1. Comment #180654 by HourglassMemory on May 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm

That's the only statement?
It's a fact!
It really is JUST BECAUSE it's religion, isn't it?...
It's automatic behaviour.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

2. Comment #180660 by Ragnar0kk on May 15, 2008 at 1:13 pm

For the love of science when will all of this madness stop!

Clearly most religious beliefs contradict science as wall as all manner of rational thought! I am kind of angry that UC Berkeley tried to placate these nuts to begin with. That goofy picture showing a scientist shaking hands with a religious nutbag!

Other Comments by Ragnar0kk

3. Comment #180662 by al-rawandi on May 15, 2008 at 1:14 pm

As a Berkely Alum, may I say,



Fuck your religion.



That's better.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

4. Comment #180663 by Quine on May 15, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Given the record of the Ninth Circuit, I do not see how they are going to rule against UC. If they did, the Church of the FSM could go after UC on the whole global warming v. pirates doctrine.

Other Comments by Quine

5. Comment #180664 by joshuaslocum on May 15, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I wish Stephen Jay Gould were still around just so he'd have to see how pitiful and misguided his Non-overlapping Magisteria construct really was.

Other Comments by joshuaslocum

6. Comment #180666 by Tetsujin on May 15, 2008 at 1:31 pm

So what exactly is the other side's story?

There's no contradiction, and that all of the apparent scientific findings that do contradict religious dogma are inherently wrong?

Where does that stop?

Other Comments by Tetsujin

7. Comment #180673 by Apathy personified on May 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Al, i couldn't agree more.
Although i'd like to expand it to 'Fuck every religion', so i'm not accused of being sectarian.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

8. Comment #180674 by Caudimordax on May 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm

This is really, really trifling, but wouldn't "science contradicts religion" sound better than "religion contradicts science?" Just a style thing, but science denies the "truth" of religion. Religion itself doesn't deny science. There's nothing about science in those holy books! Whatever the wingnuts think.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

9. Comment #180676 by Darwin's badger on May 15, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment #180664 by joshuaslocum on May 15, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I wish Stephen Jay Gould were still around just so he'd have to see how pitiful and misguided his Non-overlapping Magisteria construct really was.

I wish he were still around, but mainly because he was a decent (although misguided) chap and he died at an inordinately young age (by modern Western standards); if he were still alive, he might well have retracted NOMA by now, given the fact that it's not helped to defuse the tension between believer and non-believer which was, IMO, his aim at the time.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

10. Comment #180677 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Here, here Darwin's Badger.

However, I think the likelihood of a retraction is somewhat unlikely given that he never ever retracted he and Lewontin's crappy, crappy treatment of E.O. Wilson. Or much of anything he ever said about sociobiology in general.

Other Comments by MaxD

11. Comment #180682 by Darwin's badger on May 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm

You may well be correct, Max. I can't help but feel that what he wanted to be true got in the way of what was true, in that respect.

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

12. Comment #180683 by Adam Morrison on May 15, 2008 at 2:47 pm

This is absolutely stultifying. If this suit is dismissed or Berkeley is found not culpable, they should be able to counter-sue for legal fees due to a very frivilous claim.

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

13. Comment #180684 by MaxD on May 15, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Darwin's Badger,
I suspect you are quite correct and was one of his major problems, and was responsible for alot of his more overheated pronouncments.

Other Comments by MaxD

14. Comment #180690 by Rawhard Dickins on May 15, 2008 at 2:55 pm

This is going to be interesting, lets hope it goes all the way! The more publicity, the better!

Maybe the US will join the rest of the western world sometime soon, and shed its fascination with the philosophy of goat-herders.

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

15. Comment #180691 by Geodesic17 on May 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Does have have this event up on Facebook?

Other Comments by Geodesic17

16. Comment #180693 by BCReason on May 15, 2008 at 3:05 pm

I think their problem is that their belief is that science confirms their beliefs.

All the ID/creationist sites say that science confirms a 6000 year earth and instant creation.

So what the university said about science contradicts their beliefs is a contradiction in itself.

Other Comments by BCReason

17. Comment #180694 by theantitheist on May 15, 2008 at 3:05 pm

You'd need to be really fucking deluded if you think you could win that legal battle. What prats.

Other Comments by theantitheist

18. Comment #180697 by SilentMike on May 15, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Well. Goes without saying that it's all very silly. But I had to say something so I said it anyway.

Just mentioning facts (some sets of religious beliefs are compatible with science and some aren't) can not be against the first amendment. Next saying that Orthodox Jews can't eat pork will be illegal because it'll deter people who like it from joining.

Other Comments by SilentMike

19. Comment #180703 by Teratornis on May 15, 2008 at 3:16 pm

I wonder, does UC Berkeley take a position on female genital mutilation, thereby endorsing some religions over others? How about the religious practice of taking psychoactive drugs which happen to be controlled substances in California? How about polygamy and child marriages?

Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA wishful thinking is not actually a bad idea, if only religions would agree to stay in the tight box Gould provided them. However, that would require all religions to avoid making any scientifically testable claims.

I suspect that any claim which is not scientifically testable is also devoid of real-world meaning and therefore devoid of real-world consequence.

A religion based only on such claims would therefore not be practically useful. Not many people would be satisfied with a religion that had absolutely nothing to say of any consequence while people are still alive. Certainly, none of the religions on offer seem to have historically restricted themselves to purely untestable claims.

The Bible, for example, is chock full of testable predictions about the pre-death consequences of actions such as sin, prayer, animal sacrifice, etc. The Bible is essentially an instruction manual for propitiating God.

Gould's plan was "blessedly simple" as he claimed in Rocks of Ages: ask religious people to give up most of their current religion, and agree to further cuts in the future as science learns how to test more and more claims.

If only persuading religious people to give up all that stuff were blessedly simple.

Other Comments by Teratornis

20. Comment #180704 by MelM on May 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm

This is shameful:

Misconception: "Evolution and religion are incompatible."
...
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.

As is this:

In contrast, a debate pitting a scientific concept against a religious belief has no place in a science class and misleadingly suggests that a "choice" between the two must be made.

As is this endorsement of religion (from the Quiz):

Religion, on the other hand, deals with spirituality and the supernatural world. Its explanations often involve supernatural forces. Since science and religion deal with different realms, there doesn't need to be a conflict between them.

IMO, the site endorses religion
I don't see that the site's comments about "6 day creation" actually denigrate the view and I can't even find the "may be designed to disrupt the learning process" quote which is also at issue--according to the PJI story about the complaint. If there's a wall-of-separation case here, IMO, it's from the other direction.

Religion and science are incompatable
If any god had (via creation) or still has (via miracles, prayers, making storms, sending people to heaven, the eucharist, etc) anything to do with the universe, then scientific naturalism is--in fact--false. If god did it, then the only true explanation is that "god did it" and a naturalistic explanation would be false. So, science and religion are in direct conflict. If some religions manage to hack a rationalization for doing some science, that's ok, but it doesn't change the basic incompatability.

Other Comments by MelM

21. Comment #180717 by chuckgoecke on May 15, 2008 at 3:42 pm

I'm inclined to agree with MelM. I think that all religions that "accept evolution" as fact are just on their way towards atheism. Most likely they'll never get there, but they are trying to bridge over a fundamental incompatibility.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

22. Comment #180724 by AmericanGodless on May 15, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Pacific Justice Institute says that the Berkeley site is "directing visitors to statements from selected religious groups that support evolution." and that "the website derides religious beliefs that 'contradict science' by teaching six-day creation."

What I imagine that Pacific Justice Institute will be arguing is that, OK, the scientific theory of evolution is contradicted by the six-day creation story. But that doesn't give a State University the right to "deride" those religions that teach creation, and to point visitors to statements by other religions that do support evolution.

I can't help but wonder what relief they would be asking for. Excision of the words "Of course" in the sentence: "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)"? Removal of the side-bar link to "Voices for Evolution" on the NCSE Web site? I expect what they really want is the entire web site to be taken down. What they ought to get is a more honest statement on the Berkeley page that would point out that virtually all religions promote beliefs that are contradictory to science. The side bar could be links to religious sites with examples, except that there wouldn't be enough room, and they'd be accused of bias if they left any out.

The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with PJI, that UC Berkeley shouldn't be joining NCSE in promoting, as they seem to be doing here, certain religious groups that happen to be OK with theistic evolution. Better to point out evenhandedly that most religions make a claim to have knowledge of a non-evolved intelligence in the universe, a claim that is contradictory to the entire body of what modern biology is finding about the evolution and development of brains and intelligence.

Not a chance of that, however, as Berkeley, like NCSE, will want to take the accommodationist "Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists" route to seek "Peace in Our Time."

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

23. Comment #180729 by Border Collie on May 15, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Religion ruins everything.

Other Comments by Border Collie

24. Comment #180750 by robotaholic on May 15, 2008 at 4:59 pm

I detest religion.

Other Comments by robotaholic

25. Comment #180760 by LeeC on May 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Well, I'm offended by this comment from 'offending section' of the site.

In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

I'm offended - It's insults my religion and beliefs, and because it is my religion I do not have to justify it with reason or logic ?quot; just be very, very offended by it.

Actually, I'm not even going to explain what it is I'm actually offended by ?quot; since this would leave me open to a reasonable discussion about what is right and wrong about this section. By telling you what I am offended by I might even have to justify why I am offended in the first place and this I could only say was due to my deeply held faith and belief in my religion which I cannot of course justify.

No - my religion tells me to be offended, so offended I will be.

Anyone know a good lawyer?

F-wits

I really hope this goes to court; I would love to hear they explanations on how evolution, original sin and the crucifixion and so called resurrection of Jesus all fits together.

Yes, evolution and science goes against what is taught in the bible - get over it children.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

26. Comment #180784 by Ansu on May 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm

I am offended by the drawing. Scientists allied with priests with evil smiles. It looks like a couple of bad guys from The Golden compass.

Other Comments by Ansu

27. Comment #180794 by Geodesic17 on May 15, 2008 at 8:09 pm

If anyone is going to the PZ Myers event in Seattle, feel free to send me a PM.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

28. Comment #180805 by TalentedChimp on May 15, 2008 at 8:55 pm

"... , while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world."

This statement implies that there *is* something beyond, outside or above the observable world, suggesting that there are *truths* in religious belief that science is unable or ill-equipped to discover.

The statement should stop at "beliefs" and have done with it.

Other Comments by TalentedChimp

29. Comment #180818 by jesadurni on May 15, 2008 at 10:24 pm

great website! there should be a spanish translation for latin american universities

Other Comments by jesadurni

30. Comment #180875 by Shuggy on May 16, 2008 at 2:22 am

At the risk of sounding like I support the PJI, I think this is very sloppy wording and thinking:

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)

Science is not "the world and all life on it took somewhat longer than six literal days to come into being." That is just the current understanding of the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence found by scientific methods and reasoning. Science must be always open to contradiction, and someday scientific evidence could emerge showing that the w and all l on it were indeed c in 6 l ds. I know the likelihood approaches zero with near-infinite probability, but we must never close the door against it. Science is a collection of methods of learning about nature, and I think this page should rather defend the methods of science against the attacks of those who would replace them by revelation, holy books, etc.

Other Comments by Shuggy

31. Comment #180883 by black wolf on May 16, 2008 at 2:53 am

I have several books on my shelf that deal with stuff beyond the natural world. Brothers Grimm, Iliad, Gilgamesh, the Edda etc. Since they're 'beyond', that must mean they've more truth value than books limited to the natural, right? So why aren't they respected in science? It would make science soooo much more valuable, ecompassing the natural and the supra-natural. I think I'm gonna sue.
Seriously, atheists, agnostics, scientists, deists, philosophers have been saying for decades that the pandering approach can never work. When a religious group really believes what they say they believe, by definition they can't restrict themselves to a NOMA box without reckognizing themselves as hypocrites. Even when they get treated with the most reverent respect, they must strive to speak out and in most cases missionize. Mere toleration and respect is never enough, for as soon as a religious group is diminishing, or perceives itself that way, it'll make efforts to get into growth zone. And that will mean making claims about reality that are scientifically unconfirmed and often unconfirmable. They will step on science's toes, and they will not step back and apologize for it most of the time. When science decides to be diplomatic and stand back to postpone conflict, that's the opportunity for religion to step forward. We've seen it for centuries, and it doesn't work. All we get from that are theocracies.

Other Comments by black wolf

32. Comment #180898 by nalfeshnee on May 16, 2008 at 3:37 am

great website! there should be a spanish translation for latin american universities

An excellent comment.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

33. Comment #180930 by prettygoodformonkeys on May 16, 2008 at 6:39 am

Teratornis:

Very succinct as usual. Frustrating to see testable predictions tested in common law instead of common sense (logic in this case).

Hope they get Judge John E. Jones III, and the laws can start catching up.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

34. Comment #180934 by squinky on May 16, 2008 at 7:00 am

Excellent posts from Blackwolf and MeIM.

I hope that Harris's Reason Project goes to sponsor lawsuits and countersuits against religious organizations that attack science such as the one above. Clearly the separation of church and state can cut both ways but we should mount a counterattack and deplete their money by filing frivilous lawsuits.

By the way, there is nothing in the US Constitution about separation of science and state! IT'S NOT IN THERE.

F- off fundies!

Other Comments by squinky

35. Comment #180939 by Sally Luxmoore on May 16, 2008 at 7:20 am

Of course there's a conflict!

Using their own doctrines. . .

If they say they accept evolution:
that means no garden of Eden and no Adam&Eve.
That means no expulsion from Eden and
that means no 'original sin'
-So why did Jebus die?

If they say they accept evolution:
When did god inject a 'soul' into humans?

These are unanswerable questions.

They cannot accept evolution and still keep their theology.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

36. Comment #181027 by Quine on May 16, 2008 at 10:15 am

As Sally Luxmoore says, 'original sin' is the key point that cannot be undermined because then the whole house of cards falls. Evolution shows a continuous natural history with no sudden point when humans were "elevated" above the animal kingdom. Those who want to keep religion and evolution have to play the all too human trick of holding conflicting ideas to be true in the same brain. It is just what we do.

Other Comments by Quine

37. Comment #181036 by Dr Benway on May 16, 2008 at 10:35 am

Berkeley's position is a problem:

1. State entanglement. There's a different standard for what citizens can say and what the state is allowed to say.

2. Approval of certain religious groups over others is implied.

Bending over backwards to say something nice about religion is strategically dangerous, particularly for the state. If someone states a claim about the world that we can test, that's a scientific claim and it's fair to attack it as such. The fact that it might also be a religious claim for some people is irrelevant.

The legal argument in a similar case decided recently might apply to the Berkeley situation. If so, too bad for Berkeley.

More here: Judge sai STFU to teh gheys

Other Comments by Dr Benway

38. Comment #181046 by Dr Benway on May 16, 2008 at 10:57 am

Quine: As Sally Luxmoore says, 'original sin' is the key point that cannot be undermined...

Isn't original sin a Catholic doctrine? I know Protestants believe in man's fallen nature which predisposes everyone toward sin. But protestant babies are innocent until they actually do sin, if I recall correctly.

Catholics accept both original sin and evolution. For them, the talking snake story is allegorical.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

39. Comment #181058 by Quine on May 16, 2008 at 11:16 am

Dr B, I don't know all the variations after the Protestants broke away; I was going on the story from the old scriptures that is used to put humans in a lower (bad) position from which jumps the need to be "saved." This degradation is a powerful conditioning aspect so as to make the mumbo-jumbo being blathered by the preacher seem to have actual value. The doctrine of 'original sin' may be too specific, but I was thinking about this general idea of physical elevation above the animal kingdom, yet spiritual degradation, that are both washed away by the knowledge of evolution.

P.S.

Catholics accept both original sin and evolution. For them, the talking snake story is allegorical.

IMHO, it is easier for them to tell the sheeple that, theologically, black is white than to fight the evidence of evolution.

Other Comments by Quine

40. Comment #188876 by CyanSlowly on June 4, 2008 at 9:43 pm

haha the cartoon priest and the cartoon scientist are shaking left hands!

Other Comments by CyanSlowly