Just send 'em to a Christian university.

[cormac]

They're not going to be happy anywhere else.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/12/BAQT129NMG.DTL&tsp=1

A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

The Bible may be infallible, but it still says bats are birds, donkeys can talk, the sun can stop its course through the sky, and people can come back from the dead, which makes it a shitty science text.

Comments

[mistresshuette.livejournal.com]

Well, in order to understand me, you have to know that Dr. Walter Lammerts was a close cousin of mine. So close, in fact, that his parents raised my father and had wanted to adopt my father, if my grandfather had allowed it. You also have to know that Dr. Walter Lammerts was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and its first President. My cousin was not a crackpot or a religious zealot. He was a scientist and a geneticist. He got his doctorate at UC Berkeley and got a research fellowship for several years at CalTech. He felt that the Theory of Evolution was just that, a theory. It has never been "proven". As a geneticist, he was able to show that if left alone, plants, animals and humans will progess, but occasionally regress. He, as a scientist, felt that creationism could be scientific as much as evolution is considered to be. He felt that since there has been no evidence of unplanned regression, that the theory of evolution is errant. He felt that creationism is about intelligent design, with God being the intelligence behind the design. He didn't use the Bible to substantiate his theories. He used science. Although a lot of other scientists poo-pooed him and his stance, they could never prove him wrong.

Should the Bible be used in a science class? No. But Creationism isn't entirely about religion or shouldn't be. It is about proving scientifically that there are errors in the theory of evolution and about proving that Intelligent Design is the better alternative.