As Ronald Reagan used to say when debating political opponents, “There you go again!”
It would be appropriate to say the same thing to the state of California, who is doing its best to undermine the vital role parents play in the lives of their children.
While everyone’s attention has focused on the recent court case In re Rachel L., waiting to see if the right of parents to homeschool their children would be upheld by California courts, tactics of the University of California higher education systems were flying under the radar.
UC officials adopted a policy last year which dictates that students educated with curricula containing even an infinitesimal reference to a biblical worldview will not be permitted to attend a UC school. In the name of tolerance, other religious viewpoints are accepted…just not Christianity.
All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Aside from this clear assault on Christianity, this policy forces parents to choose between their children attending a UC School and their religious convictions.
In essence school officials have declared that all curricula require the approval of UC School.
So any mom or dad who chooses to include any reference to a biblical world view in the home or private education of their children will find that those children are refused admittance to a University of California College.
California parents, you obviously can not be trusted to understand what is in the best interest of your children. You are welcome to teach your children what you will, but they are not welcome to attend classes at a publicly funded university.
Here is a complimentary copy of the US Constitution, yes, the one with the footprints all over it!
Proadmin's Blog 
July 29, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Interesting that no references to a UC source exist in either the blog posting here, or on the link provided (from WND). In an attempt at clarifying this ambiguous and alarming article, I visited the UC website, and searched through its criteria for admission based on the “a-g” courses.
What did I find?
No mention of anti-god selection criteria whatsoever.
Instead, the site lists the following for a qualifying science course, to satisfy the “d” requirement (from the UCOP page):
[Qualifying courses must] take an approach consistent with the scientific method in relation to observing, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses through experimentation and/or further observation, and forming objective conclusions;
This particular criterion alone could potentially be singled out as anti-religious, but only in the event that the religious instruction under dispute was determined not to have satisfied this (or perhaps some other) aspect of the qualification process.
Regarding this particular section, a “science” course taken at a Christian school, with a focus on “Intelligent” Design, would likely be disqualified. Likewise with a “science” course which insisted that the age of the earth and/or universe was less than ten thousand years old.
So, this article was apparently uncritically assessed, and simply accepted as a scare-worthy piece of vitriol consistent with the irrational fears of persecution so preferred by Christians in general.
Nice try, but no. UC is merely being responsible by requiring its potential students to be at least minimally educated in certain core subjects.
—
Stan
July 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Stan, thank you for clearing that up for me. I was having a hard time believing this could be true and was about to go out and do the research. You’ve saved me the trouble. Thank you!
July 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I agree that this is offering a slight twist on the issue… but did you read the link? It says, “After reviewing textbooks from major Christian publishers Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Book, UC officials deemed them insufficient, specifically because the books supplemented the basic material with a Christian perspective.”
And most of us know that these are the two most popular curriculum. So this means that if our kids don’t score in the top 2-3% (see the link), and we used these curriculum, then UC will not accept their transcripts.
Yes, that’s a problem!
July 29, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Oh… and as the link states… this also affects many Christian school graduates.
July 29, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Stan,
You better do more research. They UC system has already been sued by the Christian School Association. (Their proper name I forget.) The suit is over this exact thing.
One thing students can do is pass the SAT Biology test which would prove to the UC system you can handle their courses.
Also let’s remember many UC students will not need to take lab sciences for their majors.
Stan, I wonder why you have joined this web site in the first place if you think Christians are always “claiming to be persecuted’?
July 29, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Also, here is another quote from the article,
“As WND reported earlier, the University of California system adopted a policy last year that basic science, history, and literature textbooks by major Christian book publishers wouldn’t qualify for core admissions requirements because of the inclusion of Christian perspectives.”
So, while there is a slight twist in this article, what’s clear is that if your education involved materials from a Christian book publisher, you can’t attend.
Another quote says, “UC officials confirmed ‘that if the Scripture verses that begin each chapter were removed the textbook would likely be approved …'”
So, unless the article is purposefully quoting lies, it would seem that UC has overstepped its bounds. If you can pass the entrance exam, then you should qualify – it shouldn’t matter where you got your information.
July 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Stan,
Thank you for the clarification. I am very relieved that the University of California actually believes that their anti-religious policy is reasonable and constitutional.
Their position looks so much more reasonable when you share their biased viewpoint!
July 29, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Oh, and in the spirit of open debate, here is their biased viewpoint if anyone’s interested: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/
July 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm
The UC’s expert on Christian biology curriculum:
“In general, I find that, where the two texts treat such basic factual issues as biological structure, human anatomy and physiology, and the different taxonomic status of plant and animal groups, they are generally acceptable. However, the texts do not appropriately teach evolution or the scientific evidence for it, and they thereby fail to teach students material that is critical to understanding biology as a whole.”
(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/expertreports/kennedy.pdf)
So they present the facts just fine, but when it comes to teaching the secularists’ sacred text of macroevolution, they are wholly inadequate.
July 29, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I looked on the UC Board of Regents site at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/policies/ and couldn’t find anything condoning (or rejecting) religous descrimination as a viable criteria for admission. Only that they have outlined the courses that are transferrable. Every University has that. That being said, I don’t think that means it doesn’t happen. It could just mean that that UC doesn’t formally endorse it. Do you have any facts to support this? I’d be interested in seeing something about the policy you mentioned in “UC officials adopted a policy last year which dictates that students educated with curricula containing even an infinitesimal reference to a biblical worldview will not be permitted to attend a UC school.”
July 29, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Click to access Guidetoa-gReqs_2008.pdf
Keep in mind, of course, that the issue in the case is the interpretation and application of this policy, not the words alone.
July 29, 2008 at 6:02 pm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0906uc.asp
On August 25, [2005], these six students, along with their school, Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, California and the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI),2 filed a federal lawsuit against the University of California where, according to the LA Times (August 27), admissions officials have been accused of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.
July 29, 2008 at 6:42 pm
“Regarding this particular section, a “science” course taken at a Christian school, with a focus on “Intelligent” Design, would likely be disqualified. Likewise with a “science” course which insisted that the age of the earth and/or universe was less than ten thousand years old.”
So I can teach them anything but the truth – that the earth was created by God with the appearance of age.
“In general, I find that, where the two texts treat such basic factual issues as biological structure, human anatomy and physiology, and the different taxonomic status of plant and animal groups, they are generally acceptable. However, the texts do not appropriately teach evolution or the scientific evidence for it, and they thereby fail to teach students material that is critical to understanding biology as a whole.”
(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/expertreports/kennedy.pdf)”
Actually there is more scientific evidence for Creation then there is for evolution. But they don’t want to accept that.
And I agree there are plenty of other colleges (for now), but if we ignore this one how long will that last.
July 29, 2008 at 7:35 pm
While I agree that Christian students would do well to attend a Christian University I still believe that a government institution should not be aloud to discriminate based on religious ideas.
As I read the review on a couple of textbooks http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/expertreports/kennedy.pdf I was struck by the assertion that students who had been taught creationism wouldn’t be able to survive in a UC science class because of their lack of knowledge in evolution. If that’s the case then perhaps UC needs to readdress how their classes are taught. True, open thought, should allow for debate based on evidence from both sides. The debate of origins has not been conclusively resolved (and probably never will since both Creation and Evolution are based on assumptions that can neither be proven nor disproved) A government run school should teach students to analyze the evidence (both sides) and make a contribution to the debate rather then saying that they have to adhere to one point of view.
The fact is that Evolution is not being treated by academics as a science any more; they follow it as if it’s a religion. Their method of defending it is similar to how most religions defend their beliefs (Christians, we should never resort to these kinds of tactics to defend our beliefs)
July 29, 2008 at 8:06 pm
UC is not objecting to a Christian education, rather they are objecting to freshman entering the college unprepared to study college level science.
To succeed in a college science class, it is necessary to have a firm understanding of the scientific method that is so critical to research and experimentation. This is something lacking from biology coursework that teach only creationism because creationism does not follow the scientific method (I’m not saying it’s good or bad, just that it does not meet the definition of a true science).
It’s an easy problem to avoid:
1) Teach your kids biology using an approved curriculum alongside your religious curriculum. Nothing says that you have to teach them to believe everything in the science curriculum. Just teach them to understand the concepts so that they will have the basic foundation they need to succeed in college science. I teach my kids a little about the various religions of the world even though I am an atheist. It helps them understand the world better and how to be tolerant of other people’s beliefs. They don’t have to believe in these religions to understand that they exist.
2) Don’t teach biology at all. Physics and science can also be used to satisfy the admission requirement. The a-g requirement guidelines specifically state as item #8 that the college has reviewed the Bob Jones University physics and chemistry textbooks and found them to be satisfactory.
There is nothing in the policy that states a child is barred from UC because they were taught using a curriculum with an “infinitesimal reference to a biblical worldview” as this article states. The policy only states that a Christian biology course does not fulfill the science requirement necessary for admission. The policy only exists to ensure that kids entering the system are prepared to succeed in their freshman level courses. There are many options for doing that regardless of whether they receive a Christion education.
July 29, 2008 at 8:43 pm
[…]not all home school children are Christian. Mine aren’t and they do quite well. But that is niether here nor there.
It’s good that you teach your children evolution so that they will understand the scientific concepts necessary to succeed in college and the world. I’m guessing you do it using a curriculum that is not Christian-based and does not teach creationism? If so, your children should have no problems getting into UC (provided they meet all the other requirements). UC’s problem is not with children receiving a Christian education, rather it’s with children receiving a Christian education at the exclusion of a science education.
July 29, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Comment to Jackie:
You are making several unwarranted assumptions that undermine your arguments.
You say, in so many words, that a science curriculum that teaches only creationism is deficient because “creationism does not follow the scientific method.” What is actually true is that neither creation nor evolution are capable of replication on an experimental basis, and therefore both “theories” fail the Scientific Method test. However, while most science textbooks that teach creation acknowledge this, most texts espousing evolution conveniently fail to mention it. On the other hand, both approaches to origins do in fact apply the Scientific Method when examining the evidence in a manner similar to that applied in forensic science (did a crime occur? does the evidence point to one or more suspects? can we hypothesize who likely did it? using the evidence left behind, can we eliminate certain suspects? can we “prove” who is guilty?). Furthermore, no science textbook focuses exclusively on the issue of origins (creation or evolution), but rather addresses many other aspects of scientific inquiry, including explanation and use of the Scientific Method.
In fact, if you study the history and philosophy of science, you will find that modern science and most of its significant advances (I’m referring here to methodology, not naturalism per se) was built solidly on a Judeo-Christian worldview, and many of the seminal thinkers in Science were Christians. No surprise here, because the early scientists recognized that a creator would have created a universe reflecting order and design which could be discovered and understood by the human mind. In fact, it is widely conceded that modern science would never have developed apart from a Judeo Christian worldview.
The book, “Icons of Evolution” (Jonathan Wells) documents just how readily pro-evolution textbooks deliberately falsify evidence to support (“prove”) evolution because the ends justify the means. They certainly do not follow the Scientific Method when they do so. Or watch Ben Stein’s “Expelled” and then ask whether is the pro-evolution scientists or the intelligent design/creationist crowd who are really interested in following the evidence wherever it may lead.
But please don’t blindly assert that whether the Scientific Method is or is not taught has anything to do with whether a science textbook is pro-creation or pro-evolution.
July 29, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I’m not surprised at the WND article. They tend to be alarmist in the nature of what they publish. As Christian homeschooling parents, my wife and I found Bob Jones and Abeka cirriculum to be lacking, at least for our needs. I worked with our daughter using Apologia biology, which is a good Christian-based cirriculum and found it challenging. Not only for her, but for me as well.
This cirriculum is considered to be “honors” level biology nowadays in government schools. The material was the same I was taught in my 10th grade biology class in 1971.
I would encourage parents who have their kids in government schools, to take a critical look at what now passes for science cirricula in their local schools. You might be surprised at what isn’t taught and the amount of fiction used that is handed off as fact. Your local school district cannot prevent you from looking this material over.
July 30, 2008 at 1:55 am
I found it very alarming (although evidently now it should be considered old news) that the college system in CA is participating in this type of discrimination. As many others have said, I feel it is of utmost importance that UC be held accountable for their actions, and I hope we will see a court ordered retraction of any policy that places an undue burden on students educated by a Christian curriculum. I began the journey of home-schooling my two young sons last year, primarily for the purpose of advancing their Christ-centered education, although also with the intent of preventing the negative socialization that takes place in school settings (even Christian, I’m afraid – let’s face it – kids will be kids, and if children spend the majority of their time with peers their own age, they will acquire the habits, attitudes, and other traits of those kids. Likewise if the majority of their time is spent with mature adults). I am a strong advocate of home-schooling (surprise!), but an even stronger advocate of the parental rights granted first of all by God, but secondly by nature itself, and finally in our own constitution.
July 30, 2008 at 2:23 am
I am an educator. I know kids from our school who are in a UC school or who are slated to go to one in the fall. Check your sources better.
July 30, 2008 at 2:43 am
As the mother of two boys who will be graduating from public high school next year, I can tell you that since junior high, the local school counselors have constantly and fervently advised all students to decide which colleges they hope to attend and then– since college admission requirements vary– to carefully select their classes in high school in order to properly meet the standards of the specific college and program to which they hope to apply. It seems to me that this would also be a wise plan for any student in Christian school or home school!
Because of my background (I am a former English major/ teacher), the denied courses that interest me most are the literature courses, rather than science or history. I followed Paul’s link above and carefully read through the criteria under which a UC expert judged a course in Christian Literature to be defective. It seems to me that the two main points on which this course failed are ones that a parent or teacher could easily correct.
The first was that the denied course was based almost completely on the reading of short excerpts of literature, whereas UC-approved courses must be based primarily on full-length works and must use anthologies only as supplementary material.
The second failed criteria was that the course and textbook did not attempt to foster critical/ analytical skills in students– something considered to be essential for a thorough approach to any piece of literature.
It seems to me that any student who is hoping to attend UC and has “done his homework” on required coursework could easily work with his homeschooling parent to make sure that his literature class met these criteria. Again, individual schools who expect to graduate UC-bound students could simply make sure that their curriculum is adapted to meet these basic criteria.
In my own opinion, the editors of the Christian anthology/ textbook would be wise to evaluate its rejection and consider whether the students they serve would be stronger and better prepared if full-length works and opportunities for critical/ analytical thinking did in fact receive more emphasis in their course.
I know from experience that although my boys received excellent training in punctuation, grammar, writing summaries, producing reports, etc. in the Christian elementary that they attended, they nevertheless entered seventh grade with very noticeable deficits in many other writing skills compared with their public-school counterparts, and I would like to strongly encourage Christian schools and homeschool families to be very careful that their literature programs are not lacking in ANY of the basic skills that public-school students are taught, and to be especially wary of automatically assuming a superiority in their curriculum that the evidence may not withstand.
***
Just a brief postscript: my psychic powers tell me that among those who read my comment above, there will surely be someone out there who is eager to point out grammatical errors, poor syntax, etc. As a preemptive defense, I would like you to note the time of day at which my comment was posted.
. . . Signing off now and going to bed! 🙂
July 30, 2008 at 10:30 am
Stan,
Unfortunately, I must point out that you haven’t mentioned speaking directly with any of the regents redarding this issue. These same people also run the 4-H program for the State of California. My oldest had been in 4-H since 1st grade and had been club president for 4 years when this first became an issue of importance in 2005. The club council decided to investigate if this was true. You must realize that my daghuter had three different scholarships toward UC Davis that would have covered almost 2 full years.
Upon their research, talking with regents, these young people were told that was correct, but if someone did want to attend, they would need to take a test for each subject they took that didn’t meet the new standard. The felt that Christianity was oppressive and too “moralist”. My daughter lost all her scholarships because she stood up for the Constitition and the rights of others.
This club was identified as a role-model by UC regents/State 4-H for not being “discriminatory” and having many from different backgrounds as well as the community services they provided.
We this group of youth stood up to the regents and told them this denied youth their consistitional rights, they were told they were all banned from ever attending any UC campus. To date none have ever been accepted, even though the SAT scores were high and the lowest GPA was 3.1.
I realize that there are those who will disagree, but the truth is there. Many, unfortunately have buried their heads like the proverbial ostrich, are willingly to accept only what they wish to see.
July 30, 2008 at 5:11 pm
No child should lose their scholarships based on religious discrimination. In Europe, Christianity is now “outdated” and that is the goal here. Thus, the colleges are simply “buying” into this mindset. The college is making an assumption – home schooled children do not study evolution. Or, that because we do not accept it as “truth” or “fact” there is an inability to teach effectively.
This is erroneous. As home educators, and Christians, we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God. Just as Joseph was well versed in servitude, we are no ignorant to what the world teaches. We do not have to “become” to understand or to be “educated.”
I believe that my children will be prepared to live globally as a Christian. Though I would hope they choose a Christian college, they may decide to attend a college such as UC or overseas. Wherever they attend, I believe that they should not be discriminated against.
July 30, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I’m wondering why there were so many posts thanking ‘Stan’ for doing ‘research’. People, ‘Stan’ didn’t give any more links than the original article did. WHY would you accept what he wrote? Can you say ‘intellectual laziness’? Good grief. Do your own research, inform yourselves and then come to a conclusion. Do not rely upon anything, just because it’s in print. Holy cow……
July 30, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I am personally aware of several 2008 graduates from Fresno Christian High School (no hiding that name or the curriculum that is required there) who will be attending UC schools this fall. If there is such a policy, somebody’s overlooking its enforcement.
July 30, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I just wanted to say that I am so encouraged by you all. and I agree with most of what has been said here.
July 30, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Fulani, thanks for your post. I think that using one curriculum can be a problem. I realized that critical thinking was missing early on so I purchased the critical thinking materials. Also, I supplement our curriculum with time4learning.com. I enjoy that website because it teaches differently than me. Thus, the children have an opportunity to receive classes from me, the internet, outside instructors, and cooperatives. I think this makes my young people more rounded in their aging years. Also, when time4learning uses “evolution” based information, we are able to research it to determine if the info is factual or not (which we know the answer to that). I never let them forget that evolution is a theory.
Because homeschoolers use different curriculum, and library resources, I think it’s important that transcripts are well documented to show how criteria is met. Since this has come to light, this is a great opportunity for Christian school and homeschoolers to learn to document the transcripts to show requirements are met.
July 30, 2008 at 10:06 pm
It is what it is.
Science is science. The act of proving a fact though observations and experiments. Yes, there are scientific theorys, all are based on observations and experiments. If you mix a certain chemical with another you factualy get a result. We are getting closer to determing what combination of gases, chemicals started life it is factual.
Religious belief is a belief in some higher power, it is a personal or cultrual choice. There are many religions that have a story of some sort that tells about the begining of life. They are all very interesting beliefs, but they are just that a belief. No one, religious belief is right or wrong. Religious beliefs should not be reconized as science, they are not.
Whatever you teach your children, teach them to be open-minded, tolerant and loving citizens of life. Too many pepole have died and continue to in the name of Religion. Belive we can have Peace!
July 30, 2008 at 10:14 pm
If the Universiy of California wants their students to believe that their ansestors use to swing in the trees.They probably did but I came from God.
July 30, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Everything came from God!
July 31, 2008 at 12:47 am
Well, yes, it IS important to remember that while I certainly disagree on UC school system’s discrimination, parents might STRONGLY consider a Christian college as an alternative. As someone who attended a secular college, while I’m sure I benefitted from the experience and diversity of opinions, etc., it DOES take a strong strain of Christian youth to not only avoid the numerous temptations of such a radical transition from a more nurturing environment, but an equally strong one to combat the rampant anti-Christian attitudes found on most public funded campuses these days.
July 31, 2008 at 4:43 am
AMEN~
July 31, 2008 at 10:18 am
Using the words “Christian Faith” or “Religious”(Christian Religion)(as stated by almost all christians and non-christians alike) to discribe a person who a Christian, in reality is wrong. A Christian is a person who is born-again. Did you hear that? BORN-again! This means when a Christian person is discriminated against because of their so-called “Christian Faith” they are in reality being discriminated against by BIRTH. Discrimination by race, color, sex, etc. in this country (USA) is illegal. We (born-again) Christians must state our BIRTH right to fight all discrimination. We must state that we are being discriminated against not (mainly) because of our faith, but because we are BORN this way. WE are BORN-AGAIN with a nature that is different (we can’t help what we believe) and discriminating against our birth-nature is also illegal in this country. Think about using this apporach to all discrimination against “Christians”, it would start a new era in the fight against illegal discrimination Christians and their LIFE style and who we are.
Signed: Kerry Wichterich (kerrywichterich@yahoo.com)
July 31, 2008 at 10:57 am
I guess California doesn’t want our money or our students! That’s okay, I’ll send my children elsewhere!
July 31, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The proof is in the pudding. As Pastor and former Christian School administrator, I can attest that our students and home schooled students, despite using a Christ-centered curriculum, scored well above their counterparts from secular schools on their SAT’s. Likewise, students who had successfully completed 8th grade using the same curriculum typically scored “post-high school” in every category of the SAT and other standardized tests. These trends are well documented and is the reason why many schools are prefering homeschooled students. Just because we teach them from a Christ-centered perspective, does not mean they are ignorant of what those who don’t use a Christ-centered curriculum teach. In fact, they more often than not, know substantially more about what is taught in secular schools than the students in those schools! I bet if those who were never taught science from a Christ-centered perspective ever actually read a Christ-centered science book from any of the top three curriculum providers, they would learn a lot more about science that they never were exposed to and not be so ignorant of what Christians really believe and why they believe it.
July 31, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Reading some of these comments tells me there are a lot of people who have no clue what Christian School kids are taught in Science classes. One commenter even suggested that our kids would not know anything about scientific method. Are you kidding me?I have taught college level biology at what used to be one of the top schools in the country and there is nothing taught there in Biology that the kids from a Christian school would not be taught or know about. Perhaps if secular “experts” would USE the scientific method to “prove” what they call fact, the argument would be based on facts instead of assumptions. Instead, my experience BEFORE I WAS A CHRISTIAN has shown me that they shut down anyone whose research does not support their presumptions. While we may disagree on the origin of life and the purpose of man, it does not mean we are ignorant of what the other side believes and teaches. We go to great lengths to teach the opposing arguments so that our students are better prepared to defend their viewpoints. Sadly, those who don’t know this think all we do is sit our kids down and tell them if it doesn’t say it in the Bible using the words “thus saith the Lord” it isn’t true. The comments in this forum affirm that we have this idea in our culture that Christians are numbskulls who are not intellegent enough to debate the issues, so why waste our time. That is the flat earth method of debate, state what you call a fact and eliminate anyone that may disagee. Too bad the church of Rome never bothered reading Isaiah 40:22 on that point.
I would submit that perhaps if those who think our ideas are moronic, would actually debate us on the facts, they would have their hats handed to them. But then again, fear of being embarrassed is a great motivator. While we could go on and on about these, the bottom line is that no matter what you believe, if you do not allow a child to hear ALL the arguments and so they can decide why their argument is right, you are creating a moron who could not defend their position if their life depended on it. I should know, I used to be one of those morons.
July 31, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Dr. Williams, I agree with you, but the world at large is not taking this to heart. As you pointed out the old flat earth mythology that Christians stood in the way of roundness beliefs and the like, is still around long after being refuted by scholars like Jeffrey Burton Russell. The goes on and on, more recently penned by Dinesh D’Souza and Rodney Stark, among others, about how actually the Christian world view is what created the Scientific Method in the first place. Now we see the whole “dark ages” mythology that the Church supposedly burdened Europe with is mostly mythology as well.
This mulish insistence from some of our more avid secularist friends on not seeing true historical insights speaks of motives other than truth. More along the lines of a secularist ideology.
So thanks for your input here.
W.T.
Atlanta
July 31, 2008 at 3:33 pm
War engaged between followers of evolution principles and principles of intelligent creation of this world are broadcast news. Scientists, and all associated titles, which will never comprehend how the living spirit joins to the physical elements of this world, will contend until Christ appears before their eyes. The whole world is a stage and everyone plays a part. As C.S. Lewis, a former atheist and highly recognized Christian author, once wrote,
“When the author steps onto the stage–The play is over”. Faith turns to Knowledge.
A great textbook author, G. Kimber, once told me, “When you want to know how life works–Go to the science books. When you want to know why–Search the teaching of God”.
God talks to us through his prophets. Prophets record God’s communications, same as a courtroom stenographer writes what witnesses say (not meaning) for those not present to read We can all know God lives when we communicate with Him through thought waves called ‘prayer’. Like a radio, God receives our prayers. Recorded in Holy Writ called ‘scriptures’ are answers to prayer. This is how we listen to God or by two-way radio called ‘revelation’.
Men/women mutilate life in attempt to speed the evidence in favor of evolution. The UK, this very day, crosses a human embryo with that of a beast in the laboratory.
Will this prove man evolved from fish? Or monkeys? Or a male gender can reproduce human kind in itself? Never! Neither in this world nor any other!
Act upon elements and create anything man wants, but life is not included in the list.
I once asked a friend, “how far away can the naked eye see…. Across the room? Down the Highway? Beyond the horizon? 25 million miles away?
Yes, 25 million miles away…The reflection of the stars. However, the eye can not see the human egg on the tip of a pin two inches away. Yet two opposite gender, male and female, procreate that micro-dot into a living, breathing, thinking, walking, acting, multifunctional, hue man/woman being. Who can dispute the power of intelligence to develop such an existence? Do we dispute the power of the cell-phone? Or the intelligence of a master engineer? No man can create life.
Mutilate it…Yes.
Create it…No! No ‘thing’ man can create has life giving life.
Look around…No cookie ever came to life and ran away from the farmer’s wife. Life can not take life unto itself.
Every day Water (H2O) changes its state into grape juice, apple juice, orange juice etc. through the life giving life of a plant…without thinking about it. Even I can change water into cool aid with little effort providing I have the intelligence to do it.
God will create life and all scientific truths, as witnesses recorded Jesus to have done.
Man will not. Man will mutilate life, as being recorded today, but not create.
So… Go ahead…Contend. OR
“Ask of God…that gives to all men…, and it shall be given to you.”
Religion (classifications,stereotype) is no closer to God and his vast intelligence, than
A University of California education is all there is to learn. One day you may ask the Son of God himself… “HOW did you do it? Please tell me!”
” The very science and technology that is now used to discredit the intelligence of our God and his natural existence will herald his
re-entrance onto the stage.
“Parents shall teach their children.”
“…Out of the BEST books by study and also by faith”
“Teach your children to pray.”
“Teach your children that all… must repent.”
Contend not
“Be in harmony with Gods teachings.”
July 31, 2008 at 3:34 pm
When can we start calling “secularism” a religion and ban it’s ideals from texts!!
July 31, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I am always amazed at the self-proclaimed “scientists” that accept extremely flawed evolutionary theory in contradiction to the scientific evidence that opposes it. Stephen Jay Gould (the hero of the evolutionists) incrementally revised his basis for proof of evolution over the years as rational scientists have come forward with plain, logical evidence against the E theory. Gould started as vehement Darwinist and concluded with a desperate and unsupportable theory of sporadic evolution (puntuated equillibrium, I think he called it). Even fellow evolutionists conceded that he was a poor scientist. His mentor at Havard (I’m sorry, I can’t recall his name) once stated that (here paraphrased) “there are two basic theories of human existence — creationism and evolution. Although I know evolution to be an impossibility, I refuse to accept creationism; therefore I accept evolution.” Seems to be the position of most self-proclaimed “scientists.” The two most common scientific laws contrary to evolution are the second law of thermodynamics (matter gravitates toward a state of disorder not order) and the resulting effects of point mutation along a DNA strand. The amount of change or movement of a point along a DNA strand required to create the type and degree of morphology to effect the change in an organism proposed by evolutionists (even small changes), destroys the organism — it dies. How can an organism evolve through natural selection, for instance, if it is dead? “Scientists” have known this almost as long as they have known of the existence of DNA. The point is UC is not concerned about teaching “science” or admitting only students who have a basis in “science,” they are concerned about indoctrinating our children with nonsense because Christian beliefs do not conincide with their world view. They need an alternative — ridiculous as it may be.
August 1, 2008 at 12:44 am
KW, so true – too many people accept what they hear, especially if they see it on tv or that famous television talk show host. If it’s on tv, they believe it – the propaganda.
I refer to history a lot because I did not appreciate it until I was an adult. I went through the studies in school, but a book I read at the library opened up the missing pieces to me. Now, I refer to history because there were important lessons. Christians have been persecuted before and the Bible tells us not to be surprised by this. This is why this is such a good site to inform Christians about the laws affecting our lives so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves and our children. Therefore, parents are so important in the lives of their children.
I would prefer that my children attend a Christian college, but I want them to be prepared to go anywhere in the world for Christ will be with them. Their interests or funding may take them to California, Europe, South America, etc.
God made the science. Man is just trying to catch up to what He created. I look at things pretty simple since learning multiplication. Zero times Zero equals zero. 0+0=0. God is. So everything came from Him. Where did the gas come from? The crystals supposedly planted by aliens (mentioned in Expelled)? What about the molecules? If the gas just “was” then I can believe that God “is/am.” Without Him, there was nothing – zero. Zero times zero equals zero. 0+0=0. Pretty simple. Zero evolution for there was nothing. As soon as you say there was something, you have to ask where it came from. Gas, from where? Big Bang? How? Etc. Everyone can offer more fancy words, but it all boils down to “the beginning.”
So, as far as the science courses go, it’s a theory. Our home school students know that but it’s not fitting into California’s agenda. What are they doing over there? How can one of our states violate so many Constitutional rights? I’m glad that the “Governator” has been recognizing the violations and speaking out about them. Hopefully, as he becomes aware of this policy, his opposition will eradicate this senseless policy in UC institutions (since home school college tests scores are proving the UC misguided in their criteria).
August 2, 2008 at 12:23 am
I attended a Christian university (Southwest Baptist, in Bolivar, Missouri), and the head science professor there, a deacon in the local Baptist church, was an evolutionist who openly ridiculed creationists in the classroom and often stated, “I keep my religion separate from my science.” I know of other universities (one in Iowa and one in Seattle come to mind) that are connected with specific churches, but are so far removed from their roots that students there are not even aware of those denominational connections. My point is that it is important to do your homework concerning Christian universities as well as secular ones: it isn’t safe to simply assume that the curriculum will be God-centered.
August 3, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I run a homeschool program in California and extensively researched UC requirements when I tried to get ours approved. First of all, they are not prohibiting “all” students who have used Christian curriculum. UC only approves courses from entering freshmen, so anyone who wants to graduate from a UC school can still transfer in after completing the first 2 years at a community college.
UC already requires several SAT II tests, so they have ample opportunity to see if a student is prepared for college-level science work. However, under the present system, even if you were to get an 800 on the Biology SAT II, if you didn’t graduate from an accredited school with “approved” curriculum, you would still be denied admission.
To get your courses approved, first of all, you must be accredited by WASC which rules out homeschools and many tiny private schools. Then you submit a series of documents (probably about 4-5 pages PER course) which list your curriculum, syllabus, types of assignments, how many tests, etc. All of this is done in advance — the school must be approved before any senior can submit an admission application. They really are “approving” whether what you plan to teach matches with what they “expect” to be taught. ACSI filed suit because a member school followed UC guidelines and still was not approved. The question is not whether you can teach a religious view of science along with the currently accepted secular theories, but whether UC faculty have the right to control the exact textbooks used in high school of their entering freshman.
August 4, 2008 at 8:07 am
Yea and they know that the majority of homeschoolers teach their kids christian values, hince the not allowed to enter if your taught christian values! Hello to say that that is not their intention is to say that obama is not a muslim!
August 4, 2008 at 12:54 pm
ok so whats ur comments? All I see is spam.
August 4, 2008 at 12:54 pm
ok so whats ur comments? All I see is spam.
August 13, 2008 at 11:16 am
ira Een plaatje zegt alles, toch ? umk Het volledige rapport is hier te vinden. Lees natuurlijk c de blogposting. v j
Thanks for interesting post! dgs
ламинат купить 9f
August 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Amazing!
This link from Fox News, and this link from the San Francisco Chronicle both describe events from last week in which a federal judge ruled in favor of the UC system regarding the topic of this article.
Fox News said:
U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school’s review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.
While the Chronicle added:
Otero’s ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university’s system of reviewing high school classes. Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, a group of Christian schools has appealed Otero’s rulings to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Remarkable, isn’t it? The judge seems to have ruled precisely as I predicted, in accordance with my own research and understanding of the issues at hand.
One of the key elements of the case seems to have been the following snippet from a Christian Biology book, which stated on its first page:
[I]f (scientific) conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong
Despite the fact that so many of this site’s visitors might agree with that statement, imagine your outrage if that same statement was made in any other context, with which you happen to disagree, yet which is nonetheless a derivative of a religious dogma?
The publishers, editors, and authors of this textbook are fools. The parents clamouring for a chance to whine about their perceived religious persecution are fools.
As I said a few (non-spam) posts back:
If you want your students to receive a UC degree, teach to the standard. If not, send them to ORU.
As the judge noted in his ruling, Christianity is not under attack, but instead any unqualified course will be rejected. Not only that, but the student’s acceptance of what they’ve been taught is irrelevant — rather, they must be able to demonstrate a working knowledge of the subject(s) in question, irrespective of their belief system.
Of course, the plaintiff’s attorney promises to send this case to the 9th U.S. Circuit. I rather relish the thought that the Supreme Court might hear this case, and necessarily rule in favor of UC, effectively forcing Christian school systems (read: both formal and home-school programs) to accept reality or form their own. I doubt this would ever happen, though, for a Supreme Court ruling would prove a critical blow to the religious “education” community.
Do you need a tissue?
—
Stan
August 14, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Why is the government saying our children need to know about homosexuality when it is not even allowed in a state of marriage? They should not teach anything this is not legal.
August 27, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Here is a link for where biblical authority is being mocked (with scriptures being taken out of context) even concerning child-rearing and beliefs about the Beatitudes. How will government supervised parenting be directed then????? Yes, there’s a separation of church and state, but we need to recognize the reality of who represents us in Washington. I’m sure the video will be killed soon. Take a look as soon as you get a chance.
Here it is: youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=4FCNKwHRCQM&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i1.ytimg.com/vi/4FCNKwHRCQM/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskINM5ahW96GwEymXVQ02p43&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1
August 31, 2008 at 4:00 pm
In light of the UC’s decision to systematically discriminate against families and students who hold to a Judeo-Christian theology and world view, I have to wonder why such families and students would even want to submit to the educational abuses and distortions of such an institution in the first place. The supposed benefit of graduating from a “prestigious UC institution” is in my view more than offset by the violence done to people of faith who do not share the politically correct ‘world view dujour’. Notwithstanding its strengths, the UC is liberal, open-minded and tolerant of everything but the Truth. They are not content to have real diversity nor are they up to the task of having a truly rigorous and open-minded debate about the issues of life. I think people of faith can find better places to study and invest their educational dollars than the UC.
September 1, 2008 at 4:13 am
Wow, DGUOR, nice YouTube video. I especially like how the narrator claimed the passages had been “painfully taken out of context”. Nevermind the fact that Obama said the Leviticus passage “seems to say that slavery is okay” — he is obviously trying to be as inoffensive as possible, while still reminding the casual reader of the bible that there exist in its passages deplorable acts which are nonetheless required and/or condoned by god, according to the text.
Taken out of context?
The narrator goes on to remind the viewer that Deuteronomy, “which you also arrogantly mock and ridicule, is what gave us the Ten Commandments”.
Oops!
While the Ten Commandments appear in Deuteronomy 5, any Sunday School child will remind you that no, the book which gave us the Ten Commandments is Exodus. The account in Deuteronomy is merely a reminder of that first event.
The video’s goal is obvious from the onset — to slander Barack Obama, who was so crass as to appeal to reason. Unfortunately, the sorts of Christians who would make a video such as this are lacking in exactly that.
The book of Exodus is indeed the book which gives us the Ten Commandments, but it gives us more than that. It gives us instruction as to how much of a beating we can lay upon our slaves (be they male or female) before we can be punished.
Leviticus not only condones slavery, but it regulates it. It tells us that a slave is property which can be willed to one’s heirs indefinitely.
Yes, we should live by the “high” moral standards of the bible…
DGUOR, when you post such vitriol, you could at least make sure it is remotely accurate, and rather than dismissing Obama’s speech out-of-hand based on a pieced-together edit (designed for a particular purpose), perhaps you should instead listen to the whole thing, and hear what the man has to say before you so recklessly cast judgment.
Lest you all forget, Jesus was the product of brother-sister incest via Seth [and his wife], as well as the product of father-daughter incest through Lot.
The next time you want to point to the bible as a consistent moral standard, remember these anecdotal stories — of which many more abound — so that you see how vile much of the bible actually is.
And while you’re bashing Obama, remember that you cannot vote for McCain — if you do so, you will be providing tacit approval of a woman holding a position of authority over men, which 1 Timothy clearly forbids. Ron Paul, anyone?
—
Stan
September 13, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Private schools don’t require credentialed teachers to teach. When will they put private schools on their radar? Why the attack on home educated kids when private schools are using much of the same curriculm?
September 15, 2008 at 1:49 pm
This was not an attack on homeschooled kids. The original lawsuit came out of one of the Calvary Chapel schools.
October 20, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Stan:
U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles ruled Friday that the school’s review committees did not discriminate against Christians because of religious viewpoints when it denied credit to those taught with certain religious textbooks, but instead made a legitimate claim that the texts failed to teach critical thinking and omitted important science and history topics.
The judge ruled?
The Constitution–which is not always taken to heart, would seem to indicate religious freedom, whether you like that issue or not. And it also indicates the corallary in that parents can instruct their kids in whatever manner they feel is safe and appropriate and in keeping with their faith. The Constitution does NOT say that instruction shall consist of what school boards dictate or have in mind with some atheist agenda, nor your personal take on these matters, nor the NEA, nor other teachers’ unions, nor the opinions of even the most noteworthy haters of Christianity, not matter how they couch their arguments.
Dig?
I don’t need a tissue.
However, you need a refresher course in US History.