Couple sues operators of UC Berkeley Web site that teaches evolution

[Thor_MN]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13263733.htm

BERKELEY, Calif. - A California couple has sued the operators of a University of California-Berkeley Web site designed to help teachers teach evolution, claiming it improperly strays into religion.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others because the site is partly funded through a public money grant from the National Science Foundation

The plaintiffs are not proponents of "intelligent design" - a theory that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher intelligence - but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, Jeanne Caldwell said.

Fundagelicals attempt to level the playing field by dragging science down to thier level???

[acmejack]

1. Nuisance value only.

This matter has been decided before. These people are really getting tiresome.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Can't the scientists do something?

[Demeter]

45. Darwin's Law Will Take Care Of These Idiots

Science doesn't have to "do" anything except be unapologetically aggressive with the facts and data and methodology.

[Cerridwen]

2. From the article:

The Caldwells say they are not supporter of intelligent design, which is a theory that living organisms were created by a higher intelligence, but they do object to teaching evolution as scientific fact. (emphasis mine)

From Wikipedia:

Quality Science Education for All (QSEA) is a non-profit creationist foundation focused on challenging evolution as taught in public schools.

Part of the intelligent design movement, QSEA has been involved in legal disputes over science textbooks used in classrooms in several states, including Minnesota, Texas, and California. Other notable actions include Caldwell v. Roseville Joint Union High School District, a case brought "so that citizen proposals to implement 'Quality Science Education' in their local public school will be considered on their scientific and educational merits, rather than on the basis of pre-existing prejudices and bias."

QSEA is operated by the husband and wife team of Larry and Jeanne Caldwell, of Roseville, California. Larry Caldwell lists himself as founder and president.(emphasis mine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Science_Education_...

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Didn't the Bible have a few things to say

about bearing false witness? We need to start a campaign to publicize the fact that these people are NOT Christians.

You simply can't go around wantonly breaking commandments and Jesus' teachings and still get away with passing yourself off as Christian.

[Democat]

16. Forward this info to Media Matters, AP, Reuters, Berkeley, etc.

Good find, get the word out!

[Cerridwen]

20. Working on it.

I'm connecting the dots for them since apparently ( :sarcasm: ) they are unable to do it themselves. ( /:sarcasm: )

[mopinko]

19. wtf is the matter with the mercury news?

good god, why do these papers even bother to publish this shit. why run a story, and not even gooogle these people. no wonder no one bothers to read newspapers any more.

[guruoo]

28. fixed wikipedia link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_Science_Education_for_All

[Cerridwen]

38. Thanks. Didn't catch it was broken and I've been off-line. n/t

[ihelpu2see]

32. can you check that Wikipedia link, I try it and would love if this were

true but Wikipedia does not show this info when QSEA is searched for. (I typed it out too)

[Realityhack]

42. AWSOME! great info. Thanks. n/t

[SemperEadem]

44. are they targeting colleges as well as public school districts?

seems to me that by the time people get to college, they are old enough to determine for themselves whether or not they want to believe scientific fact or religious speculation.

Their science has no quality about it--it's creationism plain and simple.

[iwanmycntrybak]

3. Lack of understanding is not proof of a GOD!

[mbperrin]

4. OK. How about as a compromise, we teach,

"We THINK there may be an actual universe. That's about all you need to know. Class dismissed."

See? and then we could pass those No Child Left Behind Exams!

And quit spending so much stinking money on labs and science equipment - after all, the Chinese have plenty of those, right?

AND this will leave plenty of time for everyone to brush up on their Simplified Chinese as well!

Well, OK, then.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. What jerks!

These people need to get a life and accept science and evolution! Are these people that insecure with their faith? As a Christian when I study anything with science because I believe in God I believe I'm studying what He has done. These people are seriously having some self-doubt issues or something. I'm not going to let them take away science from me. I love science and proud of it!

[proReality]

7. Fundagelicals attempt to level the playing field by dragging science down

Yes, and it goes back to the beginnings of Christianity and the Bible. In the words of the Apostle Paul: "SAPIENTIAM SAPIENTUM PERDAM." (I will destroy the wisdom of the wise.)

[depakid]

8. Sounds like a frivolous suit

I hope the courts duly sanction the plaintiffs and their attorney (if they actually have one).

This should go away on a demurrer.

[tularetom]

9. Yes but imagine how much

money their foundation will rake in as a result of the publicity generated by their silly ass lawsuit. I can see the dumshits whipping out their checkbooks already. Those idiots aren't "nuanced" enough to think it through or care if its settled law.

[depakid]

21. I guess it's in federal court

So I made a mistake on the demmurrer.

Seems to me that if these folks keep this up long enough, the Courts have the option of sanctioning them in an amount that will deter them filing, regardless of the fundraising:

From Rule 11

(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.

Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.

Seems to me that if the courts actually got serious about sanctioning utterly frivilous suits, there wouldn't be much of an argument for tort deform (not that there honestly is anyway).

[opihimoimoi]

10. They make themselves a HUGE JOKE....reveals their IGNORANCE

BIG TIME,,,,Bwahahahahahaha

The Judge will scold them...then throw the case out....

[msongs]

11. tell 'em the website is a faith-based outreach funded by taxpayers nt

[Mz Pip]

12. Let's all sue

the FUndy websites for promoting creationism because it improperly strays into the public realm. :crazy:

No one is forcing anyone to go to the Berkeley website. THese people are so annoying. They won't be satified until creationism is the law of the land.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Freedom_from_Chains]

14. They won't be satified until creationism is the law of the land.

You have hit the nail on the head.

[Realityhack]

43. Actualy...

if the web site DID promote a religion (which it clearly does not - neither in fact nor legaly) it would be appropriate for them to loose their federal money IMO.

[Deja Q]

13. Pity God won't sue...

but God is too busy deciding which sports team ought to win, yes?

[drm604]

17. Huh?

"Jeanne and Larry Caldwell of Granite Bay say portions of the Understanding Evolution Web site amount to a government endorsement of certain religious groups over others because the site is partly funded through a public money grant from the National Science Foundation."

:wtf: Endorsement of certain religious groups? What religious groups do they claim it's endorsing and specifically what portions of the website do they claim are doing that endorsing? :eyes:

Those are rhetorical questions, of course. This is the old nonsense about "science is a religion" and it's getting pretty damned tiresome.

These people just don't seem to be able to take a hint. When an argument doesn't work (especially one that's a rhetorical trick), most people would try a different argument. They don't do that, they just keep coming back with the same argument again and again and again... (I need an Energizer bunny icon here.)

[ikojo]

22. Fundagelicals

believe that the theory of evolution is the primary facet in what they see as the "religion" of secular humanism. Recall that in the 1980s, Fallwell and his ilk railed against the evils of secular humanism.


Posted by drm604

:wtf: Endorsement of certain religious groups? What religious groups do they claim it's endorsing and specifically what portions of the website do they claim are doing that endorsing? :eyes:

[drm604]

25. It's still just a variation of the same old tiresome argument.

"Science is a religion", "Secular Humanism is a religion" - variations on a theme. Neither of these arguments has ultimately won a case, as far as I know. Yet they keep going and going and going...

[Odin2005]

34. Sad thing is...

...certain philosphers actually beleive that shit. I found this out when I looked for a book on the history of philosphy, and to my horor, the authors started bitching about "scientism" amd complaining how scietists treat science as a religion. As a biology major, I found this so offensive I almost threw the book across the room. :argh:

[Realityhack]

46. Funny...

My phisics teacher taught me how to calculate the exact force which would be transfered by say a bulet going through a fundi wackos head.

But I hever heard him say science could tell us if shooting fundi wackos was GOOD or BAD.

By definition anything to which the scientific principles may be applied is not going to be a relegious or philisophical debate.

Religion does not have a good track record in this respect however.

[xchrom]

18. lol -- how much more ''scientific fact'' are people going to need?

wow --i'm really starting to think that america has lost an important screw.

was loose -- now lost.

[discordian]

23. Must be endorsing the Catholics, that really bugs the fundies...

Remember a few weeks ago, the Catholic church reiterated it's position on the evolution vs creation debate? It essentially boils down to "Creation is WHAT happened, evolution is HOW it happened." Fundies hate the catholics. I remember, as a child, being taught all sorts of insane shit by the Baptists, about the Catholics and everyone like them.

[Angry Girl]

24. If they can fiddle with our science, we can fiddle with their religion

So it is written, so it will be done!


URGENT! Timing is critical to save earthquake victims before winter!

[BattyDem]

26. How does a scientic theory qualify as religion?

Is gravity a religious belief, too? :shrug:

Just because scientists, Athiests and Secular Humanists (as well as many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc.) believe in something, that doesn't make it a religious belief! I believe in free speech, but that has nothing to do with religion. I also believe that Pizza Hut pizza tastes better than Domino's pizza, but that has nothing to do with religion either. :eyes:

[ComerPerro]

30. Evolution is the "creation myth" of atheism, which is a religion

according to fundies

[BattyDem]

33. When did all scientists become athiests?

:eyes:

Besides, doesn't there have to be some kind of "worship of a higher force or being" involved (or at the very least, a belief in a spiritual leader) in order for something to qualify as a religion? Who/what do athiests worship? :shrug:

[ComerPerro]

36. I'm saying, that's how fundies see it

[BattyDem]

49. I know ... the question wasn't directed at you ....

I was just making a point. Sorry for the confusion. :-)

[lolly]

35. Redefining What they don't understand

Wasn't the term "Secular Humanism" coined to make the practice of logic and reason sound like some sort of ideological movement?

I've mentioned this here before, but Pope Rat once wrote some sort of argument that "Secular Humanism" was to blame for the Holocaust because it supposedly promotes the idea that there is no such thing as morality. Once those Nazis embraced "Secular Humanism," they had no moral compass to keep them from killing millions of people. :eyes:

Key difference--logic and reason depend on observation of facts and attempts to make conclusions from those facts based on an application of logic to the evidence (kind of like the way a courtroom works)

Religion-depends entirely on faith.

These people don't understand/can't think logically. They're too ignorant to figure out the difference between the scientific method and the "preacher told me so it's true" method, so maybe they really do think they're the same.

[Jim__]

40. Here's a link

Evolution is a religion

Fundies do it the way they do most things, equivocation and non-sequiturs.

[Thor_MN]

41. Fascinating link!!! Apparently Babelfish can translate utter bullshit

into Russian, Spanish, Japanese, Portugese, French, Italian, etc...

:)

[BattyDem]

50. LOL!

:rofl:

[Demeter]

47. I Believe In Gravity!

Also the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics, Einstein's Theories, Planck's Constant, and the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle.

It's the GOP I don't believe in.

(Anybody remember that little Siamese kid in The King and I: "I believe in snow!")

[nolabels]

51. The operative word is "theory"

If science can break away from the moorings of the conceptual words like "theory" like they did with the word 'philosophy' then everything could be hunky-dory again.

Many nuances in science have divorced themselves away from their duty to humanity in the search for more bucks, why not just go the whole nine yards and start to make stuff up

Sorry for the half-hearted attempt at devils advocate but someone needs to :shrug:

[HuffleClaw]

27. whoever wrote that story needs to learn to research

geeze. just google their names and you get all sorts of stuff that exposes their agenda pretty clearly. "not proponents of "intelligent design" my foot. this is just another example of fundie twisted logic.
because THEIR attempts at forcing their religious views onto others in the guise of 'intelligent design' are being exposed they decide that to promote evolution is somehow a RELIGIOUS effort? pretty sad really.

here's a more in depth story related to this.
http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/27075/

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. The National Science Foundation

is a religion?

huh???

[guruoo]

31. Interesting page from the UC Berkley site

Could this be what the Caldwells' problems is really about?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml
Homepage:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

[WindRavenX]

37. well

At least they're getting creative in their attempts to get rid of science in America's schools, I give them that... :think:

[snippy]

39. Intelligently designed republican science has become a pervasive

problem under Bush. Creationism is only a small part of it. Every federal agency now uses intelligently designed republican science rather than sound science in making decisions and adopting regulations. The EPA and the FDA are two of the most obvious examples.

[Megahurtz]

48. Sounds like a "Frivolous Lawsuit"

:spray: