Biology for Christian Schools

Biology for Christian Schools is a 1991 school-level biology textbook written from a Young Earth Creation point of view by William S. Pinkston and published by the Bob Jones University Press. The book has been controversial because it espouses the idea of Biblical inerrancy; that whenever science and Christianity conflict, the current scientific understanding is wrong.[1] The book promotes creationism, which is rejected by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the National Science Teachers Association who state creationism and intelligent design are pseudoscience.[2]

Biology for Christian Schools
Cover
AuthorWilliam S. Pinkston
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
SubjectBiology
PublisherBob Jones University Press
Publication date
January 1991
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages693
ISBN0-89084-556-5
OCLC33968587
574 20
LC ClassQH308.2 .P56 1994

Francisco J. Ayala, a biologist at University of California, Irvine, wrote the book "rejects generally accepted scientific knowledge" and "explicitly rejects the scientific methodology generally accepted by the scientific community."[3]

2008 court decision

In 2005 the book became a subject in the lawsuit Association of Christian Schools International et al. v. Roman Stearns et al.. The book states, "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second."[4] ACSI sued the University of California for discrimination against its science courses that contain creationist ideas. In the March 2008 ruling the Judge quoted Biology for Christian Schools stating:[5]

Plaintiff's evidence also supports Defendants' conclusion that these biology texts are inappropriate for use as the primary or sole text. Plaintiffs' own biology expert, Professor Michael Behe, testified that "it is personally abusive and pedagogically damaging to de facto require students to subscribe to an idea. . . . Requiring a student to, effectively, consent to an idea violates [her] personal integrity. Such a wrenching violation [may cause] a terrible educational outcome." (Behe Decl. Para. 59.)

Yet, the two Christian biology texts at issue commit this "wrenching violation." For example, Biology for Christian Schools declares on the very first page that:

  1. "'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take. . . ."
  2. "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
  3. "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible." (Phillips Decl. Ex. B, at xi.)
gollark: FOOL!
gollark: Yes. Unfortunately, some things encourage the opposite (being a CEO, etc), but you know.
gollark: Look, society wants you to (mostly...) behave in accordance with ethical standards like "not wanting to kill everyone".
gollark: Hard to, but it is almost certainly not that.
gollark: I prefer people who act ethically.

References
  1. Weiss, Mike (December 12, 2005). "Culture war pits UC vs. Christian way of teaching: Religious schools challenge admission standards in court". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
  2. See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. The Discovery Institute's Dissent From Darwin Petition has been signed by about 500 scientists. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID.
  3. Ayala, Francisco (2005). "Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns, et al.Expert Witness Report of Francisco J. Ayala, Ph.D." (PDF). National Center for Science Education. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-10-12. Retrieved 2009-04-04.
  4. Marshall, Carolyn (November 20, 2005). "University Is Accused of Bias Against Christian Schools". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
  5. Association of Christian Schools International, et al. v. Roman Sterns et al.: Order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgement and granting defendant's motion for partial summary judgement, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. CV 05-6242 SJO (MANx); Case 2:05-cv-06242-SJO-MAN Document 164, filed 28 March 2008. Access date 4 April 2008
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.