It's always nice to get comments from someone who knows what I am talking about, and the appearance in a comment thread of "Tevist", a lawyer who has actually argued a case in front of Judge Selna is a case in point. He thinks I am exaggerating the threat to science teaching.

The writer and/or readers completely misunderstand the judge's ruling here. The decision does NOT find that science teachers cannot say and/or explain how creation "science" is, in fact, no such thing. It finds that science teachers cannot make derogatory statements toward religion. It's not an unreasonable finding under American law. I understand the desire to manufacture a controversy on a hot-button issue, but let's be fair and describe this situation as it is.

He also says that Selna is a perfectly good judge. I wouldn't argue with that at all.

In fact, I am not sure that I'd argue with Tevist in any way (how's that for not manufacturing controversy?) except to say that I think I did understand the ruling.

The judge does not say that creationism can be taught in schools – of course he doesn't; nor does he say that evolution may not be taught in schools; again, he goes out of his way to quote earlier decisions denying that evolutionary biology is the product of a quasi-religious system, as fundamentalists argue. But what he does say, very clearly, is thet teachers may not systematically disparage religious beliefs in class. They should deal with ID, or creationism by saying it's religion, not science, and so cannot be taught in schools. They may not go on to say that it's pernicious nonsense because it's religion and not science.

Logically this makes perfect sense and provides a clear policy for teachers to follow. But politically, and emotionally, in the context of the present debates about atheism, it looks like a win for the fundies. You have only to read some of the comments here, or on the major atheist blogs to understand that for many of the most passionate opponents of creationism religion is pernicious nonsense and that is one of the most important lessons of evolutionary biology.

This certainly seems to have been Corbett's position (note that he is not himself a science teacher) and I don't doubt that there are thousands of people who share his views teaching in public schools across America. Selna doesn't set a precedent. But he has set an example. And if the law is as clear as it appears to be from his judgement (and he quotes from the same case as established that creationism is not science under Californian law) public school teachers may not call religion pernicious nonsense in their classrooms:

There is no question that "[t]he government neutrality required under the Establishment Clause is . . . violated as much by government disapproval of religion as it is by government approval of religion."



This isn't a matter of truth or falsehood. It is a matter of constitutionality. But good teachers care passionately about truth or falsehood, and it's fairly obvious that some of them are going to overstep that line. And one of the contributing factors will be that they have been egged on to it by the people who see atheism as a moral crusade. For all those people, the point of court cases against ID and creationism, from Scopes to Dover, and, apparently, endlessly, on, is to establish that creationism is false, and therefore should not be taught in schools. But in fact, the courts, where they have ruled against it, have done so on the grounds that it is religion. There is a distinction. It's logically clear, but to many atheists emotionally invisible. What Judge Selna's judgement makes clear is that to blur or deny the distinction in schools is every bit as unconstitutional as claiming inside them that any religious doctrine is true.

Given the political and emotional climate in which these debates are conducted, yes, I think it will have an effect, even if there is legally nothing startling in it. There are many cases of well-established legal principles which come as a tremendous shock to the general public.