Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 - 11:02 a.m.

Here Be Dragons

I haven't decided how to cite the following bit of writing. Want to be sure to do the proper thing, but don't know what that is right now. I do know I want to keep a record of it because I think it is a signpost of what lies ahead.

Course Content at Private Schools
Independent schools are free to teach whatever they like. The only constraint on private schools' curriculum is is the acceptance of the degrees they grant by follow-on institutions. For example, if there's a kindergarten through fifth grade school, the follow-on institution would be middle schools. For high schools, the follow-on institutions are colleges.

This is good and as it should be--it is the market (so to speak) providing constraints on the private schools' offerings.

As the ideological battle over the intellectual underpinnings of creationism heats up, there's a new wrinkle: are science and theology equivalent viewpoints in the teaching of science?

An association of Christian schools has sued the University of California to demand that the UC system recognize courses taught using two evolution-denying texts as legitimate science.

(The suit also names several courses in the humanities that were disallowed to fulfill A-G requirements, but this post does not address those courses)

First of all, the theological approach of the schools that are members of the Association of Christian Schools International: the Association requires that member schools sign a statement of faith that includes:

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative, inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21).

your school's full- and part-time personnel and board members are born-again believers

About UC requirements for admission:

For those of you who are not Californians, the University of California system (and the California state university system) require a core group of courses for undergraduate admissions, colloquially known as the "A-G" requirements. The 'd' requirement covers science:

d Laboratory Science � 2 years required, 3 years recommended Two years of laboratory science providing fundamental knowledge in two of these three core disciplines: biology, chemistry and physics. Advanced laboratory science classes that have biology, chemistry or physics as prerequisites and offer substantial additional material may be used to fulfill this requirement. The final two years of an approved three-year integrated science program may be used to fulfill this requirement.

The University regularly reviews course offerings from new schools (independent, public, and charter) and does help to get new courses approved for the A-G requirements

In general, laboratory science courses must:

Cover the core concepts in one of the fundamental disciplines of biology, chemistry, or physics;

The argument is over the academic value of biology courses taught using two texts. The ACIS lawsuit (download available from ACIS) refers to a BOARS position paper that found:

As a result of the orientation/approach of the texts in question, which expressly prioritize religion over science, a course relying on these texts as core instructional materials does not meet the faculty�s criteria for the UC subject �d� laboratory science requirement.

A specific email from (page 68 of the lawsuit) from Roman J. Stearns to John Cloghen contains standard language, that the University of California does not accept biology courses based on two texts, because

"The content of the course outlines [based on these texts] submitted for approval is not consistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community"

The two texts are Biology for Christian Schools, by William S. Pinkerton, published by Bob Jones University Press (ISBN 0890845565) and Biology: God's Living Creation published by A Beka Book Publishers. (ISBN unknown, may not have one). (another list of creationist-friendly biology texts from a firm advertising itself as contributing to the Christian conservative intellectual renaissance)

The University of California will only accept courses that cover the core concepts of biology. Do courses based on texts that are "Truly nonevolutionary in philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study.

Here's a review of Calvary Chapel High, which uses the Pinkerton text

Biblical perspectives are woven into virtually every class: from biology, where the biblical story of creation is taught as undeniable fact....

The weight of fundamentalist doctrine is felt in practically every class, but perhaps most strongly in biology. Surrounded by the trappings of a traditional science lab -- high desks with sinks -- teacher Michael Williams spends two weeks teaching the biblical story of the Creation as fact.

About 10,000 years ago, God created the world in seven days, Williams says -- and to believe any other way is to contradict the most basic premise of the Bible.

Williams describes the theory of evolution, but tells students that there is no evidence to back it up. Fossil evidence is dismissed as flimsy, carbon-dating techniques are passed off as speculative, and the idea that species change over time is considered obvious fiction.

As a general rule, Williams warns his students to trust scientists only as long as what they say does not contradict the Bible.

The school's "Biology for Christian Schools" textbook carries this introduction: "Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many parts in this book puzzling."

Jim Strayer is a retired teacher with a lot of experience: twelve at the high school level and twenty-two at the community college level. His background is in biology. He has evaluated the Biology for Christian Schools by William S. Pinkston (1999 edition) and Biology, God�s Living Creation. Mr. Strayer an activist with the

What follows is my condensation of his reviews (full text here)

The overall assessment of these texts is that they are not science books, they are religious books. They are very well done on a craftsmanship level. They have the highest quality paper, the art work is excellent, and they have first class photography.

There are five major points concerning these texts;

Rather than describing them as science books, I would say that they are anti-science; the attitude they promote at all times is a disregard for science and the accomplishments of science. In several chapters in .... the Bob Jones book students are told that if scientific evidence disagrees with the Bible, disregard the scientific evidence. None of the books give any reference to any science book, science journal, or publication found in science literature. Students are told to disregard any statement found in encyclopedias that disagrees with the Bible.
The [logical] appeal is to authority and not the scientific method. In all.... books God, Lord, Creator or Jesus is referred to several times and the Bible is the only reference ever used. The major tenet of science that with new evidence scientists, and the rest of us can change our minds, is completely lost in the authority of the Bible.... Biology has over 600 references to God or Jesus, and over 350 references to Biblical verses.
Fear of eternal damnation and Satan are used to control student thinking, a negative form of the appeal to authority. Students are told that the Bible tells what type of thoughts they should think, what type of thoughts they should not think and since a thought can be right or wrong, it is spiritually significant and has �eternal� consequences.
The publishers of these books have a very different definition of science. Science is replaced with phrases like; Some scientists say, it could have been, probably, is it possible that, many Bible scholars agree that, it may have, and it might have been etc.
From the title if each text it can be seen that the publishers and the schools that use these books believe that Christians need special books because they believe that their �science� is correct because it is based on the Genesis. These books students that almost all of the basic scientific information about Astronomy, Geology, and Biology that is taught in universities round the world is wrong.
Most think that a religious school teaches regular subjects like English and science with a course or two on religion, but that is not the way it is in many religious schools. Instead religion is taught in every class and the subject matter comes second.

(More views of the unscientific nature of the Bob Jones text are available at The Questionable Authority)

PZ Myers of Pharygula gives a university professor of biology's view of a university examining incoming students' high school coursework, and has a great scheme:

This is something we have to deal with at universities all the time. We get transfer students, too, and we have to evaluate how their prior classwork corresponds to our requirements�after all, if they transfer to this university, and are planning to get a degree from this university, we're not going to give the degree to them because they met the standards of some other random university. Every year we get several students who want transfer credit from a community college or some other institution, and we review their class syllabus, look at the textbook used, ask whether it was a lab course or not, etc., and make decisions about whether it's good enough for UMM.

Looking at those excerpts, there's no way we'd accept a course taught with that book here. If this lawsuit isn't laughed out of court, I know what I'm going to have to do: set up a mail-order university in my basement, offer courses in Advanced Molecular Biology and Molecular Genetics taught out of comic books, and tell people all they have to do is give me $200, I give them 100 credits in basic and upper level biology courses, and then they transfer to UC Berkeley, take a few basket-weaving courses, and graduate with a prestigious Berkeley biology degree. They have to accept any ol' trashy transfer credits, after all.

So. The plaintiffs are framing the argument as a civil rights issue:

"It appears that the UC system is attempting to secularize Christian schools and prevent them from teaching from a world Christian view," said Patrick H. Tyler, a lawyer with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is assisting the plaintiffs.

Wendell E. Bird, an Atlanta attorney who represents the Assn. of Christian Schools, said California was the only state in the nation that had taken such actions against Christian schools.

Bird said the schools have no objection to teaching evolution alongside creationism but consider the UC regulations a violation of their rights. "And a threat to one religion is a threat to all," he added.

While the UC system is framing it as a matter of intellectual integrity. Ed Brayton is following the case.

Mike Dunsford says,

UC is not discriminating against Christians by refusing to accept the class; it is simply living up to its responsibility to ensure that applicants are adequately prepared for university study. Nevertheless, I was curious as to what about these particular biology classes was so poor as to attract attention.

PZ Meyers is onto why this is important:

it is not enough to politely refute these guys. As we can see, what it has led to is a situation in which creationists aren't at all embarrassed about publicly proposing some of the most incredibly stupid ideas�they know they'll get some well-mannered press which soberly recites their lunacy, and for balance, adds a quote or two from some science geek somewhere. They know this is a win:win situation for them: even if they lose the case, they get attention and respectful comments in a big-name newspaper somewhere. They might even get some wrathful right-wing commentator to openly defend their claims for them. At worst, they get some no-name professor cussing them out on an obscure weblog.

At least some of us are saying it plainly, though: these people are ignorant idiots. They are anti-scientific snake-oil salesmen. And they are damaging this country.

Let me say it again: science and theology are not competing ideas. In teaching science, there's no room for theologically-driven anti-science.

EE's devotional

newAutumn Leaves

previous - next