Take THAT religious nutters!

[Jon Miller]

It doesn't seem like 'Biology for Christian Schools' teaches biology (or even science), why should it give credit as a science course?

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Typical Ben overreaction. No it's not just because the text books mention GOD.

They said they'd approve it if they struck any mention of God from the textbooks. That's not right, I'm sorry.

As long as the text is open minded like the later one above that discusses both creationism and evolution it's fine. It's when it totally unscientific that there's a problem.

Where's the evidence that the book is contrary to science? I'm not seeing it. The students seem to be doing just fine in the university, so obviously, the courses they are taking have no hindrance on their later performance.

I would agree with you that there was cause for concern if student who had taken this course did poorly at the university level, but that's not what we see. Obviously the Christian perspective is not a hindrance to the effective understanding of scientific principles.

SO chill a bit Ben and reread the article.

I've actually read the decision, and not the reporters analysis of it which Oerdin has posted. They said, we have no problems with accreditation provided you excise any mention of God from the textbook.

As for your quote, what's the issue there? I believe in the same thing, if there is a scientific principle which contradicts the bible, then the principle is wrong.

I ask you what issue is that in becoming an effective biologist, or a chemist or a physicist. Does the text explicitly say "this teaching is contrary to the bible"? Which teachings do they refer to?

Again, what the book actually teaches is that random evolution is contrary to scripture, and unsupported by scientific evolution. It doesn't deny that evolution may exist, only that the mechanism is not random. In what way does that make a person a bad biologist?

[Whaleboy]

You'd turn away good students because they aren't Dawkin's devotees? If the students can ace a standardised test, there is no objective rationale for excluding them from the university.

I don't see that this has to involve religious / atheist activists at all. I think the whole argument is based on the statement that "a science class taught after 1859 which teaches that life was created by some undefined supernatural force is a contradiction in terms".

It is not science and frankly you're either brave, idiotic or needing to carry a lot of evidence to claim otherwise. It is right that non-science shouldn't be recognised as science just as it's right that 2+2 doesn't = 5.

[dannubis]

^^^ he speaks truth

[dannubis]

And again BEN, why the hell you and all the other religious nutters are so keen on taking religion out of the church and force it upon people in their worldly eduction is beyond me...

Keep the social message for all I care ( God knows it is a good one ) but do not take it at face value.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see that this has to involve religious / atheist activist at all. I think the whole argument is based on the statement that "a science class taught after 1859 which teaches that life was created by some undefined supernatural force is a contradiction in terms".

So, where's the evidence for the creation of life by random evolution?

Darwin did not assert as such, nor did he prove it.

It is not science and frankly you're either brave, idiotic or needing to carry a lot of evidence to claim otherwise. It is right that non-science shouldn't be recognised as science just as it's right that 2+2 doesn't = 5.

Christians can be fine scientists. I don't see the conflict here. If biologists don't have sufficient understanding of their field, or non-biologist atheists who insist on conformity with their analysis, yes I can understand the conflict.

I know quite a few Christians who are in sciences, and some of them are in biology. Some teach it as well. What evidence do you have that these Christians lack understanding of the science of biology?

I think the only way to accurately gage a curriculum is through standardised testing. If the students can do well on a standard test, then that's proof they are learning scientific principles through this course.

[dannubis]

Yes, but those priciples can not support scientific garbage from the time people were still developing the ability to write things down.

[Ben Kenobi]

And again BEN, why the hell you and all the other religious nutters are so keen on taking religion out of the church and force it upon people in their worldly eduction is beyond me...

Force it? Did you miss the fact that this is a private Christian high school? No one is being forced to take these courses.

Keep the social message for all I care ( God knows it is a good one ) but do not take it at face value.

Do you have any evidence that Christians make poor biologists and lack understanding of the principles of biology?

[Jon Miller]

Ben, while there are statistics that say that students from religious schools do well, there are no statistics (that I know of) that compare students from religious schools that use the following styles of text books:

1. standard
2. Biology: God's Living Creation
3. Biology for Christian Schools

The only one that is being attacked is 3. And maybe those students to perform poorly in science/etc type classes afterwards. It is only christian education overall (which is a mix of 1, 2, and 3) which does very well (and from what I have seen, it is mostly 1 and 2).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Do you have any evidence that Christians make poor biologists and lack understanding of the principles of biology?

Do you have any evidence that students who use these poor text books make good biologists or biology students?

I would assume not, because I don't see them getting the needed education.

JM

[Whaleboy]

So, where's the evidence for the creation of life by random evolution?

Evolution =| random.

Christians can be fine scientists. I don't see the conflict here. If biologists don't have sufficient understanding of their field, or non-biologist atheists who insist on conformity with their analysis, yes I can understand the conflict.

Private belief in Christianity =| Intellectual assent to creationism.

Private belief in Christianity =| inability to perform science

Intellectual assent to creationism = inability to perform science

[rah]

They said they'd approve it if they struck any mention of God from the textbooks. That's not right, I'm sorry.

What article are you reading? It doesn't say that anywhere.

And Again,

Most students qualify by taking an approved set of college preparatory classes; students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.

So it doesn't bar them from the school, it just doesn't give them credit for some marginal classes.

SO what is your problem. (besides being able to read)

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Evolution =| random.



Private belief in Christianity =| Intellectual assent to creationism.

Private belief in Christianity =| inability to perform science

Intellectual assent to creationism = inability to perform science

Even the 3rd isn't quite true. However, it is true that a lack of knowledge about science and the scientific process (which is in this 3. set of books) precludes one from understanding scientific principles and using them.

That is different than an intellectual asset to creationism.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, while there are statistics that say that students from religious schools do well, there are no statistics (that I know of) that compare students from religious schools that use the following styles of text books:

1. standard
2. Biology: God's Living Creation
3. Biology for Christian Schools

Then there should be a study done to show that students who use 3 fare poorly at the university prior to stripping accreditation.

As it is they lack any evidence for their position beyond distaste for Christian principles. Just because they don't like Christian teachings doesn't justify them dropping accreditation.

The only one that is being attacked is 3. And maybe those students to perform poorly in science/etc type classes afterwards.

Any evidence for that statement? I don't believe the university has done their homework here.

It is only christian education overall (which is a mix of 1, 2, and 3) which does very well (and from what I have seen, it is mostly 1 and 2).

Then the burden is on the school to show that students who use 3 only fare poorly at the university level.

[Whaleboy]

Even the 3rd isn't quite true. However, it is true that a lack of knowledge about science and the scientific process (which is in this 3. set of books) precludes one from understanding scientific principles and using them.

That is different than an intellectual asset to creationism.

JM

A fair point. Perhaps it is better to say that Christianity tends to creationism, and the reasons why one might believe in creationism predicate a lack of scientific principles.