Forums | MacLife

If science has an answer for "why", please let me know.

AP Biology?

They're interchangeable in my head. I tend to not worry about philosophical 'whys' in my thought process.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Res, no one is saying these students can't go to UC.  No one is saying that they should be barred from attending.  No one is saying that their applications are being smurf-canned because they went to a religious school.

What they are saying is that the credits are not transferable.  Look at the first sentence in the article:

A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.

Read and understand.  Please.

Denial of course credit means the students will not meet the necessary admission requirements in the area of science.

It's not all evolution; UC also rejected coursework in literature and history.
ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS INTERNATIONAL, et al., v. ROMAN STEARNS, et al.,

jerwin wrote:

resedit wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Res, no one is saying these students can't go to UC.  No one is saying that they should be barred from attending.  No one is saying that their applications are being smurf-canned because they went to a religious school.

What they are saying is that the credits are not transferable.  Look at the first sentence in the article:


Read and understand.  Please.

Denial of course credit means the students will not meet the necessary admission requirements in the area of science.

Must chemistry and physics also be fouled by the stench of your so called God?

No - not since he started using Tag body wash and deodorant.
Chicks really dig Him now.

Note: I held off taking Biology until senior year due to dissection qualms.

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

resedit wrote:

Denial of course credit means the students will not meet the necessary admission requirements in the area of science.

Must chemistry and physics also be fouled by the stench of your so called God?

No - not since he started using Tag body wash and deodorant.
Chicks really dig Him now.

Then let it be settled. Christian students who are frightened of evolution can take courses in Chemistry and Physics. IIrC, high school physics was mechanics and light-- and "god particles" were never mentioned. Similarly high school chemistry was largely inorganic, so life was not meddled with.

jerwin wrote:

resedit wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Must chemistry and physics also be fouled by the stench of your so called God?

No - not since he started using Tag body wash and deodorant.
Chicks really dig Him now.

Then let it be settled. Christian students who are frightened of evolution can take courses in Chemistry and Physics. IIrC, high school physics was mechanics and light-- and "god particles" were never mentioned. Similarly high school chemistry was largely inorganic, so life was not meddled with.

High school physics is pathetic anyway - you can not have a real grasp on physics until you have at *least* had a precal/trig class, or at least a decent understanding of vectors. A decent understanding of vectors requires basic trig.

IMHO the only thing students should be required to take is a semester of biology at a JC - and really, they should only be required to take that if their high school biology class does not cover basic evolution concepts.

Furthermore, they should be allowed to take a test demonstrating they are at the same level of understanding as public high school students who have taken high school biology and avoid the need to take a JC class.

Last edited by resedit (2008-08-13 8:20 pm)

jerwin wrote:

Perhaps high schools should endeavor to teach calculus before senior year, then?

Probably not.

Yes, all we need are more English majors who don't know mitosis from metempsychosis.

Tallgeese wrote:

Yes, all we need are more English majors who don't know mitosis from metempsychosis.

What does that have to do with whether or not the g word was used in their science classes, and how many people could tell you what mitosis is who have not had biology since high school?

In addition, the primary text is an "anthology of excerpts," which UC does not approve, no
matter the content of the excerpts. "College-preparatory courses are expected to require students
to read full-length works." (Lynch Decl. No. 1 Ex. 2, at 5.) Plaintiffs' English expert, Dr. Sandra Stotsky, agreed in her deposition that a general rule against anthologies of excerpts is reasonable.

This course proposed a primary text published by Bob Jones University ("BJU") titled United
States History for Christian Schools. (Pls.' Ex. 607, at 11.) Professor James Given, while on the UC course review committee, reviewed this text and concluded that the text failed to adequately teach critical thinking and modern historical analytic methods. Professor Given reached this conclusion because the text: instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events, attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action, evaluates historical figures and their contributions based on their religious motivations or lack thereof and contains inadequate treatment of several major ethnic groups, women, and non-Christian religious groups.

....

Plaintiffs offer little admissible evidence to the contrary. Plaintiffs' History expert, Professor Paul Vitz, submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU text covers the "basic facts, events, and issues of [United States] history . . . ." (Watters Decl. Ex. X ¶ 34.) However, he does not refute Professor Given's and Professor Nash's conclusions that the text fails to teach historical analytic methods. Professor Vitz also does not opine that Defendants unreasonably rejected the course.

Plaintiffs offer little admissible evidence to the contrary. Plaintiffs' Biology expert, Dr. Michael Behe, submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU text mentions standard scientific content. (Watters Decl. Ex. U.) However, Professor Behe "did not consider how much detail or depth" the texts gave to this standard content. Therefore, Professor Behe fails to refute one of Professor Kennedy's primary concerns that the nature of science, the theory of evolution, and critical thinking are not taught adequately. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to this issue. Defendants had a rational basis for rejecting Calvary Baptist's proposed Biology course.