Field of Science

Creationist lawsuit rejected

The US Supreme court has rejected a lawsuit charging that a government funded website, Understanding Evolution, at UC Berkeley is in violation of the separation of church and state. The website states that Darwinism can be compatible with religion. Jeanne Caldwell's religious beliefs is in contradiction with that notion.

Just imagine the precedent it would make for if that suit had not been thrown out.

If it was illegal to state anything on a government funded website that contradicts someone's religious belief, then no public schools and universities could write anything about evolution, geology, astronomy, and physics. All four of these disciplines contradict the Bible. I am not alone in reading the book of Genesis literally - lots of Christian denominations have this as an integral part of their religion. I believe Genesis was written by people who actually believed in pretty much what it says about the creation of the universe, Earth, and all species people knew about at that time. (Had they known about all the species we do today, Noah would have had to have built a wee bit larger boat.)

Therefore it would be impossible to do most of what an educational institution do - at least on the web.
Lower courts rejected the suit, saying Caldwell was not eligible to sue because the web site did not cause her significant injury.
In other words, she could have avoided altogether perusing that website, but even if she did, reading that someone else disagrees with her on the topic of creation is not enough to shut down the website. Just imagine if it was! It would be possible to claim that anything contradicts some belief. Any belief would do, because the US constitution guarantees that we can freely exercise our religion:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I do suppose that means any religion, and not just what the founding fathers may have had in mind.

Here is the text from the website at UC Berkeley about science and religion:
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.
This is very carefully worded. If they had written "The misconception that science and religion ever contradicts each other is incorrect," for example, then I wold have had to object (though I would not have sued). Because they do contradict each other. Yes, some religions, some Christian denominations, will not read the Bible in a way that results in any contradictions, but other denominations definitely do. And for those who dismiss them as crazy fundamentalists, and would like to remind you that there are more than 75 million Christian Evangelicals in the US (about 26 percent of the total population), and they all believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Lots of other denominations adhere to a strict reading of Genesis, and about 85 percent of all Americans do not believe that humans evolved from something not human.

1 comment:

  1. I am wondering:

    Beginning with the discovery of america most of the religious prosecuted migrated to the
    "new world". With the end result that old europ is much more educated about the difference between science and religion, and such law suit would have been rejected right away. And I guess most people would have laughed about such an attempt.

    Now, imagine we would "discover" a new place to live, say "mars", could we ship all those relegious retards who want the "land of the free" become the "land of the stupid" (we are almost there!)?

    I'd love that!

    Cheers Arend


Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="">FoS</a> = FoS