Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

University's religious promotions challenged

worldnetdaily.com — Berkeley (what else?) says some denominations are more "enlightened" than others because they accept an old earth and "theistic evolution."

Bury

Temlakos 150 days ago

16 diggs
digg it

KCLorelei39, on 05/14/2008, -7/+9This from the same folks who bring us anti-military protests, complete with witches and clowns / rollseyes

Looks like Beserkely got caught with its pants down (again). It's encouraging to know that my faith isn't included on their list of 'approved churchs'.
- Christianptriot, on 05/14/2008, -7/+6Beserkely probably got caught with their skirt up, actually.
- eir574, on 05/14/2008, -2/+8@KC,
  
  Have you visited the actual web page? WND didn't bother to provide a link, but postingbh found it at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/I ... . It contains nothing more than a statement of fact that some religions and some theists don't see a conflict between evolutionary theory and religion. It in no way mentions or implies that these religions are therefore better than others. That's WND's interpretation, which they have presented to you as fact. That's some outstanding journalistic integrity.
  - KCLorelei39, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2eir, I'm familiar with the site, and have been for several years now. WND's reporting of what is found on that site is indeed accurate, as are the issues addressed in the lawsuit.
    
    I think these might be some problematic words:
    
    "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. "
    
    While I agree that one does not have to 'choose' between science and faith....I disagree that faith must be left at the classroom door.
    
    Certain denominations do affirm a six-day creation. Berkeley has went to great lengths to persuade folks viewing their website that, because certain other denominations embrace evolution, the ones that do not therefore "explicitly contradict science ".
    
    Is that an appropriate position to take for a college that accepted federal monies to pay for that website? Considering that it is a reference site intended for many government employees - public school teachers - is this an attempt to establish guidelines for religious beliefs?
    
    I think Berkeley skirts dangerously close to violating the Constitutional mandate that government shall not establish religion - you know, the famous 'separation of church and state' doctrine used so effectively by the irreligious to decimate our educational system. They've listed what could be interpreted as 'approved churches' based upon their acceptance of macroevolution as hard science.
    
    We'll see how the courts work this one out, I suppose.
Christianptriot, on 05/14/2008, -9/+6If it is liberals doing the promotion of a religion, then it is the right religion and acceptable to liberals, and it is OK....some days I wish I could be a liberal and live with such twisted, backwards logic and nonsense double-speak.
- nullifidian0, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Hahaha! My irony gland hurts! Thanks!
postingbh, on 05/14/2008, -1/+10The actual page in question: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/I ...
More pages: http://google.com/search?q=religion+site:evolution ...

Of course, none of the pages at evolution.berkeley.edu even hint that "some religious denominations are better than others," let alone a "blatant government endorsement of some religions." As usual, WND favors sensationalism over honest, well-researched journalism.
- GodzGurl59, on 05/14/2008, -9/+5of course they do. They, by implication, say that THESE who agree with us are ok denominations and those who don't are stupid, which is what they always say. This from a bunch of folks who don't even believe in God. It is laughable.
  - postingbh, on 05/14/2008, -1/+9Did you even bother to read the pages I linked to? Even a cursory glance?
  - eir574, on 05/15/2008, -2/+7"They, by implication, say that THESE who agree with us are ok denominations and those who don't are stupid, which is what they always say"
    
    That's your inference. If you're getting that from a mere statement of the fact that some people don't see a conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution, then that's your problem. Berkeley is not responsible for how you interpret that fact.
    
    Do you disagree that there are some people who think their religious beliefs don't conflict with evolution? You may disagree with their religious beliefs, but that's not the point.
  - GodzGurl59, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1yes, i read your pages. Frankly, you two they are anti-christian, EXCEPT those who agree with their stand on evolution. And the fact that they posted certain churches on their site....there to the right is an endorsement of those particular BRANDS of Christianity....mostly liberal christian denoms. that have rejected many of the basic doctrines of the Bible. They are more like social groups.
    
    Would they object to a school putting links on its site for groups or churches that agree with the Biblical account of creation or intelligent design or would thy see that as an establishment of religion? If the answer is yes, then they have made an establishment of religion, thus doing what they accuse others of doing.
    
    You can't have it both ways. They picked groups that agree with them and they are OK to endorse. They are welcome to do that.........frankly I don't care, but to turn and cry when some endorse the opposing view and such reeks of hypocrisy.
eir574, on 05/14/2008, -1/+8I would love for WND to tell me exactly where on that web page they find the statement that some religions are preferable to others occurs. They don't even bother providing the direct link (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/I ... ; thanks to postingbh for finding it). All it says is that religion is not *always* inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Nowhere does it say that this means that religions in which that's the case are preferable to other religions. It's stating a fact: some religious denominations don't see a conflict with evolutionary theory. WND is making an inference that this means the authors of the web page think that those religions are better than others. Even if they do, it's in no way stated on that page.

What ridiculous reporting. It gives me some measure of comfort that from time to time there are Christians on these WND threads who say that they also think that WND is very reactionary and that its articles are often biased and seem to be designed to elicit outrage.
- KCLorelei39, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2sure, WND uses hyperbole sometimes to get attention. I don't deny that. while Berkeley may not have explicity stated on the site that some religions are 'better' than others, that doesn't disprove the rest of the article, ya know?
  - eir574, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Actually, it does. The claim is that Berkeley's website says that some religions are better than others. But, their website doesn't make that claim. Hence, the allegation is false.
    - KCLorelei39, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2eir, i have to disagree with you. If they aren't insinuating that some religions are better than others, what's the purpose of giving so much space to presenting religious viewpoints that support evolution? saying the allegation is false because Berkeley's site doesn't specifically use that same wording is hair splitting; the essence is still the same.
      - eir574, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4"what's the purpose of giving so much space to presenting religious viewpoints that support evolution?"
        
        As I noted in a response to another of your comments, Berkeley is not the institution that's responsible for that material. They merely linked to someone else's website. As for the purpose, though, it's to answer questions that many people do have. Have you not seen the many conversations on digg about whether certain religious inherently contradict evolutionary theory? Why can't Berkeley provide links to resources for people who have those questions? There are in fact people who would like to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific theory, and Berkeley is pointing them towards some resources. There are also a ton of misconceptions about the nature of evolutionary theory (e.g. that it's a completely random process), and Berkeley addresses those as well. Berkeley is providing scientific responses to those arguments. As an institution that engages in scientific research, that's entirely appropriate.
Phyraxus, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2When someone asks them if science and religion are compatible it probably would have been better for them to say, "Sorry, I am not at liberty to answer that question." or "You are going to have to find your own answer."
KCLorelei39, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5I posted this in reply to eir above, but I wanted to repost here for comment:

I'm familiar with the site, and have been for several years now. WND's reporting of what is found on that site is indeed accurate, as are the issues addressed in the lawsuit.

I think these might be some problematic words:

"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. "

While I agree that one does not have to 'choose' between science and faith....I disagree that faith must be left at the classroom door.

Certain denominations do affirm a six-day creation. Berkeley has went to great lengths to persuade folks viewing their website that, because certain other denominations embrace evolution, the ones that do not therefore "explicitly contradict science ".

Is that an appropriate position to take for a college that accepted federal monies to pay for that website? Considering that it is a reference site intended for many government employees - public school teachers - is this an attempt to establish guidelines for religious beliefs?

I think Berkeley skirts dangerously close to violating the Constitutional mandate that government shall not establish religion - you know, the famous 'separation of church and state' doctrine used so effectively by the irreligious to decimate our educational system. They've listed what could be interpreted as 'approved churches' based upon their acceptance of macroevolution as hard science.

We'll see how the courts work this one out, I suppose.
- postingbh, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5I had a long response typed out; but I deleted it because it could be summed up with the following: Give me a ***** break. WND got called out for their ***** journalism. At best, the piece was so poorly researched that the author should be fired. At worst, the author blatantly distorted the facts and misled readers - also adequate reason to fire someone. Everyone who reads WND regularly should be pissed off at how inaccurate the story is.
  - KCLorelei39, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3attacking the source of the article doesn't change the fact that a lawsuit has been filed against Berkeley. I could easily see how the contents of that site can be taken as promoting certain religious beliefs and denominationis over others. Can't you see it? Berkeley specifically mentioned certain religious beliefs that were against certain scientific ones. Is that their place to do so while accepting government funds?
    - postingbh, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4"attacking the source of the article doesn't change the fact that a lawsuit has been filed against Berkeley."
      - Of course not. But that's no excuse for the absurd sensationalism presented in this WND article.
      
      "I could easily see how the contents of that site can be taken as promoting certain religious beliefs and denominationis over others. Can't you see it?..."
      - No. Berkeley's site states a fact: that certain religious beliefs such as the literal 6 day creation story explicitly contradict science. That is simply a fact. But just in case things weren't clear to readers (like you), Berkeley goes out of their way to say that it's a misconception that one must choose between science and religion. In fact, that's the entire purpose of the page.
      
      I'm not sure what you're even arguing at this point. It's like you're beating a dead horse; except the horse doesn't even exist. I think it would serve you best to just stop and admit that 1) at best, this is shoddy journalism by WND and 2) even when viewing the website with the most twisted, bias, and harsh interpretation, there is no indication that the website is being used to favor any religion or establish any religion.
      - KCLorelei39, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1you don't communicate well without derogatory comments, do you?
        
        Berkeley goes beyond innocently pointing out that one doesn't have to choose between science and religion, which I have already said I agree with.
        
        By giving space on the site paid for with government funding to approve of certain religious viewpoints, they in turn promote those particular religious beliefs that are compatible with evolutionary science. They are promoting those religious beliefs to government employees such as public school teachers, who in turn do God only knows what with those ideas in the classroom.
        
        Have they violated our Constitution regarding establishment of religion by establishing the promotion of even a few religions?
        
        We'll see very soon if the court finds any merit in this lawsuit, or not. I'm quite interested to see how it turns out.
      - postingbh, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4"you don't communicate well without derogatory comments, do you?"
        - I use them when appropriate and obviously they help get my point across.
        
        "By giving space on the site paid for with government funding to approve of certain religious viewpoints..."
        - Please cite where Berkeley site "approves of certain religious viewpoints." As I've said before, Berkeley's website states a fact: that certain religious viewpoints explicitly contradict science. Do you deny that as fact?
        
        I'm really trying to understand why you keep bringing up non-issues in such a vague manner. I'm guessing that because you were the first commenter in the thread, you feel some obligation to defend both WND and their absurd claims. I really can't find any other plausible explanation for why you continue to bring up non-issues.
        
        Why can't you admit that the article is blatantly inaccurate? I understand that you're probably a long-time WND reader, but come on - both the article and lawsuit trump hype and hysteria over fact. Honestly, you're discrediting yourself more and more with each post.
- eir574, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5"While I agree that one does not have to 'choose' between science and faith....I disagree that faith must be left at the classroom door."
  
  Berkeley's web site does not say that you must do that. In fact, it explicitly says that there are scientists who are devoutly religious.
  
  "Certain denominations do affirm a six-day creation. Berkeley has went to great lengths to persuade folks viewing their website that, because certain other denominations embrace evolution, the ones that do not therefore "explicitly contradict science "."
  
  Can you point to the exact location on the website where Berkeley does that? I just see a series of facts:
  
  1) It is not true that one always has to choose between religion and science.
  2) Some religious beliefs explicitly contradict currently accepted scientific theories.
  3) Most religious groups do not reject evolution and other theories.
  4) Some people feel that an understanding of science deepens their faith.
  5) There are many scientists who are devoutly religious.
  
  Which statement do you disagree with? You seem to be saying that it's unfair to say that some religious contradict some scientific theories. But, that's certainly true. Evolution is a scientific theory that some religions reject. That's just a statement of fact.
- drachemorder, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Part of the problem is that a lot of people see "science" and "religion" as two competely unrelated and monolithic concepts. This is, of course, not entirely accurate. They overlap to a great extent, and do so for some people more than others. There is a certain core "scientific philosophy" that does contradict a certain core "religious philosophy", but most people take some "religious" concepts and some "scientific" concepts and meld them together. Creationists, for instance --- and I use that as an example because it's one I'm familiar with --- do place a lot of stock in scientific concepts. We just hold them as subservient to the fundamental axiom of an active God and a universe designed for a purpose. We reject the ideas of naturalism, materialism, and uniformitarianism as absolutes. These things do well for things we can observe and repeat, but they are not the whole story. Then there are the religious scientists --- theistic evolutionists and the like. They look at things in an almost deistic manner: God set everything in motion but does not generally intervene in a detectable way. So they place their religious perspective subservient to their scientific perspective. And finally you have atheists who reject the religious side entirely, and you have fideists who completely discount science and believe faith is the only important source of knowledge. But the point is, this is a wide spectrum of thinking, and while there are some "religious" ideas and some "scientific" ideas that contradict each other, the two concepts themselves are not diametrically opposed and can be reconciled in numerous ways.
  
  It would be better for the university to merely acknowledge that people's individual beliefs fall along this wide spectrum, and say nothing more about it than that.
  - eir574, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5"It would be better for the university to merely acknowledge that people's individual beliefs fall along this wide spectrum, and say nothing more about it than that."
    
    I think that's exactly what they did. What exactly in the very short web page do you object to? The question they're addressing is the same one you did: that some people have a misconception that religion and science are necessarily incompatible. They say that they're not, and people here are all worked up because they think there's a value judgement in the web page's content. Merely pointing out that not all religious beliefs are incompatible with scientific theory (and, conversely, that some are) does not imply that one religion is better than another.
    - KCLorelei39, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2eir, they go beyond pointing out religious beliefs are sometimes incompatible with scientific ones; they give a quite lengthy list of specific denominations along with quotes from those denominations' leaders and councils, in support of evolutionary theories.
      
      Why no quotes from religions and denominations that don't support evolution? That's kind of a one-sided position to take, isn't it? To be fair, shouldn't the teachers be familiar with the positions of denominations and religions that don't accept all of evolutionary science? Kids from those families are sitting in their classrooms, too, aren't they?
      http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_sta ...
      
      Considering once again that this site is targeting teachers, of which a great number are government employees, what's the purpose of being that specific? Are they trying to persuade people to change their religious beliefs, or switch to churches that support evolution?
      - eir574, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Berkeley links to that web page, but they didn't design the content. The link is provided on an faq for those people who are interested in learning more. But, I still don't see a problem with it. The information is designed to answer a question that many people have: Is evolution always incompatible with religion?
        
        If you'd gone further down in the faq, you would have noticed that Berkeley also provides links to pages that talk about objections to evolutionary theory. Those pages provide both the objections and some responses.
        
        "To be fair, shouldn't the teachers be familiar with the positions of denominations and religions that don't accept all of evolutionary science? "
        
        Not if they're teaching science. At most, they should recognize that some people consider some scientific theories to be incompatible with their religions. They don't need to teach or otherwise disseminate those religious viewpoints. If teachers do want more information, they can find it elsewhere. I don't think any teacher who wants to know more about creationism, for instance, would have trouble locating a source.
KCLorelei39, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3ah phooey, I thought they had put that list of denoms on their on site; they merely linked to it.

that's what I get for trying to think and post while my kids are making noise on their lunch break and yakking at me continually, lol.

my apologies - I'll have to get back to this later when I have more time to sort it out better.
- drachemorder, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4"that's what I get for trying to think and post while my kids are making noise on their lunch break and yakking at me continually, lol."
  
  This is why God gave us the gift of duct tape.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

University's religious promotions challenged

Login or register to add a comment