into public and private high schools is relatively easy, because few school board members and administrators know or care anything about biology. High school biology teachers tend to be isolated and can be intimidated by angry parents or bosses, and most of them have never done actual biological research.

Getting similar material to pass inspection at the university level is pretty much impossible. There, the decisions as to what is or is not appropriate are set by research biologists. People who use evolution daily in the lab aren't going to be convinced by some lawyer's confused babblings that somehow it doesn't work and they should use the Bible instead.

Oh, and Larry, you're right, some high schools in some backwards areas omit or downplay evolution in their biology classes. I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that such courses aren't winning certification from either UC or the College Board, however.

Posted by: Mary | September 19, 2006 3:55 PM

206

Albatrossity said,

Unfortunately for your argument, when you search through this thread, you will note that I have not passed judgement on these textbooks without seeing them.

Baloney -- if you hadn't already passed judgment on them, you would not be arguing here.

On the other hand, you have repeatedly defended them, while admitting that you haven't read them either

All I know is that (1) no one has presented any specific examples of bad science in the textbooks and (2) Darwinism has so many holes that it is not necessary to distort it to make it look bad (even your big hero Judge Jones has admitted that).

It appears that the opinions you hold most strongly are precisely in the areas where you know nothing.

What is this? You don't even know what opinions I hold in other areas or how strongly I hold them. Not being an expert does not mean that I know nothing. And though I admit that I am not qualified to independently review the texts, I am qualified in many cases to judge when others are not reviewing them fairly -- like not giving specific examples of errors.

Flex said --

So, which experts are qualified to judge? Funny, but I trust UC biologists.

You are very naive. I don't trust anyone -- not even the courts. But the courts do offer an opportunity for second opinions.

Larry replied, "There is no "progression" here -- these are books from different authors."
Curious how you left off the last sentance of my paragraph. You quoted the rest. Here it is again, "The more recent texts have a more comprehensive coverage of evolutionary theory."

Only three texts were studied. That is not enough to establish any correlation between the edition year and the treatment of evolution. Even if there were such a correlation, you are saying that in general only texts of an edition year around 2004 and later would be acceptable. That is absurd.

Mary said,

Not surprisingly, the resulting curriculum requires that the course spend 25% of its time on "Heredity and Evolution", and evolution is also prominantly integrated into other sections.

These are AP courses, not regular courses. And an AP biology course could spend 25% of the time on heredity (genetics) and 0% of the time on evolution and still qualify. Also, Jerry Bergman said, " Many of the instructors at the colleges where I have taught totally ignore the sections on evolution, partly because there is too much other material that must be covered and something has to be cut and most elect to skip evolution because it is one of the least-important subjects in most majors."

Also, suppose that someone who went to high school many years ago applies for UC admission. Should that person be denied admission just because that person's high school courses did not follow the latest standards?

(Hint to research-challenged Larry: try googling on "AP biology textbooks" and looking for hits on the College Board site.)

"Research-challenged"? Look in the mirror.

Strangely enough, neither BJU Press nor A. Beka has a textbook on the list, although most of the big players in the textbook industry are well represented..

That's ridiculous. That proves nothing -- absolutely nothing. We have no idea why BJU and A. Beka are not represented. You said that the AP courses require a lot of heredity and evolution (without saying how much of each), and maybe these publishers decided that the Christian-school market for AP texts was just too small to justify the effort required to publish such texts.

Oh, and Larry, you're right, some high schools in some backwards areas omit or downplay evolution in their biology classes.

I didn't go to high school in some "backwards" area -- my high school at the time was one of the best in the Los Angeles city school district. But we did not cover evolution in biology -- it was just sort of something that we took for granted.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 19, 2006 6:01 PM

208

Larry indulged in wishful thinking when he said, "But the courts do offer an opportunity for second opinions."

Is it just me, or does Larry view ignorance of biology as the primary qualification for reviewing biology textbooks? To me, that sounds a lot like someone who is trying to sneak questionable science into the curriculum, and is desperately shopping around for an authority who doesn't know the subject well enough to identify it as such.

Unfortunately, judges tend to accept expert opinions on matters which are outside their expertise, and they are also usually intelligent enough to credit only experts with relevant experience in their supposed field of expertise. Judge Ortega is not likely to overrule the UC biology faculty on the issue of whether or not the BJU and A. Beka textbooks are adequate for college-prep classes.

Larry showed he has not bothered to check out the College Board regulations for AP classes when he speculated from a position of total ignorance, "And an AP biology course could spend 25% of the time on heredity (genetics) and 0% of the time on evolution and still qualify."

No, it could not. AP biology classes must follow the detailed AP curriculum, which views heredity as an aspect of evolution (which it is). Evolution is also covered in almost every other section. The course must be taught out of an approved AP text, which also follows the curriculum closely, including the integration of evolution into all chapters.

Any significant deviation from the AP curriculum as it is presented (and downplaying evolution would qualify) loses the course its certification.

UC will certify non-AP biology courses, but they have to be almost up to AP standards in rigor and content. Courses which omit or downplay a central tenet of the science don't qualify.

Larry showed that he doesn't understand the concept of keeping up to date when he complained, "Even if there were such a correlation, you are saying that in general only texts of an edition year around 2004 and later would be acceptable. That is absurd."

No, that's pretty standard in a robust academic field where advances are common. The College Board won't accept any textbook older than eight years, period. Most school districts buy new textbooks every four to five years, because the standards keep changing and the information in the old books is no longer up to date.

As Flex pointed out, Jerry Bergman is not exactly an authority on how biology ought to be taught, or indeed how it is taught, at good universities like UC. His experience and education appears to be almost exclusively at the state college and community college levels, which are much less rigorous.

Oh, and Larry, your fantasy about the poor abused nontraditional student trying to get into UC without a recent high school diploma proves nothing except that you still haven't checked out what UC's real admissions policies are. There are specific instructions for such students.

Posted by: Mary | September 19, 2006 7:15 PM

210

Mary said,

Larry indulged in wishful thinking when he said, "But the courts do offer an opportunity for second opinions."
Is it just me, or does Larry view ignorance of biology as the primary qualification for reviewing biology textbooks?

Then how was Judge Jones (or anyone, for that matter) qualified to be the final judge of the scientific merits of ID and irreducible complexity?

AP biology classes must follow the detailed AP curriculum, which views heredity as an aspect of evolution (which it is).

Heredity is just another name for genetics -- the inheritance of genes and genetic traits. Yes, I know that everything is tied together -- genetics concerns the natural genetic variation in evolution -- but you are just carrying this interrelatedness thing too far. Not everyone has these obsessions with evolution and interrelatedness that you do. All this interrelatedness stuff does not make learning any easier. As an engineer, I know that Newton's Laws of Motion are the "glue" that ties things together in engineering mechanics, but having these laws mentioned on every page of a textbook would not make the learning any easier.

The College Board won't accept any textbook older than eight years, period.

That's ridiculous -- in most of high school mathematics, a 200-year-old textbook would do just fine -- even much older in some branches of mathematics.

I have looked at recent textbooks in my own field of mechanical engineering and I saw that except for increased use of computer solutions, virtually nothing has changed in basic mechanical engineering since I graduated in 1968. On the other hand, the use of integrated circuits has exploded in electrical engineering since 1968.

Anyway, it looks like there may be a mismatch between UC's expectations and the biology educations of many UC entrants. Many graduates of public high schools studied little or no evolution in biology classes. If UC wants to emphasize the evolution thing, maybe UC should just resign itself to giving students a little "remedial" education in evolution.

His experience and education appears to be almost exclusively at the state college and community college levels, which are much less rigorous.

Many community college students transfer to UC, and state colleges (now called state universities in California) are often as rigorous as UC -- they are just less selective.

Albatrossity said --
Once I have formed an opinion about it, I'll pass it along to the readers of this thread, even though my expertise in this area clearly is inferior to your opinion of your own expertise

As I said, I never claimed to be qualified to independently evaluate biology texts. But I am qualified in many cases to judge when someone else has made an unreasonable evaluation.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 19, 2006 11:29 PM

212

Larry displayed his ignorance of both biology and mathemat