Separate This

If you're like me, this'll hurt a little bit.

A group called Pacific Justice Institute has filed suit in federal court, claiming that a website hosted by UC Berkeley violates the separation of church and state. The site, Understanding Evolution, appears to be an introductory-level resource primarily aimed at teachers. UC Berkeley, if you didn't already know, is part of California's public university system; i.e., a state school.

Here's the beginning of a press release on PJI's site:

Pacific Justice Institute will present arguments this week to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging a federally-funded UC Berkeley website which promotes selected religious denominations that support evolution.

The lawsuit, filed by PJI in 2005, centers around a website designed by UC Berkeley to help teachers combat so-called misconceptions about evolution. The website tackles the "misconception" that religion and evolution are incompatible by claiming that "most" religious groups have no problem with evolution, and by directing visitors to statements from selected religious groups that support evolution. Meanwhile, the website derides religious beliefs that "contradict science" by teaching six-day creation. 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.

PJI is arguing that the taxpayer-funded UC Berkeley website unconstitutionally promotes certain religious groups at the expense of others. [...]

The relevant passages seem to come from two different location on the UC Berkeley site. First, here's the full text from a page titled Misconception: “Evolution and religion are incompatible.” (PJI's scare-quoted words bolded by me.)

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.

Second, here's the full text on the page titled Misconceptions about Evolution and the Mechanisms of Evolution (again, with PJI's scare-quoted words bolded by me.):

Unfortunately, people have misconceptions about evolution. Some are simple misunderstandings; ideas that develop in the course of learning about evolution, possibly from school experiences and/or from the media. Other misconceptions may stem from purposeful attempts to interfere with the teaching of evolution.

As teachers, it is our role to treat all student questions with respect and initially to accept each question as the reflection of a legitimate desire to learn. However, some questions may well be designed to disrupt the learning process. We need to deal with intentionally disruptive questions in ways that are a bit different from legitimate inquiry. And it is important that we learn to distinguish between the two.

If we're talking letter of the law, PJI might have a little bit of a case, it seems to me (said the blogger with no legal training). Hard to believe that stating facts could be in violation of the law, but I have to admit: these are web pages being served up by a computer owned and operated by a state school, and there is an implication that some religions are … how shall I put it … more whacked-out than others.

If, on the other hand, we're talking spirit of the law, PJI's lawyers should be listened to for as long as the panel of judges can keep a straight face. When they can no longer suppress their howls of laughter: case dismissed. Perhaps the clerks of the court would enjoy creating an office pool, picking the number of minutes before that happens.

Right Wing Watch has some background information on PJI, and the NYT has a charming story about their (successful) efforts to get a teacher fired. Pretend to be surprised when you see what else they've been up to.

(h/t: PZ, from whom I also swiped some of the above links)