Courts allow University of California to reject credit for Creationist High School courses

A federal appellate court has ruled against a Christian school in Murrieta which had sued the University of California over its refusal to accept high school courses that rely on the Bible as the unerring source of truth.

Details here.

Next step: Homeschoolers!

(Hat tip: August Berkshire)

More like this

a Christian school in Murrieta which had sued the University of California over its refusal to accept high school courses that rely on the Bible as the unerring source of truth.

The mind boggles.

By Rorschach (not verified) on 07 Feb 2010 #permalink

If you've never had the opportunity to read some of the A Beka materials in question, you're really missing out.


Agree New England Bob. I wish employers and the like would also look at people's resumes closer, and pretty much discard anyone who went to those institutions for lower learning. Being wilfully ignorant should have massive consequences!

In what alternative fundy universe did the lawsuit begin to make sense to start with? If the school taught non-standard & mythology based 'coursework', why shouldn't a public University reject them for being uninformed/misinformed/unqualified rubes?
The level of dumb-ass keeps for higher ground!

I'd love to take them to court and shut down their ability to teach that, making them prove the Bible unerring

I figure that trial will be over in about 3 minutes.

As my user name implies, I am a follower of Jesus and his teaching. Larian posted "Being wilfully ignorant should have massive consequences!" I would emphasize - Being wilfully ignorant DOES have massive consequences. I would ask you one question. Where do you think your basic instinct of right and wrong comes from? I'm not saying this maliciously. Pray to God and ask him to open your heart to allow for some "faith". If I'm wrong, you have nothing to lose. If you're wrong, you have everything to gain. God Bless.

By Christian (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Where do you think your basic instinct of right and wrong comes from?

Social creatures evolved altruism (that is, how to distinguish between socially harmful and beneficial actions) because social cooperation and group living helped us survive. Primates and other animals also display altruism. Anti-social organisms who are not capable of complete independence tend to be at a survival and reproductive disadvantage.

Also, before you whip out Pascal's Wager again, demonstrate conclusively using evidence (which means not the Bible) that the Christian god is absolutely the correct god. Millions of Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, and Zoroastrians would beg to differ. Really, we're not so different, Mr. Christian, you and I -- I just believe in one fewer god than you do.

By Interrobang (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

Your question. If you had bothered to read the bible, just genesis and exodus are enough, you would have known that your god does not understand human psychology and thinking. Which makes it kind of hard to stuff altruism into the mix if you don't know where to put it.

What good and bad are crudely defined as good being things that you do which don't hurt others while bad things you do hurt others.

No need for a god there. I got a much more thorough version of that by following logic (a side effect of reasoning out altruism and why I consider that a better path then pure greed).

By Who Cares (not verified) on 08 Feb 2010 #permalink

I agree with christian's unspoken point. I don't believe the folks in and arguing for the school are willfully ignorant: willfully dishonest would be more like it. They knew perfectly well the kids had been short-changed in their education. I don't know what they expected to accomplish with the lawsuit.


Equally one could flip things and ask where your basic instinct of right and wrong come from. Specifically how do you pick and choose which passages from your extensive listing of moral instructions to follow, and which to ignore - it seems pretty obvious from a cursory reading of leviticus or deutronomy (without even getting into the teachings of Jesus about rejecting family and casting non-believers aside as twigs to be burnt) that morality categorically is not sourced from a text held as being scripted by the being you presume to be the ultimate source of morality (which begs the question why is so much of this being's morality so utterly morally repugnant these days if it is, as I would expect a believer to believe, inerrant) but that there is some other filter through which biblical teaching has to pass before anything which would vaguely pass as moral in the modern world is recognizable. (hint - the question has already been answered in the above comments)


Pascal's wager isn't going to work because most of the people here are familiar with fallacies. You said that willful ignorance is wrong and yet you've come here ignorant of any science or about the commentators upbringings and declare that they open their heart to God with no evidence. Exactly, what do you expect to accomplish from that?