Mike Dunford posted Entry 1399 on August 27, 2005 02:43 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1396

It appears that yet another creationism-related lawsuit is in the works. This time, the venue is in California, and it is the Creationists who are doing the suing. Apparently, the Association of Christian Schools International and Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murietta are no longer satisfied with being able to teach their students creationism instead of real biology. Now, they also want to make sure that their students will not have to suffer the consequences of this decision, and they are suing for that “right”.

Continue reading (at The Questionable Authority)

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #45151

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 27, 2005 3:50 PM (e)

Wendell E. Bird, an Atlanta attorney who represents the Assn. of
Christian Schools, said California was the only state in the nation
that had taken such actions against Christian schools.

Ironic, isn’t it, that Wendell Bird was the very same guy who, 20 years ago, was arguing in court that creationism was SCIENCE and had NOTHING, nothing AT ALL, to do with Christianity or religion. And now, 20 years after Aguillard, he appears to be arguing, with equal fervor, creationism isn’t science after all, and it’s religious discrimination to declare that it OUGHT to be.

My irony meter just collapsed into a smoking ruin.

Is there no end at all to the shameless dishonesty of these hucksters?

Comment #45154

Posted by SteveF on August 27, 2005 4:00 PM (e)

Come now Lenny, maybe Bird has considered the evidence, come to a reasoned decision and changed his mind.

Or not.

Comment #45158

Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 27, 2005 4:05 PM (e)

This really is despicable. On the one hand, they want to leech off the respectability of science (which is why they want to attend the University of California instead of, say, Patriot University or Bob Jones University, where they would be welcomed with open arms), yet on the other hand, they’re working very hard to destroy science.

Maybe this is their new strategy, tho – saying creationism was science didnt work, ‘teach the controversy’ has yet to pay off, now they’re claiming that NOT teaching creationism is ‘persecution’.

But I don’t see this working. This is California, not Texas, Ohio, or Kansas. Fundies don’t run things here. Plus, they’re going after the very big, very established, and very popular University of California system, not some suburban school board. The UC system is very proud indeed of their reputation for academic excellence, and there’s no way they’re going to throw that overboard for some out of state religious extremists.

Comment #45161

Posted by Dan S. on August 27, 2005 4:12 PM (e)

Exactly. Consequences, consequences, consequences.
That should be our motto. Well, not that exactly, but - as it says over at TQA, “They just have to recognize that this decision has consequences.”

Comment #45162

Posted by Arden Chatfield on August 27, 2005 4:18 PM (e)

Another thought: the article says a coalition of christian schools are behind this. They’re just now realizing that children who graduate from their schools might be routinely rejected by prestigious higher universities. How much longer do you think parents will still shell out thousands of dollars for their children to go to such private high schools once word gets out that no college better than Bob Jones University will accept them once they graduate? This is a life-or-death matter for them.

Comment #45167

Posted by SEF on August 27, 2005 4:47 PM (e)

All higher education establishments offering science should make candidates sit an exam or at least sign a pledge of allegiance to respect the scientific method over any faith-based prejudices they might have. If they fail/refuse either then they don’t get in to do any science-related subject.

If they are dishonest later then they can have their written oath held up as evidence against them. If they complain, it should be pointed out to them that by refusing to sign they are planning to waste the place of someone more honest than them or are even planning to commit a crime. Rather like drunk drivers are illegal even before they actually murder someone, because their judgement is already known to be faulty.

Comment #45180

Posted by steve on August 27, 2005 7:13 PM (e)

Guy I knew in Georgia went to a bible college. When he applied to FSU to get a Master’s in biology, they made him take a bunch of remedial courses, because he didn’t know the first thing about evolution, common descent, and really almost nothing about genes. He was mad allright, but it wasn’t at FSU.

Comment #45190

Posted by Dan S. on August 27, 2005 8:28 PM (e)

Oh, I don’t know about a pledge of allegiance! That seems a bit much.

Comment #45192

Posted by steve on August 27, 2005 8:35 PM (e)

Comment #45167

Posted by SEF on August 27, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)

All higher education establishments offering science should make candidates sit an exam or at least sign a pledge of allegiance to respect the scientific method over any faith-based prejudices they might have. If they fail/refuse either then they don’t get in to do any science-related subject….
Rather like drunk drivers are illegal even before they actually murder someone, because their judgement is already known to be faulty.

So the charge would be something like Deluded, with Intent to Misunderstand?

Comment #45196

Posted by Ron Zeno on August 27, 2005 9:41 PM (e)

I have an extremely difficult time imagining what the creationists’ legal counsel is thinking, other than that they get paid no matter what.

Comment #45198

Posted by kay on August 27, 2005 10:08 PM (e)

I agree with the “remedial classes” option. Went to a creationist school? Take remedial biology. And pay for it. I don’t see the problem.

Comment #45199

Posted by steve on August 27, 2005 10:27 PM (e)

Comment #45192

Posted by steve on August 27, 2005 08:35 PM (e) (s)

So the charge would be something like Deluded, with Intent to Misunderstand?

Possession of Horsesh*t, with Intent to Distribute.

Comment #45200

Posted by steve on August 27, 2005 10:32 PM (e)

Seriously, though, I enjoy the creationists. They make real scientists look good. Kind of like how the early contestants on American Idol just make Toni Braxton look even better.

Comment #45220

Posted by SEF on August 28, 2005 3:48 AM (e)

I agree with the “remedial classes” option. Went to a creationist school? Take remedial biology. And pay for it. I don’t see the problem.

Yes, remedial classes would be fine for anyone who was merely unfortunate enough through accident of birth to have been sent to a creationist school by their parents. However, they should still have to sign an honesty pledge to science. Otherwise they are wasting the time of the teacher, wasting a place which could have gone to someone worthwhile (and perhaps disrupting lessons for all the rest who got in) and are planning to commit an intellectual crime somewhere down the line.

Comment #45229

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on August 28, 2005 7:06 AM (e)

Guy I knew in Georgia went to a bible college. When he applied to FSU to get a Master’s in biology, they made him take a bunch of remedial courses, because he didn’t know the first thing about evolution, common descent, and really almost nothing about genes. He was mad allright, but it wasn’t at FSU.

I’d like to see all of the Fortune 500 corporados, along with every biotech and science-based company in the US, announce, publicly, that they will not hire anyoen who does not have a proper grounding in accepted science.

Hit the fundies right in their self-righteous little wallets. In any fight between God and Mammon, bet on Mammon. Every time.

Comment #45251

Posted by kay on August 28, 2005 9:03 AM (e)

I disagree on the “pledge” bit… can you imagine the bad PR? Besides, if I take – say – a philosophy course, my duty is to learn the material, not agree with the instructor. I can learn the material AND draw my own conclusions later. While I’m reasonably sure that many creationists would abuse this power if they had it (don’t some creationist societies require that the faculty sign a pledge?) we should know better than that.

Besides, I honestly think that being exposed to sound science for a long enough period of time is sufficient to make people who grew up on wishful thinking recalibrate their assumptions. I go to a Chatolic university with very good academic standards (pretty much the only way you can tell it’s a religious institution is that the core curriculum contains ONE theology course which will be taught by a priest, heck a majority of the faculty is agnostic and they admit it publically) and I met two people who came from a very strict background who ended up rethinking their position on life a lot.

(The main advantage of going to a fairly small chatolic uni is that it’s very free of politics one way or the other, which if you’re an engineering student is great because you don’t have time for that)

Comment #45280

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on August 28, 2005 12:41 PM (e)

I disagree on the “pledge” bit… can you imagine the bad PR?

Speaking as one of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, giving bad PR to the concept of forced pledges might not be a bad idea.

Comment #45305

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on August 28, 2005 2:07 PM (e)

One aspect we all seem to be overlooking. The high schools are suing on grounds of religious discrimination, which is ironic since creationists used to claim ‘creation science’ was science, not religion.

But what about this?

“A threat to one religion is a threat to all,” he said….
The suit, which seeks an injunction against UC’s practices, accuses the university system of employing a double standard by approving courses taught through the viewpoints of other religions, such as Islam, Judaism and Buddhism.

What are these Islamic, Judaic and Buudhist high schools teaching as science? Does anyone have info on this?

Comment #45309

Posted by SEF on August 28, 2005 2:41 PM (e)

giving bad PR to the concept of forced pledges might not be a bad idea

You got it, BB. :-D

Comment #45383

Posted by Rusty Catheter on August 29, 2005 4:04 AM (e)

It gets really silly really quickly. Perhaps centres of religious indoctrination *should* be permitted to teach faith-based medicine etc.

*then* the faithful parents can *really* start to reap the benefits of doctrinally sound education: “pastor” can encourage them to take their illnesses to such graduates (who no doubt tithe). Come all ye faithful! Don’t just bet the afterlife on your faith, bet this one too!

Nasty? Perhaps, but only if “pastor” is *knowingly* peddling something as dependable truth when it is not. I noted on a recent televangelist segment that sick parishoners were encouraged to trust to miracles but the wife of the “pastor” had just returned from a *very* prominent medical establishment.

Rustopher.