U of CA Rejects Creationism

[micatala]

The Boston Globe ran a short article on Saturday last entitled University of California sued over creationism.

According to the article, UC admissions officials have refused to certify some science and other courses, particularly those using curriculum developed by Bob Jones U and Abeka Books. As a result, The Association of Christian Schools International has filed suit in federal court.

A UC spokesperson said the University has the right to set entrance requirements. She futher stated:

These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed.

The questions for debate are:

1) Is the UC system justified in refusing to certify courses they deem to be of poor quality because of the creationist viewpoint of the courses?

2) Does the Association of Christian Schools have any grounds for filing suit? What are they?

I am particularly interested in science courses, especially those pertaining to evolution. However, the article does note that some non-science courses, including one entitled "Christianity's Influence in American History," have been rejected.

I do not know at this point any of the particular rationale for the rejections, what was found objectionable in each case, etc.

[micatala]

Interesting.

The address given on the school website is in Murrieta, CA and gives this location on Mapquest.

THe location for a Calvary Chapel Christian School (7-12) in Moreno Valley CA is here, also in suburban LA a few miles north of Murrieta.

There is also a Calvary Christian high school in Santa Ana, which is west of Murrieta.

Both the Moreno Valley and Santa Ana schools are listed in the WASC directory.

It could be that the Murrieta campus is a branch of one of the other two Calvary Chapel schools, and is included under their accreditation.

[Chimp]

They are listed in the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI)
accredited schools list. Wasc lists ACSI as a partner/cooperative organization.

My guess is they are allowed to derive accredation from their connection
to ACSI.

They must have some valid accredation from somewhere because UC won't
allow a school to list A-G courses without it.

[juliod]

They must have some valid accredation from somewhere because UC won't
allow a school to list A-G courses without it.

At least some of the schools involved in the suit are not accredited, because it is mentioned in the Suit that U of CA asked them to get accredited.

DanZ

[jcrawford]

Thanks for your intelligent concern and enquiry. Here's the full text of the lawful and legal complaint against neo-Darwinist racists in high places of California's state government.

http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/a ... plaint.pdf

The document is helpful. Now we can at least see what the plaintiffs are saying.

Unfortunately, your description of the document is not accurate since you are stating that UC officials are racist, which has not been shown. IN fact, you have not even shown there is such a thing as neo-Darwinist racism. I know this is sort of silly to be tossing 'did too', 'did not' back and forth, but as long as you are going to drag this idea into this thread, I will continue to point out that you are making a false assertion.

Lubenow points out in his published thesis on neo-Darwinist racism, that racism may be based on religious discrimination and vice-versa, as is well documented in history. Since UC has been charged with religious discrimination, I am fully justified in asserting my opinion that the UC admissions policies in this case are also racist.

[jcrawford]

I'll set aside much of the rest of the recent posts, on the grounds that we've beaten the "racism" idea into the ground in the Bones of Contention thread. However,

This is exactly the same as saying that we shouldn't study how sunlight affects differently colored skin because to make distinctions between light-skinned and dark-skinned people is racist.

Jose, you are quoting the wrong person here. ST88 wrote that as the last sentence of his first paragraph in post #57.

[Chimp]

Cut the crap already...

Could you just change your name to off-topic or red-herring?

Lubenow is a hack. His book is a waste of carbon. And you have not
produced a shred of evidence in all your ramblings to defend
your assertions.

I'm not sure why you are not receiving any warnings from the moderators,
since you are deliberately trying to derail every topic you post in.

[jcrawford]

You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to the determination of such inasmuchas it affects those of us who see through your thinly veiled attempt to force a Radical Right Wing agenda upon everyone else.

Why not? Don't Christians, creationists, African-Americans and other tax-payers have any civil rights anymore?

Civil rights are one thing. They guarantee you to say what you wish. What they do not guarantee is that anyone else has to believe you. The UC system does not believe you. That is their right.

You are quite right and I agree with your legal opinion here wholeheartedly. By the same token though, neither do Christian Americans, African Amercans or any other Americans have to believe in UC's teachings, applications and admissions policies based on Darwin's racist theories that African people evolved, mutated and descended from some common ancestor of non-human African apes once upon a time in Africa by 'natural selelection.'

"Civil rights for people or none for the state" is my motto.

[jcrawford]

You're assuming that melanin (i.e., skin shading) is a viable topic for study. Therefore, you are being racist in the same way that you accuse "Neo-Darwinists" of being.

Nonsense. The scientific discovery of melanin has nothing to do with neo-Darwinist race theories of mythical African people originating from non-human ancestors of African apes once upon a time in Africa.

Tsk, tsk. The mere mention of melanin betrays your Neo-Darwinist attitude towards scientific study of skin differences. By acknowledging that there are physical differences between what you call "the races", you are using the same excuse they are.

I don't judge people by the amount of melanin in their skin any more than neo-Darwinsts do. I just question neo-Darwinist theories that divide the ancestors of the human race up into fossilized 'species' without adequately defining what they mean by a human 'race' or a human 'species.' Since neo-Darwinist 'scientists' don't, can't or won't define 'race,' I accuse them of racism in their classification of our human ancestors as "different and separate" 'species.'

And make up your mind, is it a "race theory" or is it a "racist theory"? There is a difference.

Race, racial, racist, racialist. What's the 'scientific' difference?

A "race" theory would discuss differences among the "races". A "racist" theory would go further to discuss why certain "races" are superior or inferior.

Sounds like neo-Darwinst racist theories about the human race to me.

But I find it interesting that you believe the admissions officers are lying demagogues. Do you believe all of material science is made up of liars & demogogues, or only the ones who disagree with you?

Only the ones who teach racial and racist theories about the origins of the human race from the mythological ancestors of a race of African apes once upon a time in Darwin's mythical Africa.

Asked and answered I guess.

Correct.

[jcrawford]

I've read the suit. It doesn't mention or allege racism. So discussions of racism in this thread are innapropriate.

I would like to discusss the actual topic, which is the academic qualifications of students given a substandard christian education. But it's not really possible in the current situation.

Religious discrimination and racism are the same thing in an historical and legal context and are not subject to scientific investigation, research or opinions.

The "actual topic" is a civil lawsuit claiming religious discrimination on the part of a state university which teaches, applies and practices neo-Darwinist racial theories of 'natural selection' in their admission policies.

[jcrawford]

I hereby renounce my responsibility to address the lies of RND (or NDRT or whatever) in this particular thread.

I hereby renounce the lies of all neo-Darwinist race theorists.