Staff members at the University of California-Berkeley are being sued in court over a pro-evolution Web site, hosted by the school’s science program, that ridicules religious denominations that do not agree with evolution.
The Pacific Justice Institute, a religious liberties group, claims that the Web site – which was designed with $500,000 in federal backing – endorses religious views that support evolution while deriding those that do not, thus constituting an illegal and public endorsement of religion by the university.
The group also points to parts of the site that feature pro-evolution religious denominations alongside faiths that the site says adhere to creationism and "explicitly contradict science.”
In another section on the Web site, teachers are informed to consider all objections by students to evolution as “different from legitimate inquiry” and “disrupt[ions]” to the learning process.
"Whatever one's views on the origin of life or the theory of evolution, it is completely inappropriate for the government to declare that some religious denominations are better than others,” explained PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, in a statement. “The Supreme Court has long held that government must not decree what is orthodox in religion, and we are seeking to hold UC Berkeley to that standard.”
Roy Caldwell, who is among the professors being sued by PJI, denied the assertion, arguing that the site simply made “facts” available to users.
"Basically, what we have is a page that deals with the misconceptions and challenges to the teaching of evolution, and we provided resources to teachers to answer them,” he told UC Berkeley news. “One of those questions is, 'Aren't religion and evolution incompatible?' And we say, 'no,' and point to a number of sites by clerics and others who make that point.”
PJI President Brad Davis emphasized that the case was a clear situation of viewpoint discrimination.
“Government actions that demean a group's faith clearly express state hostility toward religion and must be contested,” he said.
The lawsuit, which was originally filed by PJI in 2005 and dismissed because of what judges said was a “lack in standing,” will be reviewed this week by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On the Web: evolution.berkeley.edu
Comments
Despite extensive searching of the Gospels I am unable to find any teaching of Christ's on Darwin's origin of species. Also I found nothing in the gospels where Christ seeks to prove the existence of God. It seems to me that not only is the pursuit of "scientific" evidence for God (ID) a enormous waste of time and inherently doomed to failure (since Science by definition deals with NATURAL phenomena and NATURAL causes and God by definition is supernatural) it is also fully inconsistent with the manner and teachings of Christ. One even wonders seriously if this vanity is what Christ spoke of when he discusses the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Spirit of god living within us as C.S. Lewis so well describes in "Miracles" which informs us of the truth of Christss revelation. Is not chasing after other "proofs" of god and his covenant a repudiation of this new spirit which is to live within us.
Billyrae,
A BIG thanks goes out to whoever censored me, again, when will you ever learn?
“If the government knows that the teaching of evolution bothers christians then they need to respect christians and not force the theory of evolution on them and their children..... schools should teach the basics of life... reading, writing and arithmetic...anything else should be parent approval.. when the children grow up into adults then they can choose what they believe...”
I couldn’t disagree more. Hate to break to you ‘billyrae’ (from the South are we?) but in today’s global economy, one cannot pretend as if some forms of science or knowledge don’t exist or aren’t required simply for theological concerns. If you truly want to abandon it all in this manner, may I suggest you opt for the Amish lifestyle? According to your logic, we shouldn’t have taught according to the evidence as presented by Galileo, Newton and Copernicus and other Renaissance scientists simply b/c it was not something a small religious minority couldn’t swallow at the time b/c of the theological consequences. ‘What you say, you mean the heavens aren’t controlled by some omniscient being, but rather the natural forces, oh no, the horror!’
Shouldn’t we teach according to what is true and backed by evidence in all cases an not according to what will simply offend? We should strive to discover and support the truth in all instances and wherever the evidence leads we will follow. By your logic we shouldn’t teach that the South lost the Civil war simply b/c it would offensive to the people who live there. If you don’t want you kids to be taught something that would utterly kill their faith, then perhaps their faith isn’t so strong to begin with. Home school them like the rest of the evangelicals who can’t handle to have their kids coming home asking their parents such challenging theological questions.
Additionally, I will note that the ultimate origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution. As such, an objection that life could not have originated through natural processes occurring on earth is not an objection to the theory of evolution. Even if Crick had maintained his position that abiogenesis on Earth was impossible throughout his life, that would not constitute an "objection" to the theory of evolution, which does not require that abiogenesis of any kind ever occurred. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the theory of evolution.
"Francis Crick, discoverer with James Watson of the double helix structure of DNA, stated in his book "Life Itself" that life must have been "seeded" on Earth by unmanned spacecraft from other galaxies, as it could not have evolved from the primordial soup on Earth.
So, Watson must be counting his partner Crick as a fundamentalist minority, eh?"
This is unlikely, as Crick made that statement only as a result of belief that abiogenesis was not physically possible in light of existing knowledge at the time. He later revised his position, and stated outright that he was incorrect in his original assessment. Citing a position that Francis Crick later repudiated as though he held it throughout his life is not honest.
"If the government knows that the teaching of evolution bothers christians then they need to respect christians and not force the theory of evolution on them and their children."
This is an irrational suggestion. It is not reasonable to withhold teaching of established science merely because there exists a subset of the population who rejects observed reality in favor of specific interpretations of religious claims.
If the government knows that the teaching of evolution bothers christians then they need to respect christians and not force the theory of evolution on them and their children..... schools should teach the basics of life... reading, writing and arithmetic...anything else should be parent approval.. when the children grow up into adults then they can choose what they believe...
The issue here is not about the science of evolution it is about whether this publicly funded website takes an unlawful political or religious position. It would seem that the lemon test would apply in this arena just as it would in a case where a school was having led prayer in their program. So the question would be
did The website have a secular purpose . Clearly it does that being the promotion of science education in particular evolution. However since some groups purport that evolution itself is a religion the plaintiffs may argue that the purpose i.e. promotion of teaching evolution is not a secular but a religious purpose. The courts consistently reject this claim.
did the website have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion. The plaintiffs seem to be claiming that the website does both selectively advancing some religions and inhibiting others. It is hard to conceive that the website could be construed as having this as its primary effect.
did the website result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. It is unclear if the plaintiffs are contending this. However based on prior case law it is difficult to see how a court would find the descriptive statements about the actions of some religious groups can be seen as excessive entanglement.
If this website is unlawful under the constitution it is difficult to imagine that any comparative religion course or other even cursory mention of religion in public university could survive scrutiny.
Given this the filing of the case must be understood as primarily a political action rather than a legal one. This will provide the plaintiffs with a platform from which to rally adherents and to martyr themselves in the courts.
Francis Crick, discoverer with James Watson of the double helix structure of DNA, stated in his book "Life Itself" that life must have been "seeded" on Earth by unmanned spacecraft from other galaxies, as it could not have evolved from the primordial soup on Earth.
So, Watson must be counting his partner Crick as a fundamentalist minority, eh?
Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.
[Dr. James D. Watson, winner of the Nobel prize for his co-discovery of the structure of DNA]
"Wow, so the scientific method is giving a hypothesis, making an experiment, and then testing it. The whole point of science is challenging theories and asking questions, and now you have suggested that challenging theories and asking questions is not permissible. ":
No, now you've misunderstood what I meant. Notice the key words I used, 'in class' as in, in public schools. In public schools isn't the time or place for ongiong debates on facts regarding such theories, there simply isn't the time nor the resources. We shoud teach what is best supported according to data/facts and not what we'd like to teach simply for theological comforting.
There is a place and time for such science theories to be reviewed more in depth and critiqued further, the key place is in the labs of universites and private institutions, NOT in the public schools. The arena which is NOT permitted is in the 4th grade class room for instance where the students haven't the foggiest idea of the scientific method let alone the evidence for given theories and therefore they lack what makes science scientific and would be easily fooled by such ideas which are not backed according science but instead philosophy. The only crowd that would chapmpion the idea of 'letting the kids decide' and 'teach the contreversy' and other utterly illogical ideas would be a place like the DI. Should we 'let the kids decide' in regards to other matters like the holocaust or the gettysburg address? No, absolutely not. We have the facts of what occured and it's iresponsible to teach such things as if there were two sides to those stories, or as if the scientists researching such theories have no clue what they are doing.
The most un-scientific thing I may have ever heard,
"The scientific method doesn't allow for inclass debates on facts..."
Wow, so the scientific method is giving a hypothesis, making an experiment, and then testing it. The whole point of science is challenging theories and asking questions, and now you have suggested that challenging theories and asking questions is not permissible.
"Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. "
Please justify this assertion with evidence.
"See
http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists."
I cannot consider the claims of an individual who incorrectly believes that the US Justice Department can legally settle a "wager" to be credible. Additionally, his assertion that those who simply have refused to accept the wager are now charged with a "default judgement" suggests that the website author suffers from delusions.
I actually visited and followed the entire tour. Some of the people posting here would be well-served to do the same. I saw nothing that criticized a specific religion or promoted a specific religion. When fundamentalists lie about and misrepresent science, it seems to me entirely appropriate that science correct those lies and misrepresentations. The Berkeley website does that admirably.
Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See
http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists.
Oh no, watch out! They may be after our textbooks next....