Evolution hits the US Supreme Court... AGAIN

Galvasean · 19-02-2009 3:54pm #1

http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=56400

UC Berkeley has been drawn into a lawsuit over a campus Web site on evolution that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the suit was dismissed by district courts.

The suit was first filed in 2005 by Sacramento parent Jeanne Caldwell against the UC Berkeley site, "Understanding Evolution," which was created by the UC Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education.

In January, Caldwell-in conjunction with the Pacific Justice Institute-filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to allow the lower courts to review their case. UC Berkeley filed its opposition brief to the appeal last week, claiming the suit had no standing.

Caldwell first sued because she said the section of the Web site titled "Misconceptions: Evolution and Religion are Incompatible" violates the establishment clause, which mandates the separation of church and state in a public forum.

"She felt that her rights in the constitutional clause were being violated, because the University of California-which is equivalent to the state of California-was taking sides in a religious debate," said her attorney and husband Larry Caldwell.

In 2006, a district court dismissed the case based on lack of standing. Caldwell appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the lower court's decision last October, Larry Caldwell said.

He said his wife takes a literal view of the Bible and believes the government Web site is in support of a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible.

University Counsel Christopher Patti, who is one of the attorneys defending UC Berkeley, says he expects to hear the decision from the Supreme Court by March. He added UC Berkeley will continue to contest the case's standing.

"We think that it's unlikely the Supreme Court will take the case," Patti said. "Usually the Supreme Court takes (cases) on issues where the courts of appeals have decided differently, but there's no split in this case."

According to officials at the UC Museum of Paleontology, the site's intention was to provide educational materials on evolution for science teachers.

"This isn't about evolution versus religion," said Roy Caldwell, director of the museum. "It's being appealed on the grounds of standing."

While the appeals process continues, Roy Caldwell said the Web site is not in jeopardy.

Judy Scotchmoor, assistant director of education and public programs for the museum, said the site has reached out to such a broad audience that there have been requests from schools in other countries to translate it into other languages.

"It's been designated as one of the go-to places for getting information about evolution," Scotchmoor said.

Some professors believe the dispute is the result of a misunderstanding over the relationship between religion and evolution.

"(Evolution) is a fact," said Leslea Hlusko, a professor of integrative biology. "So I think that the woman who is the main complainant in that lawsuit-maybe perhaps (if) she better understood evolution, she wouldn't feel so threatened."

Can't we all just get along?

AtomicHorror · 19-02-2009 4:29pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Can't we all just get along?

No.

Goduznt Xzst · 19-02-2009 5:01pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Can't we all just get along?

What I find funny is that Berkeley were clearly just trying to get everyone to just get along by saying you don't have to go against your beliefs to accept evolution (i'm guessing this is the off campus version of the statement in question)

It's another case of someone who hasn't bothered to educate themselves, but who still imagines they have a voice thats worth listening to on a subject they know nothing about. Thankfully nobody, rightfully, seems to be giving her the time of day.

ChocolateSauce · 19-02-2009 5:32pm

I find it odd that a nut job (aka the bible bashing woman) is suing the state because it's defending religion. Demanding UCB doesn't say "Religion and science are not incompatible" is the kind of thing you'd expect from lostexpectation!:p

Borneo Fnctn · 19-02-2009 6:31pm

Galvasean wrote: »

http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=56400

Can't we all just get along see sense?

FYP

Zombrex · 19-02-2009 10:16pm

This is the sort of thing that keeps Dawkins up at night, the pandering to the religious idea that we can all just get along back firing when a religious person takes offense that science is still contradicting their particular patch of ignorance.

What the web site should have said is that all of modern science contradicts the vast majority of religious beliefs about the origin of the universe, life and humans, and religious people need to get the f**k over it.

But I imagine that would have offended a few people as well :pac:

darjeeling · 19-02-2009 10:33pm

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the sort of thing that keeps Dawkins up at night, the pandering to the religious idea that we can all just get along back firing when a religious person takes offense that science is still contradicting their particular patch of ignorance.

What the web site should have said is that all of modern science contradicts the vast majority of religious beliefs about the origin of the universe, life and humans, and religious people need to get the f**k over it.

But I imagine that would have offended a few people as well :pac:

There's a pragmatic question over the best approach, though. Even if you agree in principle that science contradicts most religion, still is it more useful to make common cause with moderate religious people and isolate the fundamentalists, or should you stick to your guns and risk uniting the whole of religion against you? I've not really heard anyone raise this in public, maybe as it seems a bit too cynical.

Zillah · 19-02-2009 10:45pm

I dunno, I actually think she has a point. It's not very appropriate for a scientific website to make statements as to the compatibility of their findings with the personal beliefs of others.

If I was a Creationist who saw someone claiming that religion doesn't have a problem with evolution I'd be pretty pissed off.

darjeeling · 19-02-2009 11:02pm

Zillah wrote: »

I dunno, I actually think she has a point. It's not very appropriate for a scientific website to make statements as to the compatibility of their findings with the personal beliefs of others.

Ideally, a science site would post up the science and leave it at that. Here, it would seem odd to go on to talk about religion in the same breath, but in the US it might be different. Maybe the site's authors see attacks from creationists going unchallenged by more moderate religious leaders and are having to mount their own defence.

.

Mena · 19-02-2009 11:07pm

The site was designed to assist educators. It seems, to me, valid to go over the common misconceptions, as these would no doubt be raised by students who've been given garbage information in the community.

While the topic may be scientific, displaying only the raw science, in this case, could be counter-productive.

ChocolateSauce · 20-02-2009 4:09pm

Zillah wrote: »

I dunno, I actually think she has a point. It's not very appropriate for a scientific website to make statements as to the compatibility of their findings with the personal beliefs of others.

If I was a Creationist who saw someone claiming that religion doesn't have a problem with evolution I'd be pretty pissed off.

There is a point, but this woman does not have it. If she were doing the exact same thing she's doing now, but from a secular perspective, she'd be on to something. The state shouldn't be saying science and religion are compatible, but she's suing because the state is suggesting that the bible isn't literally true, not because she believes in separation of church and state. You can bet she wouldn't have a problem with it if the state was endorsing her version of events!

Zillah · 20-02-2009 4:16pm

I don't think you're representing her fairly. In essence, by stating that evolution and Christianity are compatible, the website is asserting that the non-literal interpretation variant is the true Christianity. The article says pretty much exactly that: "He said his wife takes a literal view of the Bible and believes the government Web site is in support of a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible."

Of course it's probably just a ploy to take a jab at evolution but her stated argument has merit.

ChocolateSauce · 20-02-2009 7:44pm

Hmm.... fair enough Zillah.

I guess you could some up my position by saying I think she's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, and I don't respect that.

Black Swan · 21-02-2009 12:18pm

Besides the OP news link, has anyone bothered to look at the actual UC Berkeley "Understanding Evolution" site in question? Site http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php and "controversy" webpage within site http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/controversy_faq.php

The UC Berkeley "controversy" webpage relies to some extent upon the information and positions taken by yet another organisation, The National Center for Science Education, which has the stated purpose in their webpage masthead: "NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out." See: http://ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3117_evolution_creation_and_scien_12_7_2000.asp

Caldwell first sued because she said the section of the Web site titled "Misconceptions: Evolution and Religion are Incompatible" violates the establishment clause, which mandates the separation of church and state in a public forum.

"She felt that her rights in the constitutional clause were being violated, because the University of California-which is equivalent to the state of California-was taking sides in a religious debate," said her attorney and husband Larry Caldwell.

So the question of law is, did the UC Berkeley (a state institution) take a side against religion (i.e., creationism), or present the controversy impartially? If they sided with the position taken by the NCSE, it would appear that Caldwell may have some merit to her complaint? But if they presented a somewhat balanced view of the controversy (and there were other sources sited on the "controversy" webpage), then her complaint would be moot?

Now by UC Berkeley presenting a balanced position regarding the controversy on their site does not mean that they are advocating the teaching of creationism along side evolution in the classroom. On their evolution school curriculum pages (contained elsewhere on the site) there should be no obligation for the State University to introduce or otherwise provide space for creationism (aka, Intelligent Design); i.e., no obligation to introduce a different subject (religion) in a science course. Only that on the "controversy" portion of their website they should be presenting both sides of the controversy without bias?

If I were the UC Berkeley (after the court decision has been rendered), I would dump the "controversy" webpages and just focus on the teaching of evolution, without mention of non-scientific ID or creationism. It's a course in science, not religion. Why give them space? Problem solved!

Evolution hits the US Supreme Court... AGAIN

Comments