UC Berkeley Sued over Evolution Page
Another law suit against the University of California. This one is over an Evolution web site. This suit is in addition to the suit over the university's refusal to accredit non-evolution biology courses and the slanted US History courses taught in some religious high schools.
The University of California at Berkeley has an “Understanding Evolution” web site that provides a nice overview of the theory including a “teacher’s resource” for grades K-12.
As a part of the teacher’s resource, there is a page which addresses “misconceptions.” One item labeled as a “misconception” is the idea that “Religion and Evolution are incompatible.” According to the Daily Californian, this is the source of the problem.
A parent has sued UC Berkeley claiming that the page violates the separation of church and state when it says that “most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution and other scientific findings.”
According to the Californian the “plaintiff also took exception to a link for the National Center for Science Education Web site which includes religious statements on the theory of evolution by several religious denominations” and the suit claims that “the method the site uses forces students to ignore or change their respective religious beliefs in order to accept what the plaintiff calls ‘a government-sanctioned version of evolution.’”
But the site also says “some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science” so I guess I’m a little confused as to the point of all this.
The NCSE link leads to a page which lists 17 statements from religious organizations including the American Jewish Congress, the Roman Catholic Church and the United Presbyterian Church.
This suit is certainly an interesting twist. I suspect, it is based upon the misconception that calls evolution a “religion.” The state can, and does, sanction scientific and social positions.
As to whether a government site can make assessments of a religious nature and link to a site which quotes religious sources is rather an interesting question. I think however this particular site easily passes the modified Lemon Test.
Purpose Prong: Does the government action in question have a bona fide secular purpose?
Yes, the secular purpose is education with respect to science. The statements related to the misconception are accurate. Most religions have made their peace with evolution and the NCSE site provides the evidence of the accuracy of this statement. The site also acknowledges that some religious beliefs do contradict evolution.
Effects Prong: Does the government action have a primary effect of advancing religion: 1) government indoctrination, 2) defining the recipients of government benefits based on religion, and 3) excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Again, I think the answer here is clearly no unless one wants to argue that evolution is a religion.
I also think the site passes the Neutrality Test which requires that government be neither an ally nor an adversary of religion UNLESS, once again, either one considers evolution a religion in itself OR an adversary of religion.
Bottom line, this is a frivolous lawsuit that should get chucked at the first opportunity.
The University of California at Berkeley has an “Understanding Evolution” web site that provides a nice overview of the theory including a “teacher’s resource” for grades K-12.
As a part of the teacher’s resource, there is a page which addresses “misconceptions.” One item labeled as a “misconception” is the idea that “Religion and Evolution are incompatible.” According to the Daily Californian, this is the source of the problem.
A parent has sued UC Berkeley claiming that the page violates the separation of church and state when it says that “most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution and other scientific findings.”
According to the Californian the “plaintiff also took exception to a link for the National Center for Science Education Web site which includes religious statements on the theory of evolution by several religious denominations” and the suit claims that “the method the site uses forces students to ignore or change their respective religious beliefs in order to accept what the plaintiff calls ‘a government-sanctioned version of evolution.’”
But the site also says “some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science” so I guess I’m a little confused as to the point of all this.
The NCSE link leads to a page which lists 17 statements from religious organizations including the American Jewish Congress, the Roman Catholic Church and the United Presbyterian Church.
This suit is certainly an interesting twist. I suspect, it is based upon the misconception that calls evolution a “religion.” The state can, and does, sanction scientific and social positions.
As to whether a government site can make assessments of a religious nature and link to a site which quotes religious sources is rather an interesting question. I think however this particular site easily passes the modified Lemon Test.
Purpose Prong: Does the government action in question have a bona fide secular purpose?
Yes, the secular purpose is education with respect to science. The statements related to the misconception are accurate. Most religions have made their peace with evolution and the NCSE site provides the evidence of the accuracy of this statement. The site also acknowledges that some religious beliefs do contradict evolution.
Effects Prong: Does the government action have a primary effect of advancing religion: 1) government indoctrination, 2) defining the recipients of government benefits based on religion, and 3) excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Again, I think the answer here is clearly no unless one wants to argue that evolution is a religion.
I also think the site passes the Neutrality Test which requires that government be neither an ally nor an adversary of religion UNLESS, once again, either one considers evolution a religion in itself OR an adversary of religion.
Bottom line, this is a frivolous lawsuit that should get chucked at the first opportunity.
posted by Alencon at 10:05 AM
1 Comments:
Hear, here!
Post a Comment
<< Home