Trying to help others learn evolution leads to lawsuit
So for having a website called Understanding Evolution, UC Berkeley is getting sued.
Anti-evolutionists claim that the site breaches the American constitution on the separation of church and state because it links to religious organisations which believe faith can be reconciled with Darwin’s theory of evolution.
You know, just because institution links to a church on its website doesn’t make it an endorsement of that church. So I don’t really see how framing this as a church and state issue will work in court. Then again, I’m no law expert.
Also recall, that the UC system is being sued for not accepting creationist courses taught by Christian colleges.
I may be mistaken but I believe that even the late Pope John Paul II recognized evolution.
He stated that evolution may explain the creation of the Human body but not the Human soul.
Comment by Ben Angwin — October 19, 2005 @ 10:58 am
I don’t think the point is whether John Paul II, or any other individual, believed in evolution. I think the relevant questions are:
1) Can the government say “Evolution and Christianity are entirely compatible. Anyone who says otherwise is misunderstanding Christianity and/or misreading the Bible.” ?
2) Do the links on the webpage amount to making such a statement?
I would say that the answer to #1 is emphatically no, #2 is debatable, which is why this is in court.
Comment by Lieutenant Anonymous — October 19, 2005 @ 11:10 am
I would refer you all back to the new standards on academic freedom. Basically what this lawsuit is saying is that the university has no right to comment on, examine or explain the religious practices or beliefs of any religious system. If that were to prevail then you could pack up several departments over in Barrows hall. The academic freedom policy basically says if don’t like what someone is teaching- tough. My guess is the courts will toss this like a used condom.
Comment by odd beer — October 19, 2005 @ 11:43 am
I disagree that the focus of the lawsuit is academic freedom, I think that it is government involvement in religious debates.
If some pro-evolution Christians and some anti-evolution Christians are fighting among themselves as to whether or not Chrisitianity and evolution are compatible, can the government step in and say one group is right and the other group is wrong? Does the government have the power to authoritavely decide what are and are not correct Christian beliefs?
Comment by chet — October 19, 2005 @ 12:17 pm
To be thrown out of court. The group that filed this suit will use this to fundraise.
Comment by McMike — October 19, 2005 @ 1:15 pm
Hey Republicans-
Tell your dumb christian friends to stop slowing scientific advancement!
Comment by man from the moon — October 19, 2005 @ 4:39 pm
From the NY Times, an excellent article on the “controversy” of evolution and intelligent design, by a Tufts professor of philosophy:
“Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, “You haven’t explained everything yet,” is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything.
To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.”
The rest of the article (free reg. req.): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=f43a7389d5c19dae&ex=1129867200
Comment by 2411 — October 19, 2005 @ 7:38 pm
I don’t see where your scientific relativism will stop, chet. I mean, what if a christian who believed in gravity was arguing with a christian who didn’t? Would you say that the government shouldn’t take sides? If you’re not going to recognize scientific principals as anything other than “social constructs” than I don’t see where it all stops.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 19, 2005 @ 8:43 pm
The government should not intervene to stop people from saying that gravity doesn’t exist. It shouldn’t intervene people saying anything. That’s what free speech is all about. You can be as wrong as you want but you have a right to be wrong.
Don’t forget that the absence of religion is sometimes religion in itself. Atheism, which proclaims this, is a religion. It is the belief that there is no God, something metaphysical that cannot be proven or disproved. Why shouldn’t classes on intelligent design be taught? By saying they shouldn’t and it is FALSE, what we’re saying is that we tolerate a set of beliefs that says intelligent design is wrong, even though we cannot prove or disprove it.
Comment by DTI — October 19, 2005 @ 11:15 pm
Uh, dudes, did anyone even read what his objection was? It wasn’t that intelligent design shouldn’t be called false. It was that the university shouldn’t tell people what Christian belief is.
Comment by Beetle — October 19, 2005 @ 11:49 pm
That’s not what the relevant website says. It actually says:
Misconception: “Evolution and religion are incompatible.”
Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.
You can find the web site here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml
The web site says nothing that actually accuses anybody of misinterpreting the Bible.
Comment by jonp — October 20, 2005 @ 1:08 am
So far there is nothing I’ve seen in the Bible that isn’t in some way confirmed in science.
Comment by Yuriy — October 20, 2005 @ 1:27 am
Well DTI, I do agree that the government shouldn’t stop people from saying whatever they want (barring clear and present danger and things like that). But this is the opposite case: People are upset because the government refuses to fund their speech. Science class teaches scientifically theories. ID is not a scientific theory. It is a religious one (since it is unprovable). Unlike other proponents of unprovable beliefs (like my very own catholic church) they want to use government funds to spread their beliefs. It seems the marketplace of ideas is too rough on them.
Let’s be honest here. If we accept your scientific relativist position, why not teach astrology in science class? As you say, not teaching it implies that the government says the Wicca religion is wrong. How can we teach the “out of Africa” theory in anthropology when it clearly contradicts the religious beliefs of Mormons that the American continent was populated long before?
As a culture we have accepted the division of beliefs into scientific beliefs and unscientific (religious) ones. You seem to want to blur the distinction between the two. The distinction is the basis for western though and western civilization.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 20, 2005 @ 7:14 am
Yuriy, you are a disgrace. That a halfwit such as yourself managed to get this far in life without drowning in his saliva, or choking on his tongue, that is truly a miracle that should inspire faith in God…
Comment by mano — October 20, 2005 @ 8:01 am
All charges dropped! Karim is running a legitimate business! Mano was wrong yet again!!!
linky
Comment by chet — October 20, 2005 @ 11:03 am
“Yuriy, you are a disgrace. That a halfwit such as yourself managed to get this far in life without drowning in his saliva, or choking on his tongue, that is truly a miracle that should inspire faith in God…”
HAHAHAHA, have we even met!?
Comment by Yuriy — October 20, 2005 @ 11:52 am
chet, its not just me, its a lot of people in the “bicycle community” (if you can call it that). i stand by what we think of karim. the guy is scum. ask workers in other bikeshops what they think of karim and what theyve heard about him…
Comment by mano — October 20, 2005 @ 11:56 am
Yuriy, you’re awesome!
Comment by cw — October 20, 2005 @ 12:48 pm
Yuriy,
I’m confused by your statement that, “So far there is nothing I’ve seen in the Bible that isn’t in some way confirmed in science.”
So you’re saying everything that you’ve read in the bible has been confirmed by science? Seems unlikely.
Comment by RLW — October 21, 2005 @ 5:26 pm
I am saying that anything in the Bible can be interpreted to fit scientific discoveries of today.
Comment by Yuriy — October 22, 2005 @ 2:03 am
Yuriy is the ‘mano’ of BCR
Comment by :P — October 22, 2005 @ 10:36 am
actually tommaso, while you (and I) believe in evolution, and have seen great evidence pointing towards evolution, it is also not “provable”.
Comment by obbb — October 24, 2005 @ 7:27 am
If we can teach one unprovable theory like evolution in the schools we should also probably be able to teach another unprovable theory like intelligent design in the public schools. Besides, who are educators with masters in education to decide what is scientifically sound and unsound?
Comment by DTI — October 24, 2005 @ 8:12 am
obb,
Perhaps I wrote too hastily. I meant to identify Evolution as a scientific theory becuase it is *disprovable”obb,
I meant to identify Evolution as a scientific theory because it is not *not disprovable*. In my haste I shortened it to “provable” but you are correct in pointing out that error. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it *is* not disprovable. If we only taught “proved” facts we’d be confined to axiomatic facts like 2+2=4 (because that’s how we define 4).
I must admit that the disprovable/not disprovable definition of scientific theory is rather incomplete. There are many serious scientific hypotheses (like string theory) which are not yet testable with current technology. (Though this isn’t quite the same as ID which can never be disproved short of time-traveling) In reality science is a process which is measured by how it helps us *predict* things. Evolution has been an incredible engine for discovery which has spawned libraries of knowledge. Not just facts about facts, but real life and death lessons like bacterial resistance, DNA, the origins of inheritable diseases, computer programming and medicine in general. Intelligent design has not offered any new insights nor does it seem to promise any.
When the FDA limits antibiotics to prevent bacteria from becoming resistant they are “taking sides in favor of one belief”. I have no problem with that because the belief in question is scientific and not religious in nature. DTI, chet and others apparently, have no means of distinguishing the two. DTI’s suggestion that science teacher’s aren’t fit to decide what is science is quite funny. Sure DTI, what makes doctor’s think they have some special right to perform surgery? Why confine lawyering to lawyers? I realize that certain conservative presidents don’t believe that “qualifications” are important when it comes to job placement, but you wouldn’t think that attitude would filter all the way down to the conservative elite of UC Berkeley.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 24, 2005 @ 9:57 am
“DTI’s suggestion that science teacher’s aren’t fit to decide what is science is quite funny.”
Science teachers don’t make up curriculum, although it would be better if they did. The curriculum is designed by people with Doctorates in Education, totally irrelevant.
Comment by DTI — October 24, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
The vast majority of science teachers understand the evolution in science and that ID is not (for reasons I have covered). They have a pretty big hand in setting the minimum state standards already, but even if they were the sole input, ID, astrology, creation, and divination would still be confined to quacks and Harry Potter books, not the science class.
But let’s get serious here. You aren’t arguing that science teachers should set the curriculum. You aren’t even arguing that any beliefs (like astrology) should be taught in class. You are arguing that science should be defined by political opinion polls and not by the scientific method. To you it probably seems like a small change that allows you to accommodate your ideological brethren. To me it’s nothing less than an attack on the idea of science itself.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 24, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
“To you it probably seems like a small change that allows you to accommodate your ideological brethren. To me it’s nothing less than an attack on the idea of science itself.”
I’m not sayign we shouldn’t teach evolution. I’m saying we should also teach intelligent design along with evolution. Are you too closed-minded to appreciate other people’s views besides your own?
Comment by DTI — October 24, 2005 @ 3:08 pm
looks like you cant spell fruitcake without DTI. oh wait, you can. quick, write that down, DTI, theres more evidence for an intelligent designer right there!
And Tommaso, youre not doing a particularly good job arguing this, either. Seriously. Science is quite political. And it does not deal in “proving things” or “disproving things”. It deals in evidence and (usually) statistical reasoning. [are you a scientist?]
The ID is bullshit because they have no EVIDENCE to offer for their particular theory. Hence, ID is not science. Thats it, end of story. You can replace the I in ID with the idea that monkeys were created in a science fair experiment in 20000 BCE by a dolphin who injected a mixture of fruit loops and lucky charms into a jellyfish. Or that I will actually travel (should i use past tense?) back in time in a chevrolet malibu in october of 2021 to create life on earth. You can replace the assertions of ID with any load of bullshit and the “logic” of the ID argument is just as “applicable”. In that case, the “evidence” cited for ID can be evidence for anything you want (paradoxically, it can even be construed to support evolution itself!).
Anyway, the Intelligent Design freakshow (and DTI apparently) want to do an end run around the entire scientific process. What they are doing is the equivalent of a couple of fuckwits running into a math conference and declaring that 2+2=5. Of course, whereupon every single mathematician there tells them “fuck off you stupid little shitheads”, they run to the newsmedia and say “theres a controversy in math, we need to teach 2+2=5 alongside 2+2=4 in the classroom”.
These ID people deserve pity and perhaps ridicule, perhaps even a slap upside the head. They are not intelligent enough to deserve a debate.
Comment by mano — October 24, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
Mano continues to hold the funniest use of an obscenity in a post award. But it still comes back to this: Can an educational institution (Cal) comment on what various religions believe about different modern ideas (in this case christians and evolution). It seems that few of the BCR folks have problems talking about Islam and democracy, and most folks would feel hearing a professor talk about budism and recycling is ok. So why is this different? Just because the idea that somehow you are really only a few hundred generations out of the tree insults your sense of self worth? Go get a therapists and get over it.
Comment by odd beer — October 24, 2005 @ 4:20 pm
I have a degree in Physics and Math. Whether that makes me a scientist is up to you.
By provable and disprovable I merely mean to get at the common distinction between scientific theories and theories in general. Scientific theories must be falsifiable, regular theories (like, I have a theory that the earth was created by a magical jumbo prawn) don’t have to be.
Popular non-scientific theories are usually religious in nature (as a Catholic I can tell you that trans-substantiation is not falsifiable). Because government should never oppose or support a religion, it should only support scientific theories.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 24, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
DTI,
“I’m not sayign we shouldn’t teach evolution. I’m saying we should also teach intelligent design along with evolution. Are you too closed-minded to appreciate other people’s views besides your own?”
I understand your position. You refuse to accept the scientific method and see no difference between a falsifiable scientific theory, and a half-assed cover-up of creationism. If you have no standards about what is true and what is false that’s just fine. I have standards. Evangelizing religious beliefs with tax dollars is where I draw the line. My religion is doing just fine without tax dollars. What’s wrong with yours?
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 24, 2005 @ 4:34 pm
meh on you. you’re dealing with concepts more suited for philosophy of science and logician types than for the empiricist (the people that actually come up with stuff like the theory of evolution). not to mention the argument is probably incomprehensible to the kind of fuckwit who would buy the ID argument, and that sort is usually loathe to learn new things. anyway, i would suggest that a null hypothesis is also a hypothesis, and is therefore also “falsifiable”. if nothing can be shown to be unequivocally true, nothing can be shown to be unequivocally false. hows that for ya? now im venturing onto your turf… haha.. i can see it now… deep in enemy territory, nothing to defend myself with but half a clip of statistics and a rusty occams (combat) razor!
of course. commenting on something or researching it is different than reporting the results of our happy little science adventures to 12 year olds. not good enough, the angry contrarian conservo-wieners say. we’re not content with the power we have, and we need a distraction from our cracked-out social engineering (after all, it isnt going so well). meanwhile, why cant we force scientists to write books about tommaso’s delicious giant prawn theory? why cant we have the football team compete in ice skating competitions? why cant we get one of the x-men to be the chancellor? why, mommy, why? seriously, yall sound like 10 year olds.
Comment by mano — October 24, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
WOW just because I think they should both be taught as different ideas now means I’m anti-science and anti-scientific method. This is clearly amusing.
Comment by DTI — October 24, 2005 @ 6:15 pm
What is clearly amusing is that you don’t seem to have any standards for which beliefs are science and which are religion.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 24, 2005 @ 6:29 pm
What’s also amusing is that you’re so scared of intelligent design’s impacts that you’re using the most intolerant vehicle, censorship. Perhaps intelligent design isn’t true, perhaps it is.
Comment by DTI — October 24, 2005 @ 6:50 pm
im going to go for the giant prawn invented the universe theory myself, DTI. will you argue that it should be taught alongside ID and evolution? this right here is just like the moral relativism conservatives like to decry - all these ideas are just as good. the next thing DTI is going to try is claiming censorship when he fails his next math test… anyone see a pattern here?
PS: Tommaso, i really am curious what you think about my point on falsification. I dont have strong feelings on the matter, nor is it something i think about a lot, so you can be assured im not looking for a debate.
Comment by mano — October 24, 2005 @ 7:16 pm
The math postdoc in my lab goes to applied math meetings and picks arguments with people over political ramifications of their work. He is really amazingly good at spotting bias in mathematical models, especially in economics, where I wouldn’t see it previously. For instance, he did a whole piece on prisoner’s dilemma and how he can make it behave very differently by proposing single changes to the model.
Anyway, I would think that any of the major areas of social science especially area studies, anthropology, and political science could not do anything if its workers were not able to gather information and synthesize some summaries and perspectives about religions and their influences. One of the common fallacies I hear on talk radio or internet is a misunderstanding of ’scientific method’ as taught in 11th grade chemistry. People will often say that the only way inferences can be made in science is when data is collected in an experiment with a control, and where the empirical data is statistically tested against a null hypothesis with a student’s t-test or X^2 test. Then because astronomy, behavior, evolution (90% of evolution journals are focused on genetics data), and geology are observational, it would seem as though this information is all qualitatively judged, like economics or french literature.
Comment by *!* — October 24, 2005 @ 7:26 pm
sure. noone i know would disagree with this. now if your point is:
i think you are out to lunch. all these areas of intellectual endeavor have their own histories and protocols for evaluating work. your point is that a t-test isnt the only way to evaluate a theory? well, yeah, its not. that doesnt really figure into the ID debate.
meanwhile, your math friend is having fun because hes sharp. ok. “computational models” are a relatively new technique for studying all sorts of systems, and until we have nice, general protocols for evaluating work in modelling, its going to be a hella political game. it may be a while too, since modelling is pretty much a fancy way of data fitting. but pointing all this out isnt really helping anybody, its just your friend being a smart ass, because he can be (which is ok i guess). but to repeat, you cant really extrapolate the modelling issues to empirical science itself.
Comment by mano — October 24, 2005 @ 8:06 pm
DTI, cencorship is when the government prohibits speach, not when it fails to fund it. It’s not a subtle distinction. You are ussually well-argued and I respect your opinion but we can’t move forward if you’re going to confuse basic defenitions.
As for mano I see your point though I don’t think it invalidates mine. Maybe my study of math logic has tinged my arguements but the basis of a scientific theory is that you can use it to make predictions. Those prediction can turn out to be true or false. When I say unfalsifiable I mean that the theory cannot be used to make predictions that can turn out to be wrong. Evolution has been used in subtle and overt ways to make predictions about what we observe in nature and by and large those predictions have turned out to be true. ID makes no predictions abotu the futre and so there is no way to disprove it.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 24, 2005 @ 8:52 pm
yeah i guess my issue is just with your use of true and false, since those are only statistical thresholds to an empiricist. as for the not making predictions, thats a really good point.
Comment by mano — October 24, 2005 @ 9:19 pm
It’s not a disprovable/not-disprovable distinction. It’s a useful/not-useful distinction. Math is not provably anything, it’s all definitions, but that doesn’t make it “unscientific.”
ID could be seen as disprovable, anyway. God might show up one day and say “Hey, it wasn’t me!” Or, He could say “All right, humans will begin to have six legs starting next Thursday,” and then Friday rolls around and we’re still bipedal. But the theory is useless, so nobody in science really cares.
Comment by Beetle — October 24, 2005 @ 9:23 pm
I just thing ID is so widely accepted that it may be worth teaching and having government funding, even to show that it’s unprovable. In the same way atheism and religion are unprovable. Most people are very ignorant about the issue and the ability to discuss it as a scientific theory may even clarify people who think it’s a scientific theory.
I’m actually on the fence about intelligent design. I believe in a higher power but I’m also very secular and would be interested if the idea is at least studied in more detail, and since I’m actually ignorant about the subject myself, I and many people could be informed better about intelligent design.
Comment by DTI — October 24, 2005 @ 9:46 pm
Hahahaha. So because you are uninformed, we should teach little kids about Intelligent Design? Good idea. As for studying ID in “more detail”, yeah, you got any ideas for how to do that? Haha. Sounds like you and Beetle could design an experiment.
Comment by mano — October 24, 2005 @ 10:29 pm
Hey, I’ve seen God’s little gnomes scamper out of sight as I turn on the microscope… I can totally see them running away with pieces of DNA in their hands, and can only conclude that I interrupted them in the middle of their intelligent designing.
Comment by Beetle — October 24, 2005 @ 10:51 pm
I have no problem if ID is discussed in a philosophy class or even in a comparative religion class - even if public funding is used. It should not be treated as a scientific theory because it’s not one and treating it like one would give it a legitimacy it should not have.
I’ve never questioned the existence of God nor his hand in creating our world. It seems obvious to me that science only ever resolves mysteries by turning two questions into one. And that process cannot help but leave the ultimate question unanswered except by faith.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 25, 2005 @ 7:26 am
Here are two questions I want turned into one:
Who are these gnomes?
And why are they trying to steal my magic bag?
Comment by DTI — October 25, 2005 @ 8:31 am
That’s easy! “Who are these gnomes, and why are they trying to steal my magic bag?”
Comment by Beetle — October 25, 2005 @ 8:58 am
All good science converges to a few central questions!
Comment by mano of yesteryear — October 25, 2005 @ 10:03 am
What a bad job of impersonating me.
Comment by DTI — October 25, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
there is one piece of evidence that clearly proves intelligent design is false: the number of people who voted for john kerry last year.
Comment by chet — October 25, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
I think the people who nominated him were even dumber. Those who voted for him really just voted against Bush.
Comment by DTI — October 25, 2005 @ 12:43 pm
I think he was nominated by a plate of sesame vegi-chicken and noone voted for him, the whole thing was a giant fraud, there wasnt even a real election, it was a conspiracy by people who are smarter than you. Since you dont agree with me but can’t prove me wrong, we should teach my theory in high school civics classes.
Comment by mano of yesteryear — October 25, 2005 @ 1:39 pm
I didn’t really have a dog in the primary fight but let’s get real, the Republican smear machine would have taken out anyone, not just Kerry. They turned Dean, a moderate budget hawk who had supported lots of interventions, into a raving hippy peacenick. They would’ve turned Edwards into a baby in diapers. Don’t blame John Kerry if he ended up looking worse than the rest after O’Rielly and Limbaugh were through with him.
Personally, I think Kerry would have made a good leader. He wasn’t an ideal candidate but he was light years beyond Bush. If liberals had half the control over the media that conservatives had Bush’s “I don’t think about Osama Bin laden” and his radio transmitter in the back would be far more famous than “I voted for it before I voted against it”.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — October 25, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
yep. I remember traveling to Los Angeles in 2000 to protest the democrats and Al Gore, along with a couple thousand others. But now I take the perspective more like “what were we thinking”, then I remember back and the group I was with was holding up a field of coffins representing dead Iraqis, which was a pretty good protest because the democrat delegates either looked ashamed or confused, and one of them came over and told me how he gets lawmakers to do stuff to support the IRA in Ireland, and we should join the democrats. Some of the other protests including the police pelleting the Rage against the Machine crowd were really dumb. Clinton continued the patrolling of Iraq all during his term including a couple air raids and an unworkable sanctions plan that allowed the baath party to siphon the money and the people to starve, and he also had interventions in a few other places. The CIA really shouldn’t have hired Saddam Hussein back in the late 60s to take over the government. Anyway, Gore doesn’t seem so bad now though.
Comment by *!* — October 25, 2005 @ 7:48 pm