Does a Christian high school teach German or algebra any different than a non-religious school? Probably not. 2+2=4 whether Jesus is hanging on a cross on the wall or not. But a Christian high school might teach biology differently, because teachers will explain the reason humans walk upright on two feet is because God wanted it that way, not because of a little thing called evolution. Which is why the University of California didn’t want to give students credit for these fictional classes, and considered some of these students ineligible to apply. And the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court just agreed.
The suit, which started in 2005, is either finally dead, or headed to the Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit rejected a challenge to the University of California’s admission policy, brought by Christian schools and students who said the university discriminates by refusing to approve certain high-school religious and ethics courses.
“As a university, one of UC’s ‘essential freedoms’ is to ‘determine for itself on academic grounds … who may be admitted to study,'” the court wrote, quoting a 1957 Supreme Court decision. “UC exercises that freedom by reviewing high school courses to ensure that they adequately prepare incoming students for the rigors of academic study at UC.”
The Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School and five of its students appealed a district court ruling that UC’s admission policy is constitutional.
The schools claimed that UC rejects courses taken at Christian high schools because those courses allegedly “add a religious viewpoint.” UC’s policy is to approve only courses that “treat the study of religion or ethics from a standpoint of scholarly inquiry, rather than in a manner limited to one denomination or viewpoint.”
The 9th Circuit said the schools and students offered no evidence to back up their claim that the policy leads to the suppression of speech.
“Nor can they,” the Pasadena-based appellate panel ruled. “It is undisputed that UC’s policy does not prohibit or otherwise prevent high schools, including Calvary, from teaching whatever and however they choose or students from taking any course they wish.”
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=61224ae1-b8f3-45f3-8dc0-76a92cc31097)
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
Der, God is Fiction!
Cam
This is what those schools don’t get. If the UC system had to give credit for those classes, what is to stop any other religious school from promoting it’s own classes for college credit? Scientology could open up a school and give credit for classes saying that Xeno wants all psychologists dead, a Wahabist Madrasa could open up here and their students could get credit for being taught that Christians were evil and must be fought etc… Sorry, but you don’t get to just demand credit for having your students basically go to church as one of their classes.
Qjersey
More so called christians trying to shove their religious view onto everyone else.
How would these kids fare in a college level biology class? would they be playing catch up? would they begin harassing the professor with their view and then sue when they are told to ‘learn what I teach’ or fail?
If mommy and daddy can afford to send you to a private christian high school, I’m sure they can foot the bill for a private christian college.
Jaroslaw
Not to take either side, but is the ENTIRE class about creationism or is it as implied in the article “an addtional viewpoint?” Large colleges tend to be rather snotty & exclusive about some things.
Tina
On the other had, as a definite scientist and not a christian, I took an Evolution/Creation class here at my college. It was fairly in-depth and was mostly related to history of the debate and a study of the opposing viewpoints (with no mention of alternatives or explanations of *other* viewpoints…) but dammit I spent the money on tuition and I had damn well better get college credit for that Philosophy course.
Lukas P.
Will Creationists flood Queerty today like Adam Lambert fans did yesterday? Will they rant and rave and convince us Queerts of the errors in our ways? I cannot wait to find out!
Seriously, someone who has learned the basics of science (biology, astronomy, geology, etc.) only from what the Bible teaches is not well equipped to handle college material that presupposes that students believe the earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is more than 100,000 years old.
Jaroslaw
Lukas P – couldn’t agree more, that is why I asked if the class/es were strictly creationist. If they learned all the other stuff PLUS that, then I think it is rather divisive of the school to refuse their credits.
scott ny'er
@Lukas P.: LOL. C’mon, it’s funny when that happens with the Adam Lambert fans. It makes the day go by quicker. I admit, I was a little shocked at all the Lambert fans popping in. But whatever. It’s all good. It’s the religious zealots and scary peeps who threaten posters that makes me somewhat concerned.
RS
@Tina: “I took an Evolution/Creation class here at my college … mostly related to history of the debate and a study of the opposing viewpoints … but dammit I spent the money on tuition and I had damn well better get college credit for that Philosophy course.”
I think you will get credit for it as either Philosophy or History, just as you could get credit for a comparative religions class. The difference here is that UC is saying that a course on creationism doesn’t satisfy their science requirement.
Gary
CREATIONISM IS A FAIRY TALE WITH ZERO BASIS IN FACT. Creationism is the opposite of Science – that’s why you can’t get Science credit for it.
These people seem to think this is like Christianity vs. Islam or something – nothing could be further from the truth.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism – those are nothing but baseless, primitive myths. There is nothing testable and nothing provable there – it’s all opinion, nothing more, not to mention utterly illogical.
This is in strong contrast to Science, which is always only real, observable, quantifiable data.
There is a major, fundamental difference here – if they’d gotten a proper education from a truly accredited institution, they’d be able to understand that difference.
I’d love to see how these “graduates” fare in a proper college biology class….
Lukas P.
@scott ny’er: Agreed! I just still find it funny that the Glamb-fans chose to descend upon us like a biblical plague [locusts] and wondered if the miscreationists would do likewise. The fundies are either spending less time trolling the interwebs or afraid that gayness is contagious!
@Jaroslaw: Good question! I wonder how well versed the average homeschooled, Bible-carrying student is in the fine art of carbon-dating! Knowing the “other side’s” arguments better than its opponents do is a tactic that is often missing from the curriculum — a nice way of saying that many of us couldn,t argue vs. creationism because we’ve not studied it! [well maybe that’s just me….]
RomanHans
Great explanation, Gary! Christians can teach their kids there’s a God and angels flying around in heaven, but you’d have to be crazy to give them college credit for astronomy.
Lexxvs
On the XX century, with the high pressure of the URSS on its back, the USA sacrificed all its religious mumbo jumbo under the fear of being surpassed on scientific grounds by its red archrival.
Now that things seem different, science is looked upon as a caprice that is no more needed; a truth that hurts conservative’s religious hearts. Or is determined to crush paranoiac parallel worlds of fantasy and delusion.
As long as the USA can hire foreigner professionals and scientists…
The religious weed is growing trying to take hold on the public’s minds, floating on the advantage given by the horrendous educational system of the States. If they succeed, sooner or later the price of disregarding science will come with full force to take its toll.
schlukitz
Gary said CREATIONISM IS A FAIRY TALE WITH ZERO BASIS IN FACT.
I agree. What I don’t understand, is how so many people can believe in something that has zero basis in fact?
Noelle
Evolution isn’t true at all.
http://www.susancanthony.com/aboutSusan/evolution.html
Peter
So much for an OPEN mind. It is now empty!
Cam
No. 15 · Noelle said…
Evolution isn’t true at all.
http://www.susancanthony.com/a…..ution.html
________________________________
Noelle, are you a joke or what? You claim that evolution isn’t true, and to back up your contention you post a random link to some persons diary-like blog where they say “Gee, after looking at evolution and creationism I think creationism makes more sense.”
Really Noelle? THAT is what you are using as proof to back up your statement? I can just as easily post any link that says just the opposit of yours…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
The main difference being, there is a scientific basis for Evolution, and unless God wants to appear and say “Hey, I did this” you pretty much have nothing to back up your opinion.
Lukas P.
@schlukitz: The real answer? Because for religionists, faith trumps data and logic. As Bill Maher might put it, they have the more powerful “imaginary friend.”
For those of us who traffic in “science,” we’re required to deal with — and specify — that which is uncertain and the things/factors which are “proven” or “unknown.” Any research must clearly state at the outset what the assumptions are. Results are expressed in conditional and limited terms: “X causes Y when A = B.”
Science deals with shades of grey, and religion centers on the oh-so-simple binary world of unquestionable black and white, right/ wrong, good/evil, data/supposition. [let’s leave paper vs plastic out of the equation, shall we?]
Scientists admit to limitations of our studies, religious folks are dead on certain of their “truths” and are not obliged — or encouraged — to weigh, consider or evaluate alternative ways of viewing the world.
Josh
I can vouch for Christian School’s not preparing students for reality.
In the early to mid 90’s, I went to a Christian School in California. It was believed, I think, that public school would kill me as one of those young gay men whom everyone knows is gay but doesn’t want to say aloud.
In this school, we were taught, in science classes and in Bible classes as well, that the earth was only 6000 years old. One of the methods of proof used to justify this was a theory regarding the accumulation of dust on the moon’s surface. A theory debunked YEARS earlier by any scientist worth his degree, in peer reviewed journals and everything. We were also taught about the missing day NASA ‘found’ that proved the story in Joshua 10 and that Darwin recanted on his deathbed, among other things.
Christianity likes to proclaim that they hold the monopoly on truth, but when they teach young, impressionable minds these and other UTTER LIES….one has to question their validity in every other arena. Luckily, I got out. Many are not so lucky.
Jim
Religious “education” is the founding principle of Idiocracy.
schlukitz
As always, you are spot-on, Lukas P.
The Christians decided a very long time ago that it was so much easier to just let someone else do the thinking for them. That way, they don’t have to take responsibility for anything. The Creator done did it all!
And, if the Creator done did it, then even the bad, has to be good too, right!
Oh, wait. That doesn’t make any sense, does it?
But then, if one is religious, making sense is not a requirement. lol
mm
ignorance is the new black.
darwars
@Josh: OMG, my partner was told the same thing about moon dust in Methodist youth group! (Around 1994)
Josh
@darwars: LOL That’s around the time I was taught it in science class, so it must’ve been a bigger tactic for a while than I realized.
Pathetic, huh?
chris
See this is wierd, I went to a catholic school and was never once taught creationsism. It was evolution all the way.
Lukas P.
@chris: The Catholic Church, unlike many strands of Protestantism, doesn’t promote creationism, but officially has yet to take a definitive stance on evolution. They learned the hard way to bite their tongues and “wait and see” after that whole bitchy business of condemning Gallileo! Oops…..
The creation saga in ye olde book of Genesis is supposedly to be treated by Katoliker as something of an allegory — except, well, in cases where the plot conforms to official doctrine.
We’re still awaiting word from the fundies how the Earth’s population grew with only 3 men and one woman starting the human race, because Miss unwed Eve would’ve had to bonk one of her sons to populate the planet, absent some unknown un-named lady being thrown into the mix by the Almighty.
The whole theory of evolution –like other theories — continues to morph and be debated/adjusted/ debugged among scientists, so that serves as “proof” to the linda evangelistas that it’s a bad, satanic theorem to be ridiculed and protested.
FakeName
Lukas P. sez: The Catholic Church, unlike many strands of Protestantism, doesn’t promote creationism, but officially has yet to take a definitive stance on evolution.
The Catholic Church has issued multiple statements that evolution is compatible with a Christian view of creation.
Lukas P. sez: The creation saga in ye olde book of Genesis
Which one? There are two.
Jaroslaw
#26 Lukas P – re: how the earth was populated – my paternal grandfather, who I never knew was religious, showed me in the Bible very shortly after the Garden of Eden story (maybe Exodus) all of a sudden an Ethiopian woman was mentioned. Or maybe it was just a woman, this was 25 years ago, sorry I can’t remember, but I do remember thumbing through the Bible after he showed me the passage, so it is definitely in there.
I’d like someone to explain how we get from Adam/Eve – Cain/Abel to a woman from another place.
Alfonzo
I believe in creationism, but I also believe in evolution. I believe in man has changed, but have a hard time believing we came from primates. I understand and agree with science that we can prove, but it is possible for scientists to make mistakes, is it not? I’m not saying they did, in this case, but I am saying it is possible, just like you might ask if it is possible the Bible is wrong.
I just think it’s disrespectful, rude and condescending to say that creationism is make-believe. I also understand this blog is an opinion, so I’m not going to get all butthurt about it, I’m just going to say how do you feel when nutbag “Christians” make claims about us?
schlukitz
No. 29 · Alfonzo
I believe in creationism, but I also believe in evolution.
Um…isn’t that a bit like saying that you believe in quantum physics, but you also believe in leprechauns and Hobbits?
Nature has left a complete history, etched in stone, if you will and radio-carbon dating can give us an exact time of each arheological discovery as proof of it’s occurrence.
What proof can you offer for creationism besides a book of fairy tales and the rantings of people who existed centuries ago, whom we are not even sure existed?
Josh
Carl Sagan, quoted from his book “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors”: After being raised from childhood to believe that our ancestor, our “Creator”, is king of the universe, it is most difficult to now accept that we actually come from the lowest forms…mud, slime, and mindless beings too small to be seen with the naked eye.
This concept of a creator, a very old and comfortable conceit, a safe and politically correct view of our world and its creation, has really been crumbling for centuries. Science has provided the greatest service by awakening us to our true circumstances. There is no longer a need to invoke a god, or to explain our existence through a rebellious angel and the almighty. There is no sign, or proof, of divine guidance. Chaos is being turned into order in this universe through laws of nature that we are now able to grasp; motion, gravity, physics, and chemistry.
No
Who cares? Neither side of the fence will help you perform your daily tasks in an office building or fetch coffee for your boss.
Real life isn’t about how you came to be. Real life is being able to do what your boss tells you, collect your paycheck, and take care of your brood.
Stop complicating everything with bullshit.
Josh
@No: Wow…the corporate de-education of America has a new spokesman…
A Greenhill
At my private Christian high school, evolution was not discussed or approached… and neither was creationism.
As for our religious studies, they were pretty objective and straight-forward.
I wonder if my biology class would count these days… modern biology is becoming increasingly dependent on evolutionary concepts that sooner or later there’s going to be a breaking point…
Lukas P.
@FakeName: Thanks for the clarification. The two stories in Genesis seem to contradict each other, don’t they. How “in our image” got blended into the rest of the narrative, I’ll never understand. The Catholic statement about evolution being “consistent” with Catholicism is something I really should have remembered. I don’t think the LDS or fundies will be jumping on THAT reasoning in my lifetime.
The creationists delight in watching the debates among the evolutionists, because any new rift in the fine points automatically “proves” to them that Creationism is the superior, error-free and absolute truth.
schlukitz
No. 33 · Josh
My reaction exactly, Josh.
Talk about the de-humanizing the species homo-erectus.
CJ
Science is about breaking barriers and searching for truth. Evolution explains one facet of the human story, but it doesn’t fill in all the blanks. Yes, it’s completely logical to be able to use Judeo-Christian religions to fill in those empty spaces if one looks as the bible stories not as literal fact, but fables.
Also, we don’t know much of anything for certain, so please don’t down others’ beliefs when they don’t harm anyone and don’t condemn an entire religion because of a few bigots. What most Creationists (And Evolutionists, for that matter) fail to realize is that the theory of evolution is in its infancy. We can’t fully develop these ideas solely because the science isn’t there. Maybe my scientific background makes me biased, but I think genetics is the real key in developing the full course of human history. We still don’t have a clue what our DNA does in the broad scheme of things, so we don’t need to teach anything as concrete fact just yet.
That being said, if the classes covered the basic science requirements, the credits should be accepted. No question. There’s nothing wrong with exploring the realm of creationism, just as there’s nothing wrong with exploring seemingly radical scientific theories.
I know, guys. Wall of text. I’m sorry. XD
CJ
@schlukitz:
“…and radio-carbon dating can give us an exact time of each archeological discovery as proof of it’s occurrence.”
I don’t mean to be rude, but carbon dating isn’t an exact science. It only gives a general estimate of a time period, which is solely dependent on relatively uncertain knowledge of radioactive isotopes. I mean, that’s assuming that the half-life of Carbon 14 can never be altered, and…well, going into all the uncertainties makes my head spin a little. XD
McShane
No. 13 · Lexxvs: correct: the educationalsystem in the U.S is one of the worst in the World; a perfect place for the outcropping of superstitious rant instead of fact.
also:
this has a clear reason :
No. 33 · Josh
@No: Wow…the corporate de-education of America has a new spokesman…
LOL usa
Martin MacInnis
Fossils are only a small piece of the evidence for evolution. Even had there been no fossil remnants of earlier species (and this is the case for most species), there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution. For example: the distribution of animals around the world (e.g. marsupials confined to Australia); homologous structures (mammals share a similar skeletal plan); molecular genetics (our ancestry and the ancestry of all species is written in our DNA). Carbon dating is not required to show evolution, it is merely another piece of evidence in a very one-sided debate (to use the term “debate” loosely).
dontblamemeivotedforhillary
GOD doesn’t exist! Phew, cleared that one up!
Joshua
Look people, macroevolution is a theory and that’s all it is! In SCIENCE one has to be able to OBSERVE and TEST the hypotheses. Not once have I seen macroevolution occur for that matter tested. Regardless if students or professors believe in creationism or evoultion both should have the opportunity to be taught in the same class. Science and creationism have a lot in common. About 55% of scientist believe in evolution while the other 45% believe in a higher being who created everything.
Tia
How many of you guys have actually been to a christian school and taken a creationist class?
The truth is, biology has mostly to do with cell processes, things that don’t make a difference whether you believe god created you or not. ATGC is the same in a private school as it is in a public school.
and most of the evolution referred to in public school is micro evolution/natural selection which IS taught in creationism, and understood by them. what y’all think of most is MACRO evolution, the belief that every organism evolved from one single-celled organism, which can’t be proved one way or another.
I took biology in a christian school, and i was actually better equipped than most of my classmates in college.
have you all ever thought that a similar structure of being comes from a similar creator, and not just because we all happened to evolve and somehow be suited to survive without any major issues to our genetic make up? Just like all of a painter’s pictures generally have the same style… it’s their trademark.
If you want to bash something like a creationist class, actually take one before you just assume.
Tia
“We’re still awaiting word from the fundies how the Earth’s population grew with only 3 men and one woman starting the human race, because Miss unwed Eve would’ve had to bonk one of her sons to populate the planet, absent some unknown un-named lady being thrown into the mix by the Almighty.”
I assume the 3 men you’re referring to are Adam, Cain, and Abel? (abel, who was then subsequentially killed by his brother?)
Cain and Abel weren’t the only two children adam and eve had. They’re the only ones people REMEMBER after reading the bible, because they were the first case of murder.
It would be possible for the earth to become populated via adam and eve. Humans are packed with almost infinite possiblilites to the diversity of the children they had. If Adam and Eve had 20 children, say 10 boys and 10 girls…..10 couples (which wouldn’t have been considered incest at the time), and each of those couples had 10-20 children… you’ve already got a population of around 200+ people.
If that continues, there would eventually be a substantial population, where incest wouldn’t have to occur. not even the marrying of first cousins.
Jeffree
I took a class in Creationism.
It was called “Fiction and Insanity: the Unsuccessful Search for Jesus in DNA.”
Was that the same class you had in home-schooling, Tia?