This story is from my alma mater’s newspaper for September 1, 2005. First I laughed at how ridiculous it was then I read the story again.
On my rereading it, I got the impression that the Christian high schools concerned were essentially admitting that the bunk known as Intelligent Design really isn’t science. I also think that the University’s responses described in the article are a pretty good summation of the so-called debate between Science and ID.
What say y’all?
What gave you that impression?
Interesting article, otherwise. Not sure wether to hope that the case gets laughed out of court, or that it actually goes to trial and further exposes the idiocy of creation “science.”
For me it would be the line
Recent stories on the issue from
Chicago Sun-Times: Christian group sues university August 28, 2005
Long Beach Press Telegram: Christian school sues UC August 31, 2005
This Right-wing Christian blog presents the issue as even broader in scope, extending outside just the science courses. (I do not know whether it is accurate.) Albert Mohler blog: Discrimination Against Christian Schools in California? ACSI Sues the University of California
Hey, waitaminute! I thought intelligent design wasn’t a religious theory.
This seems like a pointless suit. The school is not obligated by the First Amendment to deem any and all textbooks credible.
adam yax,
That’s the line that did it for me, also.
Heh, kinda painted themselves into a corner here. They have to admit it’s religion to claim religious discrimination, but then say it’s not religion to get it in into schools.
That is, of course, their main tactic. However, the people filing the suit are a group of independant Christian schools and I don’t think that they get any tax dollars, but I don’t know for sure.
I’m still trying to figure out how this would be a violation of religious freedoms. Does Bob Jones University teach real biology?
Here is Bob Jones University’s biology curriculum. They do teach biology courses, but their stated goal is to turn out scientists with a Christian perspective and proper philosophical grounding. They’re also emphatic about the fact that their faculty has PhDs and some have gone on to postdoc training, but their emphasis on religion and spirituality makes me wonder if some of these faculty members are at Bob Jones because they couldn’t find work elsewhere.
Robin
Og works in mysterious ways, don’t He?
That creationist shill Dobson showed up to run his spiel at my university a year or so ago. The letters Ph.D. were very prominent in all of the adverts for his gig. Of course, nobody supporting him bothered to mention that degree was in math, not biology.
Og no work. OG SMASH!
So these chuckleheads are basically suing for the right to replace UC’s academic standards for incoming students with any old standards they feel like, based on the whims of their faith? Is that the general idea?
I have got to start a religion. What a lovely racket.
L. Ron Hubbard? Is that you?
Please. They’re not chuckleheads. They’re ignorant sods who delight in their ignorance and demand all others to cater to it.
That would be the upshot of it.
Yup, in a nutshell.
This obvious logical flaw in their argument makes me think about cause and effect. Did a lack of critical thinking ability make these people religious in the first place, or did religious indoctination or education create people who lack critical thinking skills?
Hey, maybe a few good science classes would help.
Reminds me of the time some people got upset over a local Christmas display put up by town employees a couple years back. The town removed it. (Although some municipal holiday displays are allowed under the Constitution under narrow circumstances, this one had problems.) Immediate shitstorm followed - letters poured in from all over the country. My favorite one came from an ethnic/religious fraternal organization. The first paragraph argued that the display was completely secular - not religious at all. The second paragraph contended that the town’s removal of the display constituted religious discrimination.
Plus UC has a great non-First Amendment defense. Clearly they would make the same decision if a class taught the validity of Lamarkian evolution, the luminous ether, or that animals can be spontaneously generated from mud.
Bear in mind, ID has been around for centuries except it has been a philsophical argument called teleology. Thus UC can claim that they dismiss science classes that uses ANY outdated scientific theory not currently accepted by the scientific community.
After reflection, I would like to make it clear that I do not believe that all religious people lack critical thinking skills. Some Jesuits and a few Orthodox Jews of my aquaintance convincingly prove otherwise.
(The ability to compartmentalize and essentially turn off those skills when these pople consider some issues is not something that I fully understand, but that’s a subject of another debate.)
The lawsuit is filed on behalf of creationists (who maintain evolution is false), not ID’ers (who maintain evolution is true but that a higher power guides it).
Although it is slick advertising on the ACSI’s part to try and build a big umbrella to try and get as much political clout behind their suit, I doubt this article supports ID’ers admitting anything.
No, that’s not quite what intelligent design proposes. They may say they don’t reject evolution, but their understanding of it is extremely flawed.