University of California Sued Over Creationism

The story

Heaven forfend! Next thing they'll be rejecting courses that teach that the earth is flat, or that volcanoes are caused by baking soda and vinegar! How can they so blatantly discriminate against science classes that teach that the earth was created in 6 days?

Is there a right to have every inane thing you believe accepted as an education at state universities?

This doesn't threaten my religion in any way, shape or form.

 

If that lawsuit prospers, it would be a step backwards. But it doesn´t really surprise me. Yesterday I read somewhere that a survey conducted in the US has revealed that 60% of Americans believe in creationism. That is 10% more than 10 years ago. 10%!!!

 

Incredible!


Abner

 

I don't get it--and I quite definitely believe in a 6-day creation as taught in Genesis. If you don't like what's taught at UC, don't go there or send your kid there. If you don't like your tax money in some pitifully small way going toward teaching things you dislike, vote accordingly in the appropriate elections for whomever has responsibility for overseeing UC.

My religion isn't threatened by what UC does or does not teach. My religion isn't that flimsy, or that litigious. Why don't we put these drips in a room with their kindred spirits who whine about having to say the pledge of allegiance. Call it dueling bonzos.

Verbum Dei manet in aeternum.

 

when you consider the birth rate, it should not be surprising. You must figure out who has the most babies and then you will understand, the increase.I'm willing to bet it will go higher.

 

Not sure. Don't quite think so. Maybe their appropriate remedy is to get together with one's buddies that like the flat earth and six-day creationism and all that and start their own college. Just rambling.

 

Are we insinuating that only stupid people have children?

 

is that your take of the census data?

I hadn't made quite the same conclusion. what I am saying is look at the populations that are reproducing the most and look at the populations reproducing the least and you will see a trend. I would never insinuate anyone is stupid without getting to know them first. I may insinuate that certain populations may not be as educated as others and thier belief systems are not the same.

 

Just being a bit tongue in cheek there, Rivers. To refine my hypothesis, however, I would say that it's a pretty good guess that the more educated person's approach to exercising their fertility would be to calculate how many children they can afford based on some godawful figure about it taking $250,000 to raise a kid cradle through college. Which might lead to fewer children. The less educated person might simply see sex as cheap entertainment. Which might lead to more kids. Besides, the smarter ones might be quicker to figure out what's causing all them kids and do something about it.

 

Whether people happen to like it or not, evolution is a core concept not only in biology, but in geology, astronomy, climatology and much else. Virtually all sciences think that the state of the universe changes over time, that those changes are the result of natural processes, and that part of the task of each science is to understand the history of the natural domain it studies.

It's interesting that a similar controversy took place involving the Institute of Creation Research in San Diego. This school, then CA-approved, was awarding degrees in the physical and biological sciences in which scientific content was subordinated to Biblical revelation. I'm not sure, but I suspect that part of the purpose was to produce superficially qualified science teachers for fundamentalist schools.

The predecessor of the BPPVE tried to pull ICR's CA-approval on the grounds that the school's science degrees really weren't science degrees at all, but rather apologetics degrees in disguise. The ICR and its operator Henry Morris sued the state, and the courts found in ICR's favor on academic freedom grounds, ruling that the state didn't have the right to dictate university curriculum content. That's one reason why some CA-approved schools are so flaky today, because they can teach pretty much anything that they want and call it anything that they like, just so long as they require the right number of credit hours, have a faculty qualified to teach what's on offer, and so on.

The accreditors, being private bodies and not state agencies, are free to consider the appropriateness of program content. Since the chances of WASC accrediting ICR were slight, the ICR's Henry Morris was instrumental in creating a new accrediting body essentially to self-accredit ICR and similar 'creation-science' schools. And that was how TRACS came to exist. (It was creation. Not evolution.)

 

I think that even the Catholic Church, a nest of mummies and dinosaurs, have accepted the Big Bang theory (in the 50´s.....). Why are we discussing these stupidities in the XXI Century, if everyone knows that religion and science dwell in different realms?

 

I was listening to a bit by Bill Maher today (on Sirius radio) regarding these creation myths. There is no more logic, believability, or reason to adhere to what's in Genesis than what's in Jack and the Beanstalk or Sleeping Beauty. The notion that some old man got two of everything (or seven, or whatever) on a boat is, well, stupid. Just ridiculous. And there is no more reason to believe it than to believe in the magic beans and the giant in the sky. Eve and the forbidden fruit? Snow White and the poisoned apple. Same thing. Talking wolves and burning bushes? No problem there, either. You can build either a set of fairy tales or a religion around either. No difference. You choose in which (or neither) to place your faith.

None of this silliness gets you closer to God. You can do that on your own. You don't need myths, fairy tales, etc. And you don't need to be part of a shepherded flock.

This isn't an atheistic view. This is an "astupidity" view. There. Whew! I think its safe to believe in God without having to buy that whole Jonah-in-a-great-fish thing.

Getting back to UC Berkeley, there is no reason why an institution of higher learning should have to place some weight on fairy tales, no matter who professes their faith in them. Human learning is based upon observation, theory, and science. If you want to have faith in some old, single parent in the sky who writes a few books, has his only son bumped off, and is a vengeful prick a lot of the time, fine. He's all yours. But don't expect that to satisfy the prerequisites for entering a university.

 

birds, feathers, and sticky stuff

Hi Rich: James Crabb calls me Father Dracula, you call me stupid.

__________


Hi Bill: Thanks for the thoughtful post. Thanks also for your courtesy in disagreement, too.

 

Re: birds, feathers, and sticky stuff

You and me both uncle janko

I've been trying to think of something to say, but I'm afraid of how I'll sound, and I certainly don't want to sound like I'm calling someone with ideas that are different from mine stupid.

By the way, my school is SACS & ACSI (the agency bringing the suit) accredited. OH, and colleges from multiple states have accepted science courses taught at my school. These colleges include many large state schools like UNC Chapel Hill. Our text books include those listed in the article -- as well as a variety of others.

 

Aw, Rich, but don't you just think Jonah makes for such a great big fish story?

 

Re: birds, feathers, and sticky stuff

Oh, no I didn't. I didn't call anyone stupid. I just feel that promoting one myth over another is stupid. Feel any way you want, even feel free to tell others about it. But when people try to promote this nonsense as something other than what it is, and to expect others to accept it carte blanche, that's stupid behavior. Even then, that doesn't make the people stupid. I've done plenty of stupid things, but I'm not stupid.

If "stupid" is unfair, fine. No big deal. But there is still no reason to promote one's religious beliefs as sufficient to satisfy a prerequisite for scientific learning.

 

Intelligent design or evolution

I will regret posting my opinon about this but here goes...I am not a religious person. I have studied religion at times in my life and I just don't know. I, like many others, wonder how any one religion could possibly be right when there are so many interpretations of the Bible. Interestingly, I have found that even non-Christian religions acknowledge the existance of Jesus though he is considered at lesser level of importance in some. It seems at least arguable that there is a historical account that Jesus actually did live though it is also arguable that he was "just a man" and not the son of God. I am not arguing any of this. As I enter middle age (okay, I'm already there), I think about this a lot. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and think, really, where did we come from? I know we will not have an answer ever, unless there is a God and that God chooses to tell us how it happened, whether it was as the Bible says, or whether the Bible was more a symbolic interpretation, or whether the real God had nothing to do with the Bible. Those that think the "theory" of evolution is an open and shut proven theory are being closed minded, at least as bad as fundamental Christians, only in the opposite direction. They refuse to listen or think deeply about anything that could "change their mind." I'm imploring you to think about what you believe and why? Because a science teacher told you? Because many science teachers agree? Because Science text books say so? Because the Bible says so? Your mother? Think for yourself. I can not say whether the Biblical account is true but one thing I know for sure is that the science I have studied including the Big bang theory and the theory of evolution are both IMPOSSIBLE according to known science. This is because nothing could evolve from nothing. These theories have to be saying that SOMETHING whether one atom or partical or element or Intelligent living God, or something has always had to exist from forever backward in time. How did that particle or gas get started in order to react with other particles, gases etc. to form any big bang or anything else? Whether evolution or intelligent design, both explanations are impossible because both say that ALL THIS came from absolutely nothing...Well, the religious version admits that impossible is possible so in some ways that is more plausible to me! I think it would be wise for us to admit that we are NO WHERE near the answers to this and we probably never will be! For those of you who believe so deeply in all that Darwin proposed, instead of arguing your case, prove it! Find the missing links! Find more proof because there is seemingly proof that the earth is billions of years old and there is evidence that simple life forms existed before more complex ones, but this really only makes parts of his theory possible; it does not prove that humans evolved from lower life forms. We should not teach this as fact because it has not been proven! While it is proven that animals and even people adapt to their environment through survival of the fittest, there is no evidence they change from their species to something else. Try to understand that I am not saying either side is right. In fact, I'm saying both sides are wrong. We do not have the answers so lets stop pretending that we do and study a little harder! The last point I have to add is that the complexity of life on this earth probably did not just happen. It it something VASTLY more complex than any of us could even begin to understand. Science is just a surface study of something HUGE out there. Anyone who thinks currents science has all the answers is seriously kidding themselves. We should not just blindly believe what is in our textbooks or what our professors or preachers tell us. We must seek answers for ourselves. We probably won't find them in our life times but it is better to admit that we don't know than to continually promote unproven "theories" as facts. For this reason, I believe in teaching that both of these "theories" are theories, and yes school children should learn about the "theories" of others.

 

Re: Intelligent design or evolution

The way science works is that a hypothesis is developed, observations are made, then a theory is developed. "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" don't work that way. They're theories in search of facts, without anyone testing hypotheses. That isn't science. It is religion.

Again, a doctoral student should display a better understanding of inquiry. You're demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of something that is a fundamental requirement for doctoral students. This has nothing to do with what you believe is true or not true. It is the construct of your argument, and the misuse of research and theory development, not your conclusions.

Please don't take this as an attack on either you or your beliefs. It is how your arguments are presented that is objectionable.

As a minimum, please discover what a "fact" isn't, and what a "theory" is.

 

I have a feeling I may get flamed on this one, but...

Bill D (+ Rich, too, I suppose),

I'm not sure what was being taught in the schools involved in the lawsuit; the kind of "young-earth creationism" championed by Henry Morris since the 1950's (and which has it's origins in Seventh-Day Adventist teaching a couplle of decades before that) is somewhat on the wane at the moment. Unfortunately, of late certain elements in the press have attempted to paint even the whole idea of Intelligent Design as a ruse for "creationism"in the "earth is 6,000 years old" sense. The truth is that, if anything, the reality of the Big Bang (fairly convincingly proven by astrophysics at this point) is actually a pointer to the reality of God, since it gives an beginning point for the universe; the amount of time needed probability-wise, for evolution, etc., to be able to have any hope of working through "natural processes" is orders of magnitude beyond the maximum of 20 billion years for which it is understood that the universe has existed.

Theologically, there has never been a consensus on the meaning of the "days" in the Genesis account of creation. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross makes an interesting case for the "days" as epochs coinciding with waves of creation in his A Matter of Days (http://tinyurl.com/95fzb). The fact is that the beliefs of Evangelicals on the emergence of the universe runs a spectrum from full-on Henry Morris creationism to men like Asa Gray, 19th century naturalist and friend and supporter of Darwin. The common thread running through these is that the universe is the handiwork of God, whether through direct action, the natural working out of processes He has set in motion, or a combination of the two. See http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html for an idea of the breadth of thought on this, and perhaps put a few straw men to rest. Another good account of Evangelical thought vis-a-vis science is found in Wheaton philosopher Mark Noll's The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (http://tinyurl.com/7wg6t).

As for the incredibility of stories such as that of Jonah, part of the story's point is that what happened was miraculous. Certainly we would agree that under normal circumstances, such things don't happen. From my perspective, God made the laws of the universe, and generally things go according to those laws. Sometimes, as in the case of Jonah, He chooses to go around those laws. The result is a "miracle". A man being rescued from drowning in the open sea by means of getting swallowed by a whale and being spat up three days is naturally ridiculous, but if what occured was mundane, there wouldn't have been much point in writing about it. If it is presented as a miracle (certainly the case), then the scientific analysis of the event is besides the point. At any rate, I can't imagine there are any courses being put up for inspection to UC Berkeley on the physics and biology of humans swallowed by whales.

it wasn't clear what the content was of courses being rejected, except that the courses were using books published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka. If it was due to demonstrably deficient content of these books it may be one thing, but if it is simply due to the religious outlook of the publishers, then this could, plausibly, be a religious rights issue.

Peace,

Matt

 

gnuts

You repeat the insult in your denial of it. Rich, it's not that we disagree about religion. Who cares here? It's that you piss on an admirer and can't even tell you're doing it.