You can't teach that
Two parents are suing the University of California-Berkeley over a web site aimed at educating teachers. Understanding Evolution, a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education, is "is a non-commercial, education website, teaching the science and history of evolutionary biology." Jeanne and Larry Caldwell, the couple bringing the suit against the site, claim that the site delves improperly into religion. While most debates center around whether or not Intelligent Design is "religion in the classroom," the Caldwells are looking to spin it the other way.
The plaintiffs in the case claim that they are not proponents of Intelligent Design, but they do argue that it is inappropriate for a project that is partially funded by the US government to essentially engage in swaying students towards evolution. In the language of the suit, the site seeks to "to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true." How exactly does the website do this?
For one, it provides information to teachers, who then teach. One of the aftereffects of teaching is that, ideally, students learn. In the context of a science classroom, this could mean that students are taught evolution, and then they may understand it better. This is the fundament of pedagogy.
But that's not all. The real gist of the suit, from my own reading, stems from the fact that the site in question makes observations about the religious world around us. For example, the site notes that most forms of Christianity and Judaism have no fundamental conflict with evolution, and it even links to collected statements from a variety of movements that do not challenge evolution. Many scholars have argued that it is important to note that this debate is not "science versus Christianity" or anything of the sort. Rather, they note, creationists and religiously-oriented Intelligent Design proponents are but a subset of religious people in general. To the Caldwell's however, pointing out this reality is akin to the government endorsing certain forms of religion over others, namely those that do not have a problem with evolution.
To date, courts across the country have rejected the idea that teaching evolution, which is a peer-reviewed scientific theory that as of yet has had little challenge in the way of peer-reviewed academic research, is tantamount to teaching religion.
"The courts in many cases have said evolution is a scientific idea and there is no prohibition on the government teaching a scientific idea even if it conflicts'' with some people's religious beliefs, said university counsel Christopher Patti.
Larry Caldwell, however, disagrees. His view is that by not teaching students about supposed problems with the fossil record, problems that are dismissed by most specialists in the field, teachers are misleading them. Still, Caldwell doesn't want to see evolution removed from the classroom, but he does believe that alternative views, including those that attribute serious problems to the theory, should also be presented to students. This returns us to the crux of the debate, however, which is whether or not any worthwhile challenges to evolution have been made.
Yeah, well you can't teach THAT!
The University of California finds itself in another controversy over religion, as well. A suit filed federal court in Los Angeles accuses the University system of discriminating against Christians. The Association of Christian Schools International, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, Calif., and six Calvary Chapel students have joined forces to seek a legal remedy to what they term "viewpoint discrimination," which is a terse way of saying that they object to the fact that the UC system considered parts of their Christian education to be below admittance standards.
At issue in the lawsuit are academic standards for admission to the university, specifically UC's process for assessing high-school courses to verify that they meet the system's college-preparatory course requirements (known as the a-g requirements). For a new or substantially revised course to be approved for the a-g list, a high school must submit a request, listing the course curriculum, textbook information, and supplemental materials, to UC for approval. Staff at UCOP review such applications to make sure that courses meet UC academic standards established by BOARS.
The UC system has approved 43 courses from the school in question, but a select number of courses have not received approval, including science courses that use overtly Christian theology books as textbooks. For example, as the NY Times has noted, the books spouts peculiar takes on historical figures. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, is outed as a non-believer, and by scriptural proof, an antichrist.
American believers can appreciate Jefferson's rich contribution to the development of their nation, but they must beware of his view of Christ as a good teacher but not the incarnate son of God. As the Apostle John said, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son" (I John 2:22).
With regards to slavery, the book blames not only slave holders, but "African tribal leaders... whom allowed their love for profit to outweigh their love for their fellow man."
The case will be heard December 12, and educators across the country are watching.