Take THAT religious nutters!

[DirtyMartini]

To paraphrase a great movie:

Calm down and listen to me!

Nobody's sayin'
you can't believe in God.

Nobody's even sayin'
you teach about God.

All we're sayin' is you
can't teach about God in a science book.

That's not so bad,
is it?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yet the students seem to do just fine at the university level. Obviously the issue isn't one of scientific competence, but philosophy.

You keep saying this, but you don't hav eany evidence of it. I, personally, know how annoying and difficult it is if some student isn't prepraed for his/her course.

It's discrimination if you make the statement that a student is unqualified for admission because he believes that scripture is inerrant. The university is going to get sued, and this will get overturned. Had the university made it an issue of competence, I could see the point, but as soon as they even mentioned inerrancy, they lose, simple as that.

The article never said that a student was unqualified for admission because he/she beleives that scripture is inerrant. The issue is if scripture inerrancy is being taught in science class. It is fine if it is being taught in theology class or something.

Science must be taught in science class. Not theology. That is a requirement of course work, before admittance (or otherwise demonstration, through tests).

If the student can't past the tests, they are showing a lack of competance.

JM

[David Floyd]

Good question. My perspective is from the outside in. I know for a fact that Christians are generally mocked and ridiculed by folks who don't know better. I know because I was one of the folks who used to mock. The idea is that Christianity is superstition, and that one of the primary goals of science is to destroy all superstition. Ergo, it becomes the mission of science to not only expose Christianity, but to destroy it because the existence of Christianity is contrary to scientific principles.

First of all, Christianity is not necessarily opposed to scientific principles. As you have aptly pointed out, science and religion are two different fields. It's just that fundamentalist Christianity that believes in Young Earth Creationism is contrary to science. A perfectly reasonable belief is along these lines - "I'm a Christian and believe in God. I also trust science. I believe that if science clearly contradicts the Bible, then my interpretation of the Bible must be in error."

What's wrong with that?

I doubt if a science textbook taught the dharma or the Koran, that the school would have an issue. When they explicitly refer to the inerrancy of scripture, this automatically makes the Christians feel like they are being singled out. I agree that philosophy is not science, and that includes Atheists. Atheists are no better then the Christians they despise when they insist that Darwinism is an affirmation of Athiesm, and go to great lengths to attack Christianity. I think it's natural for Christians to want to defend themselves from that hostility.

First of all, there you go again assuming "scientists" despise "Christians". That's a ridiculous assumption not borne out by facts or logic. There is no REASON for scientists to despise Christianity. I've yet to meet a scientist who feels threatened by religion, because religion does not threaten science. What religion does threaten, though, is education. Teaching religion in science courses is bad public policy, because if for no other reason, it will reduce the competitiveness of your students as against students in other countries who are not taught religion in science courses. Religion detracts from a gaining a sound basis in science, because if it's taught as FACT, then all the students learn is that the Scientific Method is valid, except for when Jimmy Swaggert says it isn't.

Honestly, if the university really didn't care about the philosophy, they would just admit the students based on the science content. However, the truth is that they DO care about the philosophy, and because the philosophy is opposed to what the university believes, they are excluding these students. It's not accreditation, but they are not giving the student's credit for these courses wrt to admissions. In essence they are saying that these private high schools don't have the level necessary to get in rather then to get credit at a university level. I think this is total bunk.

Again, the students might have a fine technical scientific understanding. The problem is with critical thinking. If they are will to automatically throw out scientific theory because it disagrees with their religious beliefs and for no other reason, then having all the theoretical knowledge in the world won't matter - these people are NOT prepared to compete intellectually because of their very glaring gap in logic.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yet the students seem to do just fine at the university level. Obviously the issue isn't one of scientific competence, but philosophy.

Yeah, and my philosophy is that in order to do college level work on a topic, you must have done high school level work on that topic. :; College admissions is competitive (esp. UC berkeley). Sure, some of these kids might be smart enough to hack it by learning on their own time the material they should have received in HS science, but that doesn't change the fact that they haven't done the required prerequisites for admissions. I personally know at leat 5 HS dropouts who are at least as smart as me, doesn't mean they should get into college without a HS diploma. Letting in kids who haven't met prereqs deprives kids who have done the work of spots.

Anyway, speaking of philosophy, if these kids truly believe that God-is-All-science, why in his holy name do they want to attend a university that teaches teh competing eval philosophy of atheist dogma science anyway? Go to Creationist U for darwin's sake. Lead the revolution.

Not sure why I'm bothering to enter this fray...

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is that if we use objective measures of reliability, then the bible stacks up better then anything else that we have from the period. The issue isn't critical thinking. I don't see why a Christian would have less critical thinking, unless you are assuming that Christianity doesn't require you to think, just to accept what you read at face value.

We have more copies of scripture, and ones that are closer to the original date of composition, then anything else from that time period. It's not even close. It's an order of magnitude difference. We have copies of scripture only 150 years after Christ, while with aristotle, it's 1500 years. If we believe that errors creep in at an equal rate over time, then we should believe scripture to be more accurate then any other historian, just because the copies we have are closer to the original date of composition.

[Jon Miller]

how does that have anything to do with science objectivity

[David Floyd]

Right. I don't care if the Bible is the most reliable document from it's period, and neither do scientists, when it comes to talking about the origin of life and all that.

That's like using a Garfield comic strip to justify the US intervention in Iraq.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
unless you are assuming that Christianity doesn't require you to think, just to accept what you read at face value.

.

I, for one, am assuming that.

At least that's what's apparently being presented in the christian 'science' texts:

"If scientific conclusions contradict God's word, then teh scientific conclusions are wrong" (quoted from memory, may not be perfectly precise)

= the complete opposite of critical thinking

I WIN!

[Ben Kenobi]

Letting in kids who haven't met prereqs deprives kids who have done the work of spots.

They have a HS degree from an accredited high school in California. If the school is accredited to give out HS degrees, then UC should accept them. They have to write their SATs anyways, so what does the university gain by exposing themselves to litigation?

Anyway, speaking of philosophy, if these kids truly believe that God-is-All-science, why in his holy name do they want to attend a university that teaches teh competing eval philosophy of atheist dogma science anyway? Go to Creationist U for darwin's sake. Lead the revolution.

Would you be willing to accredit said university to give out degrees?

Not sure why I'm bothering to enter this fray...

[Kirnwaffen]

And that sir, is discrimination. You can't exclude people because they are taught this, especially not in history. Is there a theory of history that accounts for all of causality? No. Provided that the facts are identical, I don't see how teaching the historical reliability of scripture is at all a hindrance to obtaining knowledge of history.

And that sir, is obsessive determination to see discrimination where there is none. Teaching that the Bible is a historically accurate source and teaching that it is the unerring source for the interpretation of historical events are completely different. The former points out something that is, to some extent, true. The latter views historical events in a particular context, to the exclusion of others. That causes problems in college level coursework.

It's discrimination if you make the statement that a student is unqualified for admission because he believes that scripture is inerrant. The university is going to get sued, and this will get overturned. Had the university made it an issue of competence, I could see the point, but as soon as they even mentioned inerrancy, they lose, simple as that.

They ARE making it an issue of competence. The students have the opportunity to take a test and prove themselves. No one takes issue with believing in the inerrancy of the scripture; they take issue with the inattention paid by the course content to important topics and concepts.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Would you be willing to accredit said university to give out degrees?

No! But why would they care what I think? I wouldn't have accredited their BS high schools either.

[Ben Kenobi]

And that sir, is obsessive determination to see discrimination where there is none. Teaching that the Bible is a historically accurate source and teaching that it is the unerring source for the interpretation of historical events are completely different.

How does the interpretation of the bible affect historical interpretation of events outside of antiquity? The distinction only plays a role in antiquity, and even then, if the bible is correct in the history, then there will be no substantive difference between the two.

The former points out something that is, to some extent, true. The latter views historical events in a particular context, to the exclusion of others. That causes problems in college level coursework.

I would argue the opposite tack is just as harmful.

They ARE making it an issue of competence. The students have the opportunity to take a test and prove themselves.

Why are they discriminating against kids from one accredited school that just happens to be Christian? If they are accredited then they need to have some solid evidence to explain why they should treat graduates differently when they come from that school and not others.

No one takes issue with believing in the inerrancy of the scripture; they take issue with the inattention paid by the course content to important topics and concepts.

My history 12 course dealt with the 20th century. If one believes scripture is inerrant, how would their interpretation of events differ from someone who doesn't believe in inerrancy?

[Ben Kenobi]

No! But why would they care what I think? I wouldn't have accredited their BS high schools either.

Then U of C should test all the students in California, not just some of them that they have a personal bias against.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then U of C should test all the students in California, not just some of them that they have a personal bias against.

They do. However, they are suppose to let in highschool graduates. They are just determining who are those highschool graduates who can't pass the tests, but still have passed the required coursework.

I guarantee that they are testing everyone.

JM

[David Floyd]

BK, here's the deal. I think I make UC's point for them.

There are some beliefs that are so ridiculous, so crazy, that belief in them automatically disqualifies you from higher education. These beliefs include, but are not limited to:

-The Tooth Fairy
-9/11 Conspiracy Theories
-Anything Oprah says
-OJ Simpson's innocence

Also, Young Earth Creationism. If you believe in Young Earth Creationism, that belief is so patently ridiculous in the face of scientific evidence that it defies all description. It justifies discrimination. I don't even need to make an argument for why. It's self evident. It's like calling the 19 year old who still believes in Santa Claus a ******. You don't need a reason, he just is.

THAT is why U of C is doing what it is doing. Most of us understand that. I can't even believe this argument has gone on so long.