Decision Imminent in "Fundy Schools v. UC" (ACSI v. Stearns)
It's about time. This lawsuit was filed way back in August 2005 and there has not been a final federal district court decision yet.
ACSI v. Stearns is a lawsuit by fundy students and fundy schools against the University of California over UC's denial of accreditation for fundy school courses that use particular Christian-oriented textbooks. I have discussed the lawsuit in several articles in this blog [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I also discussed the case in a comment thread on another blog.
WorldNetDaily reports that oral hearings have been held last week and that a final decision is expected in two or three weeks.
WorldNetDaily said,
.
I don't agree that the fundy students are necessarily required to be in the top two to three percent if not all of their "a-g" classes are approved -- these students should be given credit for the unapproved courses by passing SAT AP tests in the subjects of those courses. To me, the question of whether the students should be required to pass SAT Subject AP tests (or other standardized tests) to get credit for the unapproved courses should be one of the primary issues in the lawsuit but it appears that this issue has been largely ignored.
I thought that UC dropped its objections to the physics textbook.
Because of the unusual approach of the fundy Bob Jones Univ. biology textbooks (a two-volume set), I proposed that the fundy students be required to get a satisfactory score on the SAT Biology AP test to get credit for the course. Of course, the Darwinist bigots are not satisfied with that proposal but want the fundy students to be completely excluded from UC. The introduction to the textbooks says,
.
ACSI v. Stearns is a lawsuit by fundy students and fundy schools against the University of California over UC's denial of accreditation for fundy school courses that use particular Christian-oriented textbooks. I have discussed the lawsuit in several articles in this blog [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I also discussed the case in a comment thread on another blog.
WorldNetDaily reports that oral hearings have been held last week and that a final decision is expected in two or three weeks.
WorldNetDaily said,
.
Under the admissions guidelines to University of California colleges, in-state students must either score in the top two to three percent on standardized tests or complete a core curriculum of approved preparatory classes (called "a-g" classes) to be deemed eligible for entrance into the state university system.
I don't agree that the fundy students are necessarily required to be in the top two to three percent if not all of their "a-g" classes are approved -- these students should be given credit for the unapproved courses by passing SAT AP tests in the subjects of those courses. To me, the question of whether the students should be required to pass SAT Subject AP tests (or other standardized tests) to get credit for the unapproved courses should be one of the primary issues in the lawsuit but it appears that this issue has been largely ignored.
Burt Carney, an executive with the Association of Christian Schools International, said he's met with officials for the university system, and was told that there was no problem with the actual facts in a BJU physics textbook that was disallowed.
In fact, an ACSI report said, UC officials confirmed "that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved …"
I thought that UC dropped its objections to the physics textbook.
Because of the unusual approach of the fundy Bob Jones Univ. biology textbooks (a two-volume set), I proposed that the fundy students be required to get a satisfactory score on the SAT Biology AP test to get credit for the course. Of course, the Darwinist bigots are not satisfied with that proposal but want the fundy students to be completely excluded from UC. The introduction to the textbooks says,
Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling. This book was not written for them . . . . .
The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second . . . . . . . . . To the best of the author's knowledge, the conclusions drawn from observable facts and presented in this book agree with the Scriptures . . . .
The same encyclopedia article may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a "scientific" explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These statements are conclusions based on "supposed science." If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.
.
Labels: Evolution education (new #2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/21/2008 11:27:00 AM
21 Comments:
Btw, it's WorldNutDaily and they got several facts wrong. The problem with the books or the courses isn't that they add Jeebus to the class material, it's that they substitute Jeebus for material (as is the case with the biology book) or don't use real texts and just use anthologies (in their lit classes). The history class (I think that's what it is, something about Divine Provenance) sounds like it's very historically mistaken (not that it's not an interesting topic; I think that it would be, but it would have to be balanced by the views that prevailed in the Constitution, namely those that led to the first amendment and the separation of church and state).
There's no such thing as an SAT AP test. You're confusing two different tests: AP tests and SAT tests (or maybe three: SAT subject tests). I don't know if there is an SAT subject test for biology, in any case their lawyers are arguing that UC should accept their god-is-better-than-science biology class as is.
After reading the posts of Mike Dunford (the blog where you posted inane and misguided comments on the subject) analyzing the decision on summary judgment, things look good for UC in general (everything in the summary judgment went as UC had requested).
Would saying that even course was rejected that shouldn't have been constitute discrimination? If so, there could be a victory, however small, in one of the non-science classes or even in the physics class (if it's still part of the suit and if the only problem with the book is the quotes from scripture). Of course, Behe suggested that dogmatic instruction was bad, and the judge interpreted that to mean that dogmatic Xian instruction would also be bad, so it's looking pretty bleak for the Xian schools. We'll see what happens. A loss by the UC system of course would throw admissions standards, already somewhat subjective, into disarray.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> The history class (I think that's what it is, something about Divine Provenance) sounds like it's very historically mistaken (not that it's not an interesting topic; I think that it would be, but it would have to be balanced by the views that prevailed in the Constitution, namely those that led to the first amendment and the separation of church and state <<<<<<
What could possibly be more historically mistaken than Judge Jones' statement in his Dickinson College speech that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions? At least no graduate of a fundy school would make a mistake like that.
>>>>>> There's no such thing as an SAT AP test. <<<<<<
OK, I was confused about the names -- there's the SAT, SAT subject tests, and AP tests, but they're all administered by the College Board. I don't know why the subject tests are called "SAT" tests (SAT stands for "scholastic aptitude test") while the AP tests are not. Anyway, the basic idea is to allow the fundy students to get credit for the course by passing some kind of test.
>>>>> I don't know if there is an SAT subject test for biology <<<<<<
Yes, there is, which should come as no surprise. The College Board website says,
The Subject Test in Biology E/M contains a common core of 60 general-knowledge multiple-choice questions, followed by 20 multiple-choice questions that emphasize either ecological (Biology E) or molecular (Biology M) subject matter. Before testing begins, you must choose which test you will take, either the ecological or molecular. Students are not allowed to take both tests in one sitting. If you do, your scores may be canceled.
>>>>>> in any case their lawyers are arguing that UC should accept their god-is-better-than-science biology class as is. <<<<<<
That's why I am wondering why there is not more emphasis on using a test as a compromise. Anyway, the only major problem I can see with the biology textbooks is the philosophy of science in the introduction.
>>>>>> After reading the posts of Mike Dunford (the blog where you posted inane and misguided comments on the subject) <<<<<<
You lousy dunghill, even when it is obvious that I am the most knowledgeable and sensible person around, you will always automatically disparage my comments -- it's just a knee-jerk reaction of yours. I proposed a sensible compromise -- let the students take a biology test. I made another sensible proposal -- if they flunk the test (possibly because of deficiency in knowledge of evolution), let them enter UC on condition that they repeat biology. The Darwinist crackpots on Dunford's blog were saying that the fundy students should be completely excluded from UC because they didn't take a biology course that taught that "evolution-is-the-fundamental-concept-underlying-all-of-biology" crap.
>>>>>>analyzing the decision on summary judgment, things look good for UC in general (everything in the summary judgment went as UC had requested). <<<<<<
Yes, but UC did not seek summary judgment on some very important issues -- UC said,
The University did not move for summary judgment on plaintiffs' challenges to several specific course approval decisions.
>>>>>> it's looking pretty bleak for the Xian schools. <<<<<<<
Well, you Darwinists were predicting Yoko Ono would win her copyright infringement suit against the "Expelled" producers, so your batting average is not too good (BTW, that suit was finally thrown out a few days ago).
That's why I am wondering why there is not more emphasis on using a test as a compromise.
Let me tell you something Larry, the worst nightmare for a secularist would be a Creationist or ID proponent score high on a secular test or high enough to get admitted into a government University when they were educated from a religious or Christian school. It certainly would be fair for all the kids from different backgrounds if they are tested and are judged on the results of those tests not if they mention God in the text books.
I must admit problems between schools are not always about religion. My old college (which was secular by the way) was always at odds with the other local University. The University wanted to dictate to other colleges which courses one should take if you wanted to attend there, it's kinda similar in a way to the case with the creationist school.
>>>>>> Let me tell you something Larry, the worst nightmare for a secularist would be a Creationist or ID proponent score high on a secular test or high enough to get admitted into a government University when they were educated from a religious or Christian school. <<<<<<<
What? That makes no sense at all.
What? That makes no sense at all.
Well Larry you must have your head in the sand, secularists (atheists) have always proclaim they are smarter than creationists. This of course is not the only reason why they would oppose testing as the main qualification for admission in the University.
Michael wrote, "secularists (atheists) have always proclaim (sic) they are smarter than creationists"
Not all secularists are atheists. The vast majority of American Catholics are secular (at least 75% make their own choices on birth control, to name one example) and the same is true of Catholics in other countries (say Mexico) -- such that Americans are sometimes surprised to learn that they are Catholics! The same is true of most religious groups in the US (and around the world). Most Jews in the US are secular as are Muslims and Hindus. Most Christians (including or excluding Catholics as you wish, since I already mentioned them) are secular. Many aren't, and that's fine. But I would be upset if I couldn't buy pork because local Jews and Muslims prohibited its sale based on their own religious codes or if beef were likewise prohibited because of efforts by local Hindus -- and not because I eat a lot of pork (I never cook pork, unless it's a strip of bacon attached to meat, and only eat it in restaurants (rarely) or at my parent's house (too often, but they think it's healthy). I would be upset that a religious code that doesn't pertain to me affects what's available in the grocery store.
UC allows students from fundy schools to take exams to gain admission if their a-g courses are invalid -- it's the fundies who want the students to be admitted without taking the tests.
Larry wrote, "I proposed a sensible compromise -- let the students take a biology test"
That compromise already exists. The lawyers for the fundy school don't want the compromise.
Larry wrote, "if they flunk the test (possibly because of deficiency in knowledge of evolution), let them enter UC on condition that they repeat biology."
Why should a student who failed the biology test and needs to take remedial biology be accepted when other students who didn't fail the test and don't have to take remedial biology be accepted? The fundies are asking for affirmative action here -- they want to be treated like a minority group (one that has been oppressed and discriminated against for centuries, except they haven't suffered any sort of discrimination -- willful ignorance is not genetic).
Larry wrote, "the only major problem I can see with the biology textbooks is the philosophy of science in the introduction."
Mike Dunford pointed out numerous examples in the book that go beyond the introduction; the book doesn't teach biology.
I don't know how the lawsuit will turn out. The Xian school is going to lose on the biology course. It will probably lose on the other courses (history, government, literature, and religion), but I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of those courses were accepted (I don't have all the facts to know what's wrong -- the literature course was rejected because it didn't use any complete texts, only an anthology with excerpts -- perhaps there were other issues as well). I suspect that the government and history courses have some facts wrong. The religion class? Maybe UC doesn't allow religion classes at all or only as an elective. If that's the case, then I can't see how the fundy schools are going to win. Again, I only know about the biology book, the physics book (which apparently has been accepted and is apparently no longer part of the lawsuit), and the literature class. I know the title of one of the classes (something like Christian Provenance) -- it's not sounding good, but depending on the content and subject matter, it could be acceptable.
>>>>>> Why should a student who failed the biology test and needs to take remedial biology be accepted when other students who didn't fail the test and don't have to take remedial biology be accepted? <<<<<<
Why should the fundy students be required to take the biology test at all? The bad philosophy of science in the books' introduction was the only reason why I agreed that the students should be required to take the test.
He's the judge and he can decide what he wants. My suggestion that the fundies be admitted to UC on condition of repeating biology if they flunk the test is intended as a trade-off for requiring them to take the test.
>>>>>>Mike Dunford pointed out numerous examples in the book that go beyond the introduction; the book doesn't teach biology. <<<<<<
And I pointed out that those examples are flawed. Anyway, UC did not point out these supposed examples and it is too late for UC to point out those examples now.
>>>>> The Xian school is going to lose on the biology course. <<<<<<
Don't be so sure -- as I pointed out, apparently the only big problem with the biology texbooks is the philosophy of science in the introduction of the Bob Jones U. textbooks.
>>>>> I don't have all the facts to know what's wrong -- the literature course was rejected because it didn't use any complete texts, only an anthology with excerpts -- perhaps there were other issues as well<<<<<
That's right -- you don't have all the facts to know what's wrong with the non-science books. The plaintiffs claimed that UC has accepted other non-science books that have a narrow focus.
This lousy judge really needs to poop or get off the can. The case is now about three years old and ACSI told me that UC submitted 350,000 pages of evidence!
There is no law or court rule requiring that litigants get a written opinion or oral hearing. In my smog impact fee case, I got neither. I was told that the judge in my case, TJ "Mad" Hatter, had a bad reputation for issuing judgments without opinions. Some who are more equal than others get long oral hearings and/or long written opinions. I think that because of the new FRAP Rule 32.1 requiring all federal courts to allow citation of unpublished opinions, there are going to be more decisions without written opinions because judges will not want a short unpublished opinion to be misinterpreted or misapplied.
BTW, if the fundy students start in community (2-year) colleges and then transfer to UC as juniors, ironically they would not be required to take the biology test or repeat biology.
I posted this earlier, but since it hasn't posted, I will assume that it is an issue with Blogger, rather than "arbitrary" censorship by the blogger. Some of this is from memory, and I haven't read the comments.
>>>Because of the unusual approach of the fundy Bob Jones Univ. biology textbooks (a two-volume set), I proposed that the fundy students be required to get a satisfactory score on the SAT Biology AP test to get credit for the course. Of course, the Darwinist bigots are not satisfied with that proposal but want the fundy students to be completely excluded from UC.<<<
Larry, I thought you said that making false claims about objective facts was banned. It was those of us who support evolution who pointed out to you that UC allowed students to substitute satisfactory SATII Subject Tests and AP Exams (among other methods) for courses. This was pointed out to you a full year before you made your proposal, and you rejected that as unreasonable!
Here are partial excerpts from a discussion you and Mary had on the Thoughts From Kansas blog between August 26, 2006 2:41 PM and September 10, 2006 4:50 AM. Included is your response to a comment (in italics) by the blogger, Josh.
Mary, #30
>>>Note that Calvary Chapel students aren't penalized in the admissions process for having taken classes which are not certified. They must simply take a minimum of 15 classes over four years which did meet UC standards, or have demonstrated that they mastered the required material in other ways. SATII or Advanced Placement subject tests, or classes at a community college can be used to make up deficiencies.<<<
Larry, #31
>>>No, they are penalized. Taking the non-certified courses disqualifies them from general admission, which admits the top 15%, and therefore they can only apply for special admission, which admits only the top 2-4% or so.<<<
Larry, #39
>>>Josh said,
That students took the class doesn't prevent their admission, it just means they have to show that they have an adequate scientific background by other means.
The practical effect is likely to be prevention of the students' admission. Instead of having to be within the top 15% to qualify for general admission, they now have to be within the top 2-4% to qualify for special admission. It is not just a matter of passing a test showing knowledge of evolution theory.<<<
Mary, #82
>>>Larry's just getting confused again, Josh. The most common general admissions path is available to both public and private school students from in-state high schools who participate in the certification process, including Calvary Chapel. All that's required is that the student take at least 15 UC-certified courses in the required categories. If a student is short one or two certified courses, he or she can demonstrate proficiency by taking the SATII subject test in that area and scoring well.<<<
Mary, #122
>>>A student does have to demonstrate that he or she knows how science works, by taking two certified science classes with primary texts that teach the scientific method and its findings accurately and without disclaimers. Or by scoring a high grade on the SATII subject test, although a student who has no classroom science time would be at a disadvantage compared with equally qualified applicants who have taken such coursework.<<<
Larry, #124
>>>I could find nothing in the regular admission requirements that allows a good score on a subject test to be substituted for one of the course requirements. Also, requiring such a test of the Christian school students would be justified only if it were shown that their courses do not cover all of the core material (an added religious viewpoint doesn't count).<<<
So, contrary to Larry's patently false claims, we were the ones who accepted the idea that "the fundy students be required to get a satisfactory score on the SAT Biology AP test to get credit for the course." It was Larry and the fundies who "were not satisfied with that proposal" - it is beyond the pale to falsely claim that we "want the fundy students to be completely excluded from UC" when we were pointing out so many ways for them to get in. Heck, we even pointed out that they didn't have to even take biology!
What's especially amusing is that a year later, when Larry first made his proposal, and again last April, he denied ever having been informed of the UC policy allowing the substitution.
Oh, and one last thing: as you have been informed numerous times in the last year, the SATII Subject Tests and the AP Exams are two different tests. How often do you need to be told this?!
Larry wrote, "BTW, if the fundy students start in community (2-year) colleges and then transfer to UC as juniors, ironically they would not be required to take the biology test or repeat biology."
Why would that be ironic? It would also be the case if they went through the Cal State system.
Larry wrote, "And I pointed out that those examples are flawed."
Nothing at that link discusses any of the examples raised by Mike Dunford.
Larry wrote, "Why should the fundy students be required to take the biology test at all?"
Because they need to be ready to do college level work at one of the top universities in the country. Their biology work doesn't prepare them for that.
Larry wrote, "The bad philosophy of science in the books' introduction was the only reason why I agreed that the students should be required to take the test."
Wrong. There are many problems with the book. The book subordinates everything to the Bible. That is not science. Science does not work that way.
Larry wrote, "Anyway, UC did not point out these supposed examples and it is too late for UC to point out those examples now"
So you read the 350,000 pages of evidence?
Larry wrote, "The plaintiffs claimed that UC has accepted other non-science books that have a narrow focus."
That doesn't mean that there weren't other reasons for the rejection of their courses. Not using full texts in the literature course (using just an anthology) was one big problem with the lit course. I don't remember hearing anything about the other courses, so I can only speculate. A focus that was too narrow may or may not have been the main problem.
>>>Yes, but UC did not seek summary judgment on some very important issues -- UC said,<<<
I'll give you three guesses as to what the hearing was about...
Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>> Larry, I thought you said that making false claims about objective facts was banned. It was those of us who support evolution who pointed out to you that UC allowed students to substitute satisfactory SATII Subject Tests and AP Exams (among other methods) for courses. <<<<<<
Kevin, I am not going to go through these quote mines of what I said then. What I am saying now is that the fundies should be required to take a biology test and if they flunk it they should be allowed to enroll in UC on condition that they repeat biology. Finis. So if you want to debate anything here, then debate those points.
It appears that the litigants are now ignoring this idea of requiring the fundies to take a biology test, though this idea appeared to be an important issue earlier in the lawsuit. Also, as I said, the Darwinist bigots on Dunford's blog appeared to be arguing that the fundies should be completely excluded from UC general admission because they didn't take a biology course that teaches that "evolution-is-the-fundamental-concept-underlying-all-of-biology" crap.
>>>>> Oh, and one last thing: as you have been informed numerous times in the last year, the SATII Subject Tests and the AP Exams are two different tests. <<<<<<
That was a long time ago and is not particularly relevant to the discussion here.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>Larry wrote, "BTW, if the fundy students start in community (2-year) colleges and then transfer to UC as juniors, ironically they would not be required to take the biology test or repeat biology."
Why would that be ironic? <<<<<<<<
Obviously, the irony is that the reason (or one reason) for excluding the fundies from UC is their supposed deficiency in biology but that they could avoid the biology requirement completely by transferring as juniors from a JC. Duh.
>>>>>> Nothing at that link discusses any of the examples raised by Mike Dunford. <<<<<<
Dunford's examples are irrelevant anyway because UC did not raise them.
>>>>>> Because they need to be ready to do college level work at one of the top universities in the country. Their biology work doesn't prepare them for that. <<<<<<<
UC said that it had no objective evidence that the fundies are unprepared to study at the college level. UC's only objection to the fundy biology textbooks was the books' philosophy of science, particularly regarding evolution.
>>>>>> Wrong. There are many problems with the book. The book subordinates everything to the Bible. That is not science. Science does not work that way. <<<<<<<
See my preceding comments.
>>>>> So you read the 350,000 pages of evidence? <<<<<<
All that counts are the reasons UC gave the fundies before the lawsuit was filed.
>>>>>> Not using full texts in the literature course (using just an anthology) was one big problem with the lit course. <<<<<<
Well, I don't think that should make a difference -- it is just a matter of a broad general exposure instead of a narrow focused one.
Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>>>Yes, but UC did not seek summary judgment on some very important issues -- UC said,<<<
I'll give you three guesses as to what the hearing was about... <<<<<<<<
Kevin, all I did was report what UC said. If you don't agree with what UC said, then take it up with UC.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'll keep my fingers crossed that the creationists maintain their perfect .ooo batting average in the courts.
Larry scribbled, "Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>>>Yes, but UC did not seek summary judgment on some very important issues -- UC said,<<<
"I'll give you three guesses as to what the hearing was about... <<<<<<<<
"Kevin, all I did was report what UC said. If you don't agree with what UC said, then take it up with UC."
But "UC moved for partial summary judgment on the basis that that its review policies and the position statements are constitutional exercises of the University’s right to
evaluate the qualifications of applicants for admission."
This means that they won the main part: they have the right to monitor the content of the courses. On the other hand, "The University did not move for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ challenges to
several specific course approval decisions. The Court did, however, reject plaintiffs’
motion seeking judgment on those “as applied” claims, which remain for trial"
This means that the lawsuit over the whether UC acted correctly in disqualifying the school's courses in question is what the trial was to decide. Everything was about summary judgement: the Xian school wanted summary judgment about the courses (but lost) and UC wanted summary judgment about whether they had a constitutional right to qualify and disqualify high school courses in order to meet entrance requirements (they won).
Larry wrote, "Well, I don't think that should make a difference -- it is just a matter of a broad general exposure instead of a narrow focused one."
The requirements state that the students must read a novel or more. The fundies chose not to meet that requirement. Apparently, as Mary wrote on the thread that W. Kevin Vicklund quoted here, the course was also very narrow. She also pointed out weaknesses in the history course (fake quote by Madison (or was it Monroe?), one of the founders anyway), the lit course (I think I just summarized it), and the biology course (see above and Mike Dunbar's comments that Larry doesn't address but thinks he does on the links that Larry has conveniently included here).
I wonder if the fundies teach talking in tongues to satisfy language requirements? Eso sería muy extraño y no aceptable.
¿raza odiada?
Anonymous quoted,
>>>>>>But "UC moved for partial summary judgment on the basis that that its review policies and the position statements are constitutional exercises of the University’s right to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for admission." <<<<<<<
Who in the hell are you quoting here? Kevin or UC? Do you even know?
Here again is what UC said:
The University did not move for summary judgment on plaintiffs' challenges to several specific course approval decisions.
Now it seems that if UC had that strong a case against the plaintiffs' challenges to those specific course approval decisions, then UC would have moved for summary judgment on those challenges. Also, it seems that by not moving for summary judgment on those challenges, UC risked summary judgments in favor of the plaintiffs on those chalenges.
UC only said that it did not seek summary judgment on "several" challenges, so maybe UC sought summary judgment on some other challenges -- I don't know.
>>>>> UC wanted summary judgment about whether they had a constitutional right to qualify and disqualify high school courses in order to meet entrance requirements (they won). <<<<<<<
I don't know if this right is "constitutional," but UC of course does have this right and I doubt that this right was ever questioned.
>>>>>> The requirements state that the students must read a novel or more. <<<<<<
OK, I don't know all the requirements. I don't know why they would knowingly fail to meet such a simple requirement. I am concentrating here on the biology textbooks.
Martian Buddy said...
>>>>> I'll keep my fingers crossed that the creationists maintain their perfect .ooo batting average in the courts. <<<<<<
You have quickly forgotten about Yoko Ono v. Expelled.
Also, you Darwinists have had some very close shaves. In the oral hearing in the appeals court in Selman v. Cobb County, the judges indicated that they were leaning towards reversal but then vacated and remanded the decision because of missing evidence and the school board then took a dive by settling out of court. Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish came within single votes of getting an en banc (full court) appeals court rehearing and getting Supreme Court review. In a very unusual move, three Supreme Court justices issued a long opinion opposing denial of SC review (denial of SC review -- called "denial of certiorari" -- is usually made without comment).
>>>Kevin, I am not going to go through these quote mines of what I said then. What I am saying now is that the fundies should be required to take a biology test<<<
And as I and numerous other people supporting evolution have been telling you for the last two years, we wouldn't restrict them to that single option. Not only would we let them take a test to meet the requirement, we'd let them take a higher level course, take a course at a community college, or even let them in if they chose a different branch of science altogether! Why do you want to restrict these students options?
>>>and if they flunk it they should be allowed to enroll in UC on condition that they repeat biology.<<<
All we're asking is that they meet the same requirements all other California students are asked to meet. UC is the top-tier of colleges in California - they only take the best. If the students can't prove they belong in the best, they need to go somewhere else until they can.
>>>Finis. So if you want to debate anything here, then debate those points.<<<
If you stop lying about what we said, I'll stop pointing out that you're lying. Agreed?
>>>It appears that the litigants are now ignoring this idea of requiring the fundies to take a biology test, though this idea appeared to be an important issue earlier in the lawsuit.<<<
That would be because the judge ruled that allowing the fundies to take tests (among other options) was a reasonable accomodation of the fundies religion. The fundies will have to wait for an appeal before they can bring it up again.
>>>Also, as I said, the Darwinist bigots on Dunford's blog appeared to be arguing that the fundies should be completely excluded from UC general admission because they didn't take a biology course that teaches that "evolution-is-the-fundamental-concept-underlying-all-of-biology" crap.<<<
And here you go again with that blatant lie. We pointed out to you numerous times that we were willing to let them in even if they took a flawed biology course, so long as they were able to meet the alternative criteria before admission. There are a limited number of seats available in the UC system; fully qualified applicants should get those seats first.
>>>>>> Oh, and one last thing: as you have been informed numerous times in the last year, the SATII Subject Tests and the AP Exams are two different tests. <<<<<<
>>>That was a long time ago and is not particularly relevant to the discussion here.<<<
Nonetheless, I find it quite amusing, and will continue to mock you if you make the mistake in the future.
>>>Dunford's examples are irrelevant anyway because UC did not raise them.<<<
From the initial course review:
"The content of the course outlines submitted for approval is not consistent with the ... knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community."
They are relevant because UC said from the very start that they were objecting to the fact that the content did not reflect generally accepted knowledge. Dunford's examples prove this to be true.
>>>UC said that it had no objective evidence that the fundies are unprepared to study at the college level.<<<
Wrong. UC said it had no evidence that students from religious schools in general were unprepared to study at the college level. Since most of the students at religious schools were not relying on the texts in question, the question asked was irrelevant - a classic example of begging the question. UC later did provide evidence that ASCI students did perform poorly. However, UC's decision was not made on the basis of past performance, but whether the proposed courses met the criteria set forth.
>>>UC's only objection to the fundy biology textbooks was the books' philosophy of science, particularly regarding evolution.<<<
From the initial course review:
"The content of the course outlines submitted for approval is not consistent with the ... knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community."
Again, you are incorrect. UC has been maintaining from the very start that the books had major issues with content, not just philosophy of science. That said, the philosophy of science section was sufficient to reject the course by itself, as it violated on of the three basic criteria all science courses need to meet - a policy that the judge ruled was constitutional.
>>>All that counts are the reasons UC gave the fundies before the lawsuit was filed.<<<
And since they were told there was problems with the contents, that is properly included in the defense.
>>>Kevin Vicklund said,
>>>>>>Yes, but UC did not seek summary judgment on some very important issues -- UC said,<<<
I'll give you three guesses as to what the hearing was about... <<<<<<
>>>Kevin, all I did was report what UC said. If you don't agree with what UC said, then take it up with UC.<<<
Since Larry is abdicating his right to make guesses, the correct answer is that Friday's hearing was on UC's motion for summary judgment on the remaining "as-applied" claims. UC had delayed requesting summary judgment on the remaining "as-applied" claims because ACSI had fully disclosed the scope of the claims (which course rejections they were objecting to and the basis for the objection).
Following is the April 23, 2008 Order permitting the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment. Note that both parties agreed to the motion. (N.B. The hearing date was continued to last Friday)
PROCEEDINGS (in chambers):
ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' STIPULATION ALLOWING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Docket No. 165]
Plaintiffs brought facial and as-applied challenges to the UC course review process.
Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on all claims, while UC moved for summary judgment only
as to Plaintiffs' facial challenge. On March 28, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor
of UC as to Plaintiffs' facial challenges. Plaintiffs' as-applied challenges remain.
Now, the parties have filed a Stipulation permitting UC to move for summary judgment on
Plaintiffs' remaining as-applied claims. The Court agrees that a second summary judgment motion
would promote efficiency. Accordingly, the parties' Stipulation is GRANTED in modified form:
! Plaintiffs must file a written declaration on or before May 1, 2008, identifying the specific
high school courses they wish to include in their as-applied challenges. Plaintiffs'
declaration must also identify any issues raised in their previous motion for summary
judgement that they no longer wish to pursue.
! UC must file a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' As-Applied Challenges,
not to exceed 25 pages, on or before May 28, 2008.
! Plaintiffs must file an Opposition, not to exceed 25 pages, on or before June 18, 2008.
! UC must file a Reply, not to exceed 10 pages, on or before June 27, 2008.
! Oral argument will be heard on July 7, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Kevin Vicklund moaned (Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:20:00 AM) --
>>>>>>> Not only would we let them take a test to meet the requirement, we'd let them take a higher level course, take a course at a community college, or even let them in if they chose a different branch of science altogether! <<<<<<<
Kevin, you are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears. There are Darwinist bigots who said that the fundies should be totally excluded from UC general admission just because they weren't taught that "evolution is central to biology" crap.
Here again is my position -- the fundy biology textbooks mostly look OK (UC never said otherwise), but the fundies' biology education is suspect because of the textbook introduction's bad philosophy of science, and the fundies should therefore be required to take the biology test. The fundies may flunk the test because they did not learn evolution properly (evolution is a big part of the test), and the fundies should therefore be admitted to UC on condition that they repeat biology if they flunk the test. Allowing them to enter UC and repeat biology is a trade-off for requiring them to take the test, which is a little unfair because only the textbook's introduction looks bad. He's the judge and he can tell UC whatever he wants to tell them. This case is already three years old, the lousy judge has already spent a tremendous amount of time on it, and the jerk needs to decide this case and then move on to the next one.
>>>>>>> All we're asking is that they meet the same requirements all other California students are asked to meet. <<<<<<<
UC said that it had no objective evidence that the fundies are not prepared to study at the college level. I have to repeat inconvenient facts over and over again because you lousy trolls are such stubborn jackasses.
>>>>> If you stop lying about what we said, I'll stop pointing out that you're lying. <<<<<<<
I am not lying about what you said -- and you're still lying now.
>>>>>> That would be because the judge ruled that allowing the fundies to take tests (among other options) was a reasonable accomodation of the fundies religion. <<<<<<
How could he have made such a ruling? That ruling is appropriate only for a final decision and he has not made a final decision yet.
>>>>>> We pointed out to you numerous times that we were willing to let them in even if they took a flawed biology course, so long as they were able to meet the alternative criteria before admission. <<<<<<
But you didn't accept my suggestion that they be admitted to UC on condition that they repeat biology. See my above arguments.
>>>>>> Nonetheless, I find it quite amusing, and will continue to mock you if you make the mistake in the future. <<<<<<<
Forgetting that was trivial -- the exact names of the tests are unimportant (as I said, "SAT" is sort of a trademark for the College Board, so it is surprising that they use the name "SAT Subject Test" but not "SAT AP Test"). You forget the important stuff -- like UC's statement that it had no objective evidence that the fundies are not prepared to study at the college level.
>>>>>> UC said it had no evidence that students from religious schools in general were unprepared to study at the college level. <<<<<<
When UC said that it had no evidence that the fundies were unprepared to study at the college level, that must have included fundies who used the fundy textbooks in question.
>>>>>> Since most of the students at religious schools were not relying on the texts in question <<<<<<
How do you know that? What is your evidence?
>>>>>> UC later did provide evidence that ASCI students did perform poorly. <<<<<<<
Where?
>>>>> However, UC's decision was not made on the basis of past performance, but whether the proposed courses met the criteria set forth. <<<<<<<
As I said, UC's main complaint appeared to be the textbooks' approach to science, particularly the introduction's approach to evolution.
>>>>> UC has been maintaining from the very start that the books had major issues with content, not just philosophy of science. <<<<<<
The reasons that UC gave the fundy schools did not point out any scientific errors in the textbook -- the UC just said that it objected to the general approach to science, particularly evolution.
>>>>> That said, the philosophy of science section was sufficient to reject the course by itself, as it violated on of the three basic criteria all science courses need to meet - a policy that the judge ruled was constitutional. <<<<<<
The judge hasn't issued a final decision yet -- how could he make such a ruling?
>>>>>> Friday's hearing was on UC's motion for summary judgment on the remaining "as-applied" claims. <<<<<<
As I said, I was only reporting what UC stated.
Larry wrote: You have quickly forgotten about Yoko Ono v. Expelled.
It's not relevant - the question in that case was whether or not they owed her royalties for the use of "Imagine" in their anti-science hit piece. What's next, crowing "victory!" because Dembski beat a parking ticket once?
Larry wrote: Also, you Darwinists have had some very close shaves....
That's an awful lot of spin just to say "We'll get you dastardly Darwinists yet! You wait and see!"
Post a Comment
<< Home