U of C sued by monkey haters (Re: Lawsuit against "Understanding Evolution" site)

Limulus wrote:

> http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/11/27evolution.html
> University's evolution Web site challenged

LOL! I just read another take on that story here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/29/creationists_sue_california/

University of California sued by monkey haters
Fundamentalists go to court
By John Oates
Published Tuesday 29th November 2005 12:03 GMT

The University of California is facing legal action in the US for
promoting a commonly-held scientific theory.

Jeanne and Larry Caldwell are suing the university over its
"Understanding Evolution" website which offers information and advice
to teachers.

The Caldwells run a Californian lobby group called Quality Science
Education for All! which promotes "education that exposes students to
the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory." It has
taken legal action against several states over the content of school
books.

The lawsuit accuses the University website of misusing federal funds
and says that by linking to religious groups which do not object to
evolution it is somehow akin to teaching religion and therefore
breaches the first amendment.

The Vatican's chief astronomer Rev. George Coyne recently said
intelligent design "isn't science, even though it pretends to be". He
said if it was to be taught in schools it should be part of the
religious or cultural affairs classes not science.

Fundamentalist Christians in the US take a different view.

The California site, which you can visit here
[http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php] if you're feeling
brave, is run by the University's paleantology department and the
National Centre for Science Education. The website is Not Safe for
Fundamentalists.

The Caldwells deny they are "Intelligent Designers" (AKA 'creationists
with a website'). Jeanne Caldwell told the San Jose Mercury News: "Yes,
I am a Christian, but I would not characterise myself as an ID
proponent. I believe God created the world." Maybe he means God made
the world but he didn't design it intelligently...

Intelligent design was most famously promoted by William Paley using
the analogy of a blind watchmaker in 1802. Darwin was an early fan.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DI Endorses Teaching of Creation Science as ID
    ... in the debate over how best to teach evolution," a new website called ... geologist and author of a range of articles on religion and science. ... TiS is claiming that creation science is a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: California: Board OKs Darwin challenge - Alex Branning Responds
    ... recommendation for science teachers to abide by. ... It's not on your website. ... When did I say or imply that the theory of evolution is bogus? ... of our students to include scientific evidence that poses challenges to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: U of C sued by monkey haters (Re: Lawsuit against "Understanding Evolution" site)
    ... > University of California sued by monkey haters ... > "Understanding Evolution" website which offers information and advice ... > The Caldwells run a Californian lobby group called Quality Science ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Five major misconceptions for evolution
    ... >> actually using science for once. ... >> Science students are taught the basic law of science that without ... >> philosophy of evolution in direct opposition to science. ... >> Chemical evolution is clearly excluded by the evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)