Should universities refuse to credit creationist "science" courses?

[alcibiades_mystery]

I ask the question after reading the following letter in today's New York Times:

To the Editor:

With our students lagging behind those of other countries in science, it is unconscionable to train a generation of people who will not know the difference between theology and science. These students will be unprepared for the science curriculums in our colleges and universities.

As a result, I believe that science credits from schools teaching creationism and its derivatives should not be recognized. Students from such schools should be required to complete remedial courses that teach the scientific method, paying full tuition for the privilege of learning what their high schools should have taught them.

Someone needs to establish real consequences for this sad turn toward anti-intellectualism that is infecting our educational system.

Michael Hecht
State College, Pa., May 17, 2005 (bold emphasis added)

This seems like a good idea to me. If local school districts want to put their own students at a national disadvantage, that's all well and good, but institutions of higher learning must also maintain their own standards for what constitutes credible scholarship in the sciences, and part of maintaining such standards should include the rejection of any pre-requisite course of study that violates basic scientific methods and premises.

[bullimiami]

1. its a class in religion

they should teach all creation myths together.

but for the crazies I guess that isnt good enough?

[Trajan]

2. Creationism has no curriculum ....

It consists ONLY of objection to Darwin ....

Intelligent design can be summed up thusly: We think something intelligent made these things because it seems like something intelligent made these things ...

There is no science here ... only religious philosophy ...

[baldguy]

3. In 50 yrs, India will outsource low-wage jobs to America.

Fundies WANT the US to be a thied world country.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I am not sure that universities get into that level of detail

regarding what was the content of various courses taught at the high school level.

What I think they do track is how students from specific schools perform and how they test. Over time applicants from schools that teach theology instead of science will be at a disadvantage when applying to top universities. Ultimately our entire nation will be ata competitive disadvantage due to our rejection of rationalism and science.

[enlightenment]

7. Many colleges and universities test

for proficiency in Math and English these days; they have to, since so many students start their post-secondary careers unable to accomplish the basics in either discipline. Students are placed in courses based on their scores -- far too many remedial courses, IMO.

I'm not sure if they do the same for science, but why not?
A proficiency test might help stave off accusations of discrimination against those who were only taught 'intelligent design'.

[mmonk]

5. I don't care what they do with it

as long as it's in philosphy classes or religion classes and NOT permitted in science curriculum or given credit through the science departments.

[CatholicEdHead]

11. Yep that is the place for it

and it should be an optional elective course in that curriculum.

[tjdee]

6. Are there state schools which teach this to the exclusion of science?

I'm not sure--here in NJ we're taught regular science in the state high school.

I would agree with that solution as well.

[amazona]

8. that does sound like a great idea

It's undoubtedly what happens in practice anyway.

In the New Orleans area it is noticeable the difference between "Christian" (schools for hysterical racist anti-science know-nothings) and "Catholic" schools. The student who attends the Catholic school is required to take some religion courses, but she also receives an education and often a very good one. Many of these students can receive Advanced Placement in college, which saves money.

The student who attends the "Christian" high school is often on the road to failure in college -- the need for remedial courses, the failures that require taking the class a second time, etc.

So the financial consequences are already real in many situations.

However, it seems unfair to allow the teaching of an inferior education to public school students, who often have less financial resources to begin with to pursue higher education. I would prefer that religion in the public schools be banned, and hysterics who continue to parade their ignorance be fired from any position they hold in the system. It is the child who pays for their cheap posturing.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[tx_dem41]

9. They surely have the right to discount it....and have it be a criteria

factor for acceptance.

[me b zola]

10. "anti-intellectualism that is infecting our educational system"

I agree with the letter to the editor. Children who have the misfortune of a school system that allows Biblical studies into the science classroom are at a huge disadvantage from other students. Scientific methodology is the most basic premise of a science class, from which students learn how to investigate & learn about scientific phenomenon in our natural world. To interject questions of the spiritual world, which cannot be measured with scientific tools & methodology, into a science classroom defies logic.

My oldest grandchild is only in pre-school, but I pity the school who would attempt to undermine his education by allowing nonsense into his science classroom. My stance is not anti-religion, we take him to church or temple for matters of the spirit.