No credit for some courses from Christian high schools

[tony.o]

They still have Christians in California? I bet they'd give double credit for homo studies.

[ray8285]

You guys are missing the big picture. Just because a school teaches creation does not mean they don't teach biology or science. CA wants to deny acceptance because they are taught something CA disagrees with.

From what I read in the article no where do they talk about what was actually taught, just that they didn't teach agreement with evolution, doesn't mean they aren't taught evolution.

[Monty Ealerman]

They're denying credit recognition for classes that are nominally science classes but which due to a religious agenda have systematically excluded some science that it is important for their prospective students to be familiar with. They aren't denying credit recognition for classes that don't do the religion-based exclusion.

[ray8285]

They're denying credit recognition for classes that are nominally science classes but which due to a religious agenda have systematically excluded some science that it is important for their prospective students to be familiar with. They aren't denying credit recognition for classes that don't do the religion-based exclusion.

You are assuming what they are taught unless you are there in that class. I did not read anywhere what was/was not being taught. The article only said they rejected evolution, not that it was not taught.(nice double negative) My guess would be they teach evolution and then show the flaws in it. Before anyone says it's an irrefutable fact, no, if it was then it would be scientific law.

[livestrong6]

You guys are missing the big picture. Just because a school teaches creation does not mean they don't teach biology or science. CA wants to deny acceptance because they are taught something CA disagrees with.

From what I read in the article no where do they talk about what was actually taught, just that they didn't teach agreement with evolution, doesn't mean they aren't taught evolution.

They had a interview with some students on CNN.com on what UC was not giving credit for, and it was the science classes. The students that were interviewed mentioned ID, Creation, and then Evolution. Basically they were teaching two christian ways of thinking in a science class. ID is not based in science, and creation is just a story. So how can you get credit for that. Next they will start teaching easter and christmas classes at these schools.

[ray8285]

They had a interview with some students on CNN.com on what UC was not giving credit for, and it was the science classes. The students that were interviewed mentioned ID, Creation, and then Evolution. Basically they were teaching two christian ways of thinking in a science class. ID is not based in science, and creation is just a story. So how can you get credit for that. Next they will start teaching easter and christmas classes at these schools.

Because you just said they also taught evolution!!!! Again, they are teaching the same thing, powers that be just don't like the "other stuff" being taught along side of it. How dare there be dissent and opposing views in science!!!!

[livestrong6]

Yes, they did teach evolution. however, in the same science class they taugh ID and creation. Two ideas that are basically a story from the bible. How can you give credit in a class that is suppose to be based on science when there is two fictional theories being studied. I wonder how mislead these students are in other classes.

[damode]

Google: Rewalk

Apparently its an exoskeleton that helps parapeligics walk. More than likely invented by scientists that believe in SCIENCE.

SCIENCE - 1, ID, CREATION - 0.

I think using science to make parapeligics walk is better than making a parapeligic pray daily for the ability to walk. Again, science beats religion

[ray8285]

Yes, they did teach evolution. however, in the same science class they taugh ID and creation. Two ideas that are basically a story from the bible. How can you give credit in a class that is suppose to be based on science when there is two fictional theories being studied. I wonder how mislead these students are in other classes.

Why not? If they are covering the SAME material as other classes but ADDING additional material I see no problem. Based on your post it sounds as if they are teaching evolution just like other schools but ADDING additional information.

[ray8285]

Google: Rewalk

Apparently its an exoskeleton that helps parapeligics walk. More than likely invented by scientists that believe in SCIENCE.

SCIENCE - 1, ID, CREATION - 0.

I think using science to make parapeligics walk is better than making a parapeligic pray daily for the ability to walk. Again, science beats religion

Weak argument. Just because you are a scientist does not mean you don't believe in God, Jesus, etc. Many scientists who make amazing discoveries are in fact very religious.

[livestrong6]

Why not? If they are covering the SAME material as other classes but ADDING additional material I see no problem. Based on your post it sounds as if they are teaching evolution just like other schools but ADDING additional information.

Yes that is a good point. Again what is the point of teaching the scientific method to students when in the same class you teach stories that are not at all in line with the scientific method. That is a direct contradiction to the material being studied. ID and creations should be taught in a different class like phliosophy of christian Science. Not in a science class. That is were the school got it wrong.

[finfanfromWA]

Otero's ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university's system of reviewing high school classes.

This is not a sweeping hand saying that all Christian schools are bad. Only specfic courses and texts. Now what kind of texts well read on. . .

For example, in Friday's ruling, he upheld the university's rejection of a history course called Christianity's Influence on America. According to a UC professor on the course review committee, the primary text, published by Bob Jones University, "instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events" and evaluates historical figures based on their religious motivations.

If that was the primary text of the course, there should be no credit. I do believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God, but can we really use it for American History? Further more if it bases historical figures only on their religious motivations they are definately missing alot.

Would anyone support a History class called the Islamic influence on America, where the text book was published by a fundamental Muslim University that says that the "Koran is the unerring source for analysis of historical events?"

Another rejected text, "Biology for Christian Schools," declares on the first page that "if (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong," Otero said.

If there was a statement in a "Biology for Islamic Schools" says that if scientific conclusions contradict the Koran, science is simply wrong" I would have a problem with it.

This isn't picking on Christian Schools, it is having a standard for the University.

I guess the real important factor is how this new ruling is applied. As long as other religions are treated with the same skeptism as Christianity then I deem it fair. If Islamic schools are getting away with this then I have a problem.