Take THAT religious nutters!

[Jon Miller]

Actually, DF, the University of California accepts young earth creationists. They just don't accept people who were taught young earth creationism instead of science during their science class. They require that a science class is taken, not just a lot of religion classes.

JM

[MORON]

If one believes scripture is inerrant, how would their interpretation of events differ from someone who doesn't believe in inerrancy?

To believe in "inerrancy" at all is to adopt an methodology that is flawed for the purpose of science. There is nothing held as so perfectly correct that is not subject of questioning, history or not.

History is but a theory, my dear. There is not truth in it.

[Kirnwaffen]

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 textbook is called "Christianity's Influence on America", and, according to the article, states that "the bible is the unerring source for the analysis of historical events". What that says to me, in fact, screams at me, is Americn history as interpreted in a purely religious context. That is not a comprehensive history course. To ask that it be treated as such is patently ridiculous.

I would argue the opposite tack is just as harmful.

Argue away. I didn't say that it isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that the course doesn't take a comprehensive view of American history.

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.

University's take into account a number of factors in the admissions process, of which accreditation is only one. Accreditation guarantees that students meet state requirements for graduation, not university standards of education. It is the university's perogative to determine whether or not the courses a student has taken are sufficient.

[Blaupanzer]

Calling yourself "Moron" is not going to increase people's willingness to accept your input.

Ben is fighting too many critics all at once. He said the decision said to strike the word "God" from the textbooks, that the school accepts other HS graduates without making them take these tests, that requests to take makeup science courses is the same as excluding them, and implied that ID and creationism are theories which account for the fact of the fossil record as well as evolutionary theory. All of these things are wrong.

Based on Ben's previous inputs in other threads, I believe he is making these errors because he feels many of the attacks on his concerns are ad hominum in nature. If not attacks on him personally, then on believers and their beliefs. The other folks here are focused on the words actually being said in this thread, but Ben appears to be responding to a larger set of ideas in which our words are only a subset of codewords for the attacks by Hitchens, Dawkins, and selected other scientists.

As I noted, some of what Ben has said is factually incorrect. I suggest we either not focus on that but refocus on whether UC is exhibiting prejudice by their actions (why or why not) or we let this one go. Note that Jews and Muslims both believe in the old testament. Far as I know, they don't use it as a geology/archeology/biology textbook however. Neither do most Christians. Folks who do that in high school courses can expect that college professors are going to want their students to have a little wider exposure to other theories before accepting them into college-level courses. The court decision, therefore, did not enshrine or reinforce prejudice by supporting UC's policy.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Did you forget to mention that these students kick ass on the standardised testing?

Then they would have no problem getting admission.

students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Then what's the issue? Why shouldn't they get credit for their high school courses if they've passed the standardised testing?

[Blaupanzer]

The UC policy and the court decision only applies to student applicants with HS degrees who did well enough on the SATs, but did NOT pass the precredit tests, thus being required to take remedial courses. I thought you said you read the actual decision, Ben. This is not about credit for high school courses, it's about who does and who does not have to take remedial college courses.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Are you confusing high school graduation credits (which they get) with a partiuclar college systems admission standards. The UC system is not going to automaticically accept evey high school graudute. Their admission standards are independent of what it take simply to graduate a California high school.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben is fighting too many critics all at once. He said the decision said to strike the word "God" from the textbooks, that the school accepts other HS graduates without making them take these tests, that requests to take makeup science courses is the same as excluding them, and implied that ID and creationism are theories which account for the fact of the fossil record as well as evolutionary theory. All of these things are wrong.

Mostly correct but not true.

1. Making these students jump through additional hoops that other HS students don't have to go through is discrimination. If the students do well on the SATs then they should be admitted, regardless of whether they are homeschooled, or graduate from public schools or privat schools. The where is irrelevant.

2. It's not an issue of "making them take makeup courses". They will deny them admission altogether.

3. I don't believe ID accounts for the fossil record at all, it's not a scientific theory. I don't feel evolution does a very good job in backing up all the claims that the theory makes.

Based on Ben's previous inputs in other threads, I believe he is making these errors because he feels many of the attacks on his concerns are ad hominum in nature.

Actually, this has been a good discussion, which has been free from ad-hominem attacks.

Ben appears to be responding to a larger set of ideas in which our words are only a subset of codewords for the attacks by Hitchens, Dawkins, and selected other scientists.

Yes, I'm looking at the big picture here, moreso the then arguments explicitly presented by the other posts. I'm glad someone caught on.

Folks who do that in high school courses can expect that college professors are going to want their students to have a little wider exposure to other theories before accepting them into college-level courses. The court decision, therefore, did not enshrine or reinforce prejudice by supporting UC's policy.

Isn't that the purpose of the university, to provide that broader outlook and to challenge students? If the students have shown that they have the ability to excel and have graduated from high school, I don't see why the university would want to deny them an education at their institution. If I was U of C, I'd welcome them in. You can't influence those whom you reject.

[Ben Kenobi]

The UC policy and the court decision only applies to student applicants with HS degrees who did well enough on the SATs, but did NOT pass the precredit tests, thus being required to take remedial courses. I thought you said you read the actual decision, Ben. This is not about credit for high school courses, it's about who does and who does not have to take remedial college courses.

From what I saw they were only admitting the top 5 percentile based on their SATs. If it were just remedial college classes, then I don't see the issue at all. They would get in, take the entry level courses and proceed with their degrees.

[Ben Kenobi]

The textbook is called "Christianity's Influence on America", and, according to the article, states that "the bible is the unerring source for the analysis of historical events". What that says to me, in fact, screams at me, is Americn history as interpreted in a purely religious context. That is not a comprehensive history course. To ask that it be treated as such is patently ridiculous.

I don't really see how one could interpret American history through the lens of scripture as the fulfillment of prophecy, etc. The facts are the facts, and none of them contradict scripture.

University's take into account a number of factors in the admissions process, of which accreditation is only one. Accreditation guarantees that students meet state requirements for graduation, not university standards of education. It is the university's perogative to determine whether or not the courses a student has taken are sufficient.

True. Which is why they have remedial courses in the first place, so that students who through no fault of their own are in a school that does poorly can still get a good education.

That's one of the reasons I selected IB in high school, is so that I'd have my pick of schools at the university level and could get substantial credit for university. The reason being that the courses were very rigorous.

I can understand the university's hesitation, but if the students do well on their SATs, then that has to be taken into consideration too. You shouldn't penalise a student for excelling whenever challenged, even if he comes from a small town.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

As ridiculous as YEC is, the university still admits people who believe Oprah.

[David Floyd]

Well, then I guess we just identified a glaring problem with their admission standards

[Kirnwaffen]

Taking into account SATs is fine, but, unless they have radically changed since I took them, SATs cover language and math skills only. They don't test conceptual knowledge of any other subject. So its great that these students are doing well on the SATs, but it's entirely possible that they do very well on that test and still lack an adequate understanding of concepts in other subjects.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Taking into account SATs is fine, but, unless they have radically changed since I took them, SATs cover language and math skills only. They don't test conceptual knowledge of any other subject. So its great that these students are doing well on the SATs, but it's entirely possible that they do very well on that test and still lack an adequate understanding of concepts in other subjects.

They probably mean the SAT II subject tests.