In brief -
Creationists have for a long time lost on the establishment portion of the first amendment. The government cannot show favoratism to religion by teaching religion in the science class, and teaching science in the science class is not a violation of establishment.
So creationists came up with attacking through the free exercise portion of the first amendment, saying that if the University of California doesn't accept transfer credits from science classes that teach creationism then UC is violation the free exercise of religion.
What the article reports is that part of the plaintiff's suit was thrown out, and the rest goes to trial instead of granting the plaintiff's request pre-trial. A partial but not complete setback for creationists.
Judge limits case against UC
A federal judge Friday threw out some claims of a Christian school in Murrieta that sued the University of California system, saying university officials discriminated against religious schools by refusing to grant college credit for some of their courses.
Calvary Chapel Christian School and some of its students sued the UC system in 2005. The suit claimed UC officials trampled the First Amendment rights of Christian students by refusing to grant credit for classes taken at the school.
The suit argued both that the university's policies were unconstitutional on their face and that UC officials acted in a way that violated students' rights to free speech and freedom of religion by rejecting specific courses in biology, history, government, English and religion.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge James Otero in Los Angeles threw out Calvary Chapel's broader claim that the university's policies toward approving classes were plainly unconstitutional.
The Christian school had argued the university had a policy of rejecting courses solely because they had a religious viewpoint, according to the judge's order. Calvary Chapel argued, for example, that the university rejected biology courses that discuss intelligent design or creationism alongside evolution. But Otero said the school did not show that the university had an established practice of rejecting such courses.
Calvary Chapel had petitioned the judge to rule that the university had violated its students' constitutional rights by rejecting the specific courses. However, Otero refused to do so, which means those issues will now be decided at trial.
For instance, Calvary Christian challenged the university's decision to reject science courses that used two Christian biology textbooks. But Otero said the university officials had provided enough evidence that they had sound reason to reject the textbooks ---- namely, that the books encouraged students to reject scientific evidence ---- that he could not rule in Calvary Chapel's favor before trial.
Robert Tyler, an attorney with Advocates for Faith and Freedom who represents Calvary Chapel, said the judge's ruling was disappointing but not surprising.
Tyler said the claims that the policies were unconstitutional as written are difficult to prove. He added that because Calvary Chapel sought the order, the judge is required to weigh the evidence in the university's favor, making it tough to prove at this stage.
"Although we would have been happy for the court to give us summary judgment on the entire case," Tyler said, "due to the procedural and evidentiary rules that apply, it is not surprising that the court is going to require that we go to trial."
A spokeswoman for the UC system said she could not speak about the judge's order because she did not have a chance to review it late Friday.