The University of California at Berkeley is being sued for statements on their Understanding Evolution Web site that some religious beliefs contradict science–like the idea that the Earth and living things were finished up in six days. The plaintiffs argue that a government-funded state university cannot claim that “some religious denominations are better than others,” though I certainly can’t find anyplace where Berkeley does so.
I suppose next under the gun will be NASA for its estimate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, or the US Geological Survey for finding the age of the Earth to be a potentially unholy 4.5 billion years…
May 16th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Religious types have never been fans of science or truth. These plaintiffs are’nt either. They are, however, hypocritical and ignorant.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I find it interesting that some assert that an idea/concept/philosophy cannot be true simply because of the category into which it falls. These same people then assert that any statement made by persons adhering to that idea/concept/philosophy be met with ridicule and scorn. To claim that Christians/Creationists are always wrong when it comes to the matter of evolution, the age of the universe, or the way in which it came into being unless they reject the Bible as being truth is incredibly arrogant! Before the dawn of powered flight, many learned and intelligent people scorned and ridiculed those who believed flight was, indeed, possible. Why? Because they rejected the idea of powered flight. To assume that you are right simply because of the nature of your beliefs and Creationists are wrong simply because of the nature of theirs is no different, and, in the end, no less flawed. What science KNEW to be true 100 years ago is now KNOWN not to be true. What about that which science KNOWS to be true today?
May 17th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
UC Berkeley should file an immediate conuntersuit and make those idiots allocute on UC’s terms.
This stupid creationist nonsense has been going on for too long.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:18 am
ROFL
America, meet hell in a handbasket
May 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
…and you guys in the US are afraid of Iranian mullahs!
May 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Reply to andrew.
The difference is that scientist learned. They discovered new information and changed based on that. Creationists and some fundamentalists won’t. All Christians aren’t wrong when it comes to evolution, but creationists who ignore scientific facts are wrong.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Andrew, you’re an idiot like the rest of the nutjobs. Yes, I and most intelligent people will dismiss the fact that Earth was created in 6 days. You see, what you fail to understand that certain truths that we hold are strongly supported by clear and observable evidence while you and the rest of the nutjobs have found ways to demean those observations with false logic. At least it will only take one observation to nullify the original assertion but you religious fanatics continue to defend a dead assertion. For God’s sakes, even the Catholic sect believe that evolution and the Bible can coexist. I can only hope that Darwinism takes effect on you dumbasses and weed you out of the population.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
@Andrew:
Ever hear of the *scientific method*? Scientists, and people that use reason, do not seek to assert that religious beliefs are false on the simple basis that they are different than their own “beliefs”. Religious beliefs are viewed as false because there is no evidence to support them versus the existence of evidence to support scientific theories.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
This sounds like the work of the Ben Stein crowd. It is an attack made against a scientific theory solely based on emotional arguments with no evidence to support them, and largely a straw man argument for support of their complaint. The statement on the web site makes no mention of any religion being better than any other, but by attributing a false and controversial statement to the school, they attempt to discredit them and somehow win an argument of facts when they have none to offer.
Andrew brings up a good point - when science is wrong about something, it immediately changes in light of the new evidence. When religion is wrong about something, it immediately denies the evidence and tries to make it go away, and when it finally has to concede the point, it gets all defensive about it and starts rationalizing.
Sentenced in 1633, Galileo spent 20 years under house arrest by the church for proving that the Earth revolved around the Sun. While science, which had erroneously held the same view, immediately corrected itself, how many years went by before the church finally admitted they were wrong on that issue? It took them until 1992: that’s 359 years. In 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger was spouting this about the topic: Her [the church’s] verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.
The Vatican’s own astronomer has publicly stated that the Bible is not a scientific text and should not be consulted for scientific truth, yet the feeble minded use it as their only basis for rejecting mountains of evidence in favor of evolution.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I find it interesting that elliot h describes ?religious types? as not being fans of the truth, yet truth is exactly what they believe in. He calls them hypocritical. An applicable definition of hypocritical would be someone who says one thing yet believes another, or believes one thing yet does another. Elliot h has not demonstrated that that is true of those protesting UC Berkley?s statement. In fact, I?d say it is consistent with their beliefs. Elliot h calls them ignorant. Ignorant means ?not knowledgeable?. I wonder how much elliot h knows of the Bible?
I?ve heard that some diseases, such as, Alzheimer?s or Parkinson?s can not be diagnosed until postmortem. I suspect the truth of the Bible will also be understood in postmortem. If one would say, ?But, you can diagnose the disease by its symptoms?. I?d say same for the truth of the Bible.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
@ Dean:
Dean, I fully respect your right to an opinion and to voicing it, however, there are considerable dis-analogies between Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease and a book like the bible, to make your comparison so dubious as to be entirely inadequate.
What makes you think the truth of the bible will be discovered after death? This immediately presumes there is a state by which we, as beings, can even recognize such an event.
Science is, at core, a process of observation without bias. While there is considerable vested interest in certain facets of science, its process is not something that is compelled to conform to a doctrine which must be upheld at all costs - aka religion.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
@Dean:
Which Bible? Before King James? After King James? How about the Coversdale’s Bible? Do we include the Apocryphal, or Deuterocanonical books? If not, why?
Trying to make the claim that just because someone doesn’t believe your version of the creation fairy tale does not mean they don’t know the bible. Perhaps they know it very well, contradictions and all.
And I’m certainly glad that these folks have taken time away from caring for the poor - the #1 instruction from Jesus - so they could sue the UC system. Apparently they’ve got that poverty thing licked and are moving on to other matters.
(P.S. Yes, I am aware that 98% of Christians are not like these nutballs and want nothing to do with them.)
May 19th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Imagine this omnipotent being that has been alone in the complete nothing, forever. At some point in eternity, it decides to pop a few things into existence. It starts to create living things with a DNA, but it soon loses its creative flare and just gives the same DNA to everything, with just enough changes in them so that people could be fooled into thinking all organisms are related and evolved into the diverse life we see today. It creates all living things at the same time, but it organizes the fossil record to show a progression from less-complex to more-complex over time. It does all this in 7 days, but it “ages” the earth to fool people into thinking it is billions of years old.
Then, after going through all this trouble, it just abandons the whole thing to itself, watches lazily while his creatures kill and do horrible things to one another, destroy the planet and die by the billions.
Yep! That is soooooo much more credible than evolution.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
@Dean:
Ignorant would actually be a fair characterization of many religious people. Somehow they decided the Earth was about 5,000 years old, even though there’s really nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that (I’ve read it. If you disagree, point me to some verses). And how many have actually sifted through the thousands of biology papers, or even advanced biology textbooks, which presented evidence in support of the idea that life evolved gradually?
A state funded scientific university has an obligation to report conclusions which are supported by facts. It is also an obvious truth that many religious people, and official stances, disagree with scientific consensus; origin of life/Earth/Sun in 6 days being an example.
I’ve taken a quick look at the website, but haven’t seen any of the more objectionable things the suit names. They basically say “some religions accept our conclusions, others don’t”, which is completely accurate. Why they should be sued for saying that people disagree with them is beyond me.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Andrew:
Great analogy. Only one small problem: Your comparison is backwards. The situation is more like someone today saying powered flight is impossible in the face of the evidence that it occurs.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Bring it on. Young Earth Creationists are their own worst enemies. They will make fools of themselves, just like the “cdesign proponentists” did in Dover.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Dear All:
It is nice to see my post generated some civilized conversation instead of the name calling and labeling that took place earlier in this thread.
Phronimos:
You are right. I do presume there is a state of conscience after death. Of course, no one has come back to tell us about it. I know there are those stories about near-death, out of body experiences, seeing bright lights, etc. I’m not going to base my theology on that. If I’m wrong – I’m just dead. Dust to dust. Actually, I liked the analogy.
AJ:
Pick one. It doesn’t change the underlying positions of this discussion. I didn’t claim that elliot h did not know the Bible. Perhaps he does. I did raise the question because his characterization of religious types is totally opposite of Christians that I know. Maybe I don’t know the christians he has met. Maybe he doesn’t know the Lord I know. I think he is just into name calling. Ah yes, the poor. Helping the poor, sick, and widowed has been a hallmark of many individuals and groups over the ages, but few have made it a sole occupation. Some of us have to work to earn money to give to these charitable organizations. But, I’m with you on the lawsuit. I can’t see it. I looked at the links and don’t have a problem with them. Have you seen the movie, “Expelled”? It is asking for a level playing field to discuss creation and evolution in the academic environment.
Usagi Ichiban (Number One):
I like your scenario. You are definitely a thoughtful person and have given this serious thought. No, I’m not making fun of you. That is close to the position we take. Good observation – but I disagree with your conclusion.
Enginerd:
How many religious people have sifted through the myriad of scientific literature? I suppose many. In fact many of the papers are written by scientist with faith in a supernatural being. Just read the Discover Magazine. I am an electrical engineer with a masters degree, yet I can’t explain magnetism. Neither can you. Discover Magazine recently published an article about that. Having faith doesn’t stop us from pursuing the sciences. Personally, I think we are learning more and more about God’s creation and the intricacies of His awesome work. But, I can’t support the lawsuit.
Thank you for the exchange.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Everybody knows that Odin and his brothers created the Earth out of Ymir!
The ‘god’ of the Bible is Loki the Lie-Smith who goes forth into the world to sow discord and strife!
Seriously folks, it’s time to stop pretending.
Religion is a form of mental illness and should be treated as such.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Wow. Whoever is behind this lawsuit must have been looking pretty hard to be offended — After all the page is on the idea that religion and science can be (mostly) compatible.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I just dont understand it. Why do some people think that you can disagree with science. Its like saying 2+2 is not 4. Some things just are. You cannot change gravity. You cannot argue away science because you dont agree with it.
You can take a moth. Introduce it to an area that is different than its norm. Inside of 10 years, the moth will evolve to better adapt to its environment. Proof of evolution. Evolution exists. Here is a different way of seeing it. If you have a puzzle. Jig saw puzzle. If you have most of the pieces except for a couple. When you put the puzzle together, you can clearly see that its a boat, or a tree, just missing some pieces.
Now apply that to evolution. We have all the puzzle pieces except a couple. Its a clear picture missing a few pieces. You can deny all you want, it does not change the fact of what the picture is. Then to argue that its not a picture of a duck, is crazy. It makes no sense. If it walks, and quacks like a duck, its a duck.
The US is the only civilized country in the world. Let me repeat this. The United States is the only civilized country in the world that does not recognize evolution as the way things went down. Think about that. Billions of people accept this as fact. Hundreds of thousands of scientists around the globe accept this. Yet, here in the US, because some uneducated person that holds on to their religious fairy tail does not agree, it cant happen that way.
We need to stop making everyone happy and accept it. Its fact. It wont change because you close your eyes and pray to god. Wont make it any less real.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Where are we going, and why am I in this hand basket?
*poof!*
May 20th, 2008 at 4:56 am
While science has held many false beliefs in the past, these beliefs are at least formulated in such a way that they can be falsified. Once a belief is falsified, science replaces it with an equally falsifiable belief. Creationism, as a (pseudo) scientific hypothesis, was falsified long ago. So science always seems to be moving forward in knowledge. My question is this: Has it ever worked the other way around? Is there any example of the scientific community looking back and reevaluating a belief once falsified by the scientific method to find new evidence for its veracity?
May 20th, 2008 at 7:29 am
@ Dean:
Discussing something like creationism in the academic environment, when the scientific theory and data to support something like creationism is dubious at best, does not only lead to a thousand dead ends, most reached by the creationist himself when his ideas are probed, but it’s very existence is perpetuated by irrational religious belief, as opposed to good old objective reasoning.
If you come into a field with a pre-existing conception of how you think things went, not because you spent years and years studying in the field and you came to the conclusion, but because it’s supported by your faith, then you should expect more than a few clashes with the realms of logic and reason, two things that a scientist utilises to thier fullest.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:40 am
and just to let you know, i am an evolutionary biologist, i encounter creationist challenges all the time, and it just seems all too easy winning arguments with them.
it’s not about giving creationists a level playing field in the academic environment, its about giving a scientifically validated claim a level playing field in the academic environment, which creationism by default bottoms out on.
unfortauntely, i did watch the movie expelled, and many of the things said in it boggled my mind. ben stein portrays evolution in the most ridiculous and idiotic light imaginable, and it just shows his complete ignorance on the subject.
I’m about as convinced that creationism is a valid scientific theory as homeopathy. the very field of biology rests on the pillars of evolution, which time and time again have shown to beautifully justify features of organisms that i witness constantly. it isn’t just a ‘theory’, it’s more than that, and that is more than i can say for creationism.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Though i oppose evolution i do not agree with suing a school over this matter. the courts are for more serious issues and nothing good will come from this lawsuit.
the truth is the truth and it cannot change. if it does then it is not the truth and this minor fact exposes evolution for what it is–lies and deception. you cannot believe one thing and proclaim it to the world then 10, 20 or 30 years later go: ‘ooops. sorry but we were wrong, the real truth is …’ truth has to be the same or it is unfair, unjust, and unstable and subject to the whims of those who want something more popular or just do not like what someone else says.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:56 am
I love zelouts–they think for us, they tell us what we can believe, they censor us and stifle free speech and they blow up our skyscrapers without anyone asking.
Why, they’re just great. >:-P
May 21st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
It is amazing to see how many backs go up on both sides of this debate. Who is right? Was the world created in 6 days? Remember the Scopes trial and Clarence Darrow’s cross examination of William Jennings Bryan. If the literal interpretation of Genesis is applied to the creation of the world then we need a lexicon of new definitions to figure out what a day is considering the fact that light preceded the creation of the Sun. Pretty hard to define what a day was under such circumstances. Science and religion both seek truths. Religion does it through absolute faith and belief regardless of observable fact. There is no skepticism in faith. Science bases its conclusion on observable data. Religion claims that humans are limited in what is observable. Science develops technology to observe what is not observable. Keep the subject separate. I have read the report on the suit. I have read the pages on the website that are supposedly pointing out religious belief incompatibilities with observations of science. As a humanist and atheist I find the suit to be silly and the jibing back and forth to be unproductive. For those of you who want a better understanding of the science of evolution, read “The Blind Watchmaker” if you do not care to read the primary source “The Origin of the Species.” For those of you who believe in the word of the Bible, read the original Aramaic text, the Gnostic Gospels, and as many of the primary sources that led to the assembly of the modern Bible. I think you will find it eye opening. And for those who feel left out of this conversation because the Bible is not your primary religious text, read the Koran, read the Eastern philosophies, the books and ideas behind Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and then revisit waht are “universal truths.” The great thing about human beings is we think about things. We seek answers to unanswered questions. Some see religion as the path to get answers. Some see science. Some go down both paths. But a law suit over what is on the Berkeley site. Please!!!!!
May 21st, 2008 at 10:25 pm
God made the world just like it is,
He made the fossils just to tease us. (Roy Zimmerman)
How could have God created the world in only six days? No unions! (Anonymous)
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:54 am
My goodness, everybody knows and it is proved: World was built in six days and earth is a flat plate in the center of the Universe. Good morning America! - Sorry, India of course.
Greetings from the conservative Bavaria: Willi D.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:30 am
I’m with ugly American. Religion is a serious mental disorder.
Last night I watch, “Jesus Camp.” It should have been called consentration camp to make children more mentally ill. I didn’t watch it all because it made me ill that people can abuse children
in such a way. All in the name of Gawd almighty, Jesus will abuse your child.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:50 am
As an engineer and scientist, the more I learn about science and our universe, the more I am convinced that GOD (EL, Eloha, Elohim, Jehovah) is real. I do not think the Bible and science disagree about evolution. In fact, science supports the Bible. In Gensis, it says the Earth was REPLENISHED and that Man was created in GOD’s image (read as intelligence, speech, spirit, soul, and free will). To me, that coincides with how Homo Sapien suddenly appeared in the evolutionary chain. The Bible also talks about the “others” who came before Adam (Ancient Hebrew for Man). Couldn’t those “others” be the hominids that existed before H. Sapien? I just don’t think that faith (belief in EL) and science are mutually exclusive (notice that I say faith and not religion). Let’s face it, there were physicians, scientists, engineers, businessmen, and politicians in the Bible who were faithful to GOD. These were learned men such as Moses (a general and scholar), Joshua (a general and engineer[builder]), etc.
I do agree that suing UC Berkeley is ridiculous, but note that is not how all or most Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims behave.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:26 am
6 days? lazy bastard.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Why do people still think that time is a constant?