Biology for Christian Schools

Infobox_Book
name = Biology for Christian Schools


author = William S. Pinkston
cover_artist =
publisher = Bob Jones University Press
release_date = January 1991
media_type = Hardcover
pages = 693
size_weight = 1.40 pounds (0.64 kg)
isbn = ISBN 0890845565

"Biology for Christian Schools" is a controversial 1991 school-level textbook written by William S. Pinkston and published by the Bob Jones University Press. It espouses the idea of Biblical inerrancy that whenever science and Christianity conflicts, science is wrong. [cite news | url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/12/MNGBNG6N2K1.DTL | title=Culture war pits UC vs. Christian way of teaching: Religious schools challenge admission standards in court |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle | date=December 12, 2005 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2008-04-24] The book promotes creationism. In contrast, the National Center for Science Education, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the National Science Teachers Association consider creationism and intelligent design to be pseudoscience. [See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) . The Discovery Institute's [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ 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 [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml firmly rejects ID] .]

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." [cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/national/20christian.html | title=University Is Accused of Bias Against Christian Schools |publisher=New York Times | date=November 20, 2005 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2008-04-24] 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: [ [http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/msjruling_033108.pdf 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 03/28/2008. Access date 04/04/2008]

quotation|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:

#"'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take. . . ."
#"If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
#"Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible." (Phillips Decl. Ex. B, at xi.)

References

Links

* [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/more-bob-jones.html More Bob Jones “Biology for Christian Schools” Howlers] , The Panda's Thumb (blog)
* [http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-cacdce/case_no-2:2005cv06242/case_id-177451/ Documents]
* [http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/msjruling_033108.pdf Rejection of Summry Judgement for the Plaintiffs and Partial Summary Judgement for the Defendants]