Berkeley defends its "Understanding Evolution" site.....from a 1st Amendment challenge??

Apparently some right wing "legal defense fund" called the Pacific Justice Institute is suing UC Berkeley over some language used on their "Understanding Evolution" web resource. This particular case tugs at 2 of my competing interests and requires me to do a little extra work.

On the one hand, it's vitally important that we teach evolution. Without it, we cannot understand modern biology, physiology, genetics, and a whole host of other scientific disciplines that improve our lives and health. The Berkeley site is a fabulous resource for explaining both the evidence for evolution and its usefulness.

On the other hand, church state separation is a vitally important wall to maintain. The government should never be in the business of taking sides in theological debates or doing anything that could be construed as endorsing a particular religion over another. If the Berkeley site does either of these, it should be reworded to avoid violating the 1st Amendment.

So what's the truth of the matter then? Let's take a look at the complaint and the potentially offensive material. Here is the PJI Press Release. The first clue that these clowns have an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with dutifully protecting church state separation are the quotes surrounding misconceptions. Although it's clear they are trying to attach derision to the Berkeley site, they fail to acknowledge the the misconceptions are very real. The information presented by the offending page is absolutely factual. There is no derision on that page, merely a factual statement that there are indeed religious ideas that are simply incompatible with evolution. They use, as an example, the literal 6-day creation. Nothing here endorses or derides this as a RELIGIOUS idea. It simply points out the fact that it is incompatible with the body of established evolutionary science. There are literally thousands of other examples of religious creation stories they could have used. They simply chose the one that is most pervasive in the United States. I have a deep suspicion that had they chosen the equally incompatible Islamic creation story, the PJI would not have complained in the same way.

They also complain in the press release that: "The site also warns teachers that student questions which expose the weaknesses of evolution "may be designed to disrupt the learning process" and should not be given the same respect as "legitimate" questions."

Again with the sneering quotes. I'm beginning to wonder if these are serious attorneys or political ideologues. Here is the supposedly offensive page. The Berkeley site is trying to help teachers who are besieged with inanity get through it so they can actually teach the science. In science or any subject, there are legitimate line of questioning and there are dead ends. The PJI surely would not expect a science teacher to seriously entertain astrology while teaching planetary movements or 16th century alchemical beliefs in a chemistry class. But in Biology, they want students to be able to railroad classes with ridiculous non-science questions.

This is the complaint that gives up the deceitful little game the PJI is playing here. This lawsuit is quite transparently part of the new strategy from the ID proponents and their creationist kin. They first tried to insert literal biblical creationism into science classes. Edwards v Aguilar destroyed that dream so they turned to the more nebulous non-science of ID. Even a conservative judge appointed by GWB himself saw through that little ruse. At every turn they have been blocked. So they needed a new strategy. It appears they are now going with a term that very few average people would have a quibble with: "Academic Freedom". Over the past year or so, several states have seen these deceptive little bills show up. They couch them in terms that most Americans, even non-religious ones would support. Students and teachers should have academic freedom to "follow the evidence". They have begun pairing this with RELIGIOUS freedom and have introduced bills that would basically allow students to inject their non-scientific ideas into science classes without fear of academic failure. Here's a rundown of these efforts. Notice the rank dishonesty of these efforts. Again, these bills are not aimed at physics, chemistry, astronomy, or mathematics. It is ONLY the life sciences that are under attack here.

If you go through Berkeley's evolutionary educational site, you can clearly see its purpose. There is no endorsement of any kind of any particular religion at all. The focus is on the SCIENCE and how to answer the inevitable questions they will have to deal with WITHOUT any particular religious issues. The overarching idea of the site is that evolution deals with the material and observable NOT with the supernatural at all. This fall firmly within the Austin Dacey's definition of the accommodationism attitude in the newly published collection from Trinity College, Secularism and Science in the 21st Century. Berkeley is not endorsing any theological belief over another. They are merely pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that some religious ideas directly contradict evolution. They then try to direct teachers to the proper focus of their efforts when teaching evolution: stick with the science. Avoid the supernatural.

In the end, this lawsuit is attempting to accomplish the exact OPPOSITE of what it says. The goal here is not to protect the 1st Amendment prohibition of church/state entanglements. The purpose is to give creationist, religious teachers and students the latitude they need to turn science class into a bible study.