Cobb (County, GA) dads enter fray over evolution in schools

When Jeffrey Selman learned the Cobb County public schools had put disclaimers on evolution in thousands of science books, he skipped his usual outlet, a letter of protest.

The 56-year-old computer programmer sued the district to remove the textbook stickers. And he is ready to broaden the suit's scope if the school board allows science teachers to discuss what he sees as faith-based alternatives to evolution.

Five miles away, in another east Cobb neighborhood, Larry Taylor had his own visceral reaction to the debate over science and religion.

Well-read and articulate, Taylor grew tired of seeing critics of evolution dismissed as uneducated rubes.

The construction manager attended his first school board meeting two weeks ago to urge members to require teachers to expose flaws in evolution.

"If it raises tough questions in the classroom, that's why they're there," Taylor said.

The men, both fathers of students in east Cobb schools, inserted themselves into a fray that neither expected would turn national. Both have found the attention unsettling. They worry about the impact on their families and will not disclose the names of their wives or children. Both screen phone calls. But neither regrets taking a public stance on an issue that has divided Cobb and drawn national media attention.

The division among parents is unprecedented, said board Chairman Curt Johnston, who is receiving 15 messages a day, divided on either side. "This is the most difficult and polarized debate the board has had since I've been on the board," he said. "Right now, we're just listening."

Selman, the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the district by the American Civil Liberties Union, said his decision to seek court intervention took perhaps "half a second." A transplanted New Yorker, Selman wants people to know he believes in God. A practicing Jew, he attends temple several times a year. He does not want to be equated with the California atheist whose challenge of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance drew national scorn.

Selman describes his lawsuit as a patriotic action, stopping a move toward government-sanctioned religion. While the textbook advisories are vague, Selman and many other parents think the school board discussions that produced the inserts reflect a conservative Christian intent.

The advisories were approved after the board heard about two dozen parents protest the teaching of evolution, many on religious grounds. They produced a petition signed by nearly 2,000 parents who demanded accurate science texts. Many petitions circulated in Cobb churches.

A counterpetition is now circulating among pro-evolution parents, who will demand that the board maintain "traditional academic standards and integrity in the sciences."

Selman isn't sure what sparked the anti-evolution movement in Cobb, a county he and his wife chose nearly 10 years ago based on the good reputation of its schools. He thinks the board is pandering to a small group of parents. His own actions have produced a few dozen phone calls to his home, more supportive than not.

"This is one battleground," said Selman, who has a child in elementary school. "I'm sure they're not going to stop at this. The next thing, the moment of silence is going to be attacked, which is a beautiful piece of compromise."

Nancy Myers, a co-worker, wasn't surprised that Selman became involved in the dispute. "He's got a hot justice button," she said. "When he sees wrong being done, he wants to do something about it. I'd call him principled."

Although Selman thinks his lawsuit will squash any attempt to dilute evolution, he suspects the board policy will open classrooms to religious-based instruction. "The side for scientific education was asleep," he said. "We felt safe. This is the 21st century, for crying out loud. We can't go back to this."

Taylor, 41, moved to Cobb as a child and was educated in its public schools. But like Selman, he now questions whether the county schools live up to their generally good reputation. He has two daughters and a son, in middle and high school.

While he disagrees with biological evolution, Taylor will not identify himself as a creationist or an advocate of "intelligent design," which argues that the diversity of life is the result of some master plan by an unidentified "designer."

But Taylor has read "Darwin's Black Box," a challenge of evolution by a biochemist at Lehigh University, and a stack of other books that question evolution. He has given copies to friends and co-workers.

Taylor believes these critiques, many written by scientists if not biologists, are being ignored unfairly by public school teachers and the media. "The media presents it as the educated scientists vs. the religious, fanatical extremists."

He was particularly angered when science teachers told the Cobb school board that criticism of evolution was based in religion.

"All the facts should be taught in the science class," he said. "There are many credible scientists in America who believe evolution has many flaws."

Taylor attends his church, Trinity Fellowship in west Cobb, twice weekly. The Rev. Richard Hemphill said the church had not become involved with the evolution dispute. Taylor has spoken out before, taking a position against abortion in a letter published in a newspaper. His pastor is not surprised to see him take a stance on something that affects his family.

Parents and teachers who dismiss views opposing evolution are practicing their own form of religion, Taylor said. He insists intelligent design is not a faith-based approach.

"The supporters of evolution have an agenda as well. Their agenda is to keep God out, even if the evidence points to God. . . . It's faith. Those people are as fervent in their beliefs as Christians are in believing God created Earth."

Evolutionists keep talking about the 'tree of life' as if it was something real. It is not even something on which evolutionists agree! Every single evo author paints a different tree. All the 'tree of life' shows is that evos were able to graduate from kindergarten.

We have discussed this many times, and at great detail, examining particular cases, and as usual, it promptly exited your brain the instant you abandoned the previous thread. The Tree of Life bears some controversy around the edges, just like all active sciences. However, as I said, no tree puts ameba ahead of martingales, or martingales ahead of men. As ten minutes of work in a search engine would show you, there is remarkable agreement on the major branches of the Tree of Life--as most every reputable biologist knows.

As has been discussed earlier, mythology to the contrary notwithstanding, this process of acknowledgement is in large part, a political process. The way public institutions are governed is also based on a political process, one that involves ALL citizens, not a self-appointed scientific elite. Government by 'scientific' elites has been tried by both the Nazis and the Communists, and it does not work.

Science works rather like our constitional representative government was supposed to work: it does not assume that counting the noses of the pigs at the trough is an adequate way to discern physical truth from pig droppings.

It assumes (rather like Plato recommended) that only the most seasoned and respected experts on a particular subject are fit to pass judgement on it. That is why we have referreed papers in technical journals to do the dog work of scientific decision-making. And that is why we don't have popular referendums on the laws of nature.

There is, of course, an all too human tendency to politicize this process, but that does not make political shenanigans arbiters of scientific truth. Scientists, widely respected by their fellows, who specialize in the subject under discussion are the arbiters of scientific truth.

We have discussed this many times, and at great detail,

You can discuss it a million times if you like, a drawing is not evidence. The differences are significant though. How can you have a science if no one can agree on the same evidence? We are talking descent. If evolution were true then we could trace the descent in a definitive way. We cannot do that though. Reason is real simple - present species clearly cannot have descended from each other because they cannot mate with each other. Dead species we do not have enough information to know how they fit in the grand scheme of things. We have very few examples (which can barely be counted on the fingers of one hand) of the DNA of dead species. We do not even have full or close to full skeletons in 99.9% of the cases. All we have is a bone here and there. To infer descent from such scant evidence is utter nonsense. Organisms are very complex and they do not transform themselves into new ones like magic. Evolution only says 'it happens'. Well it has to show two things to be believed: prove that it happens, and show how it happens. It has not and will never be able to do either.

I see you have mistaken nit-picking for answering the argument put to you--your contention that Madison's thoughts, in particular, need have no bearing on the writing of the 1st amendment is too absurd for words. In what manner did you come to the conclusion that only certain documents you are privy to constitute the thoughts of the founders?

The first amendment has two clauses respecting religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Do you contend that the original intent was identical for both? If not, what right do you think was being established by the Establishment clause that's distinct from the Free Exercise Clause? Why do you think the original signers thought they had to say the same thing twice? Why aren't there other examples of this rather careless habit other places in the Bill of Rights?

As with the gun control freaks who can't understand the straightforward and consistent nature of the Bill of Rights--it's not that you're right, it's not that you're wrong--it's that you aren't even in the game.

from: "The Establishment Clause" by Leonard Levy

The history of the drafting of the establishment clause does not provide us with an understanding of what was meant by “an establishment of religion.” To argue, however, as proponents of a narrow interpretation do, that the amendment permits congressional aid and support to religion in general or to all denominations without discrimination, leads to the impossible conclusion that the First Amendment added to Congress’s power. Nothing supports such a conclusion. Every bit of evidence goes to prove that the First Amendment, like the others, was intended to restrict Congress to its enumerated powers. Because Congress possessed no power under the Constitution to legislate on matters concerning religion, Congress has no such power even in the absence of the First Amendment. It is therefore unreasonable, even fatuous, to believe that an express prohibition of power—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”—vests or creates the power, previously nonexistent, of supporting religion by aid to all religious groups. The Bill of Rights, as Madison said, was not framed “to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration.”

I have before me my worn copies of "Original Meaning" by Rakove and "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" by Bailyn. Both are Pulitzer Prize winning examples of exemplary scholarship on this matter.

I direct your attention to Bailyn pp 96-99, from which I briefly quote: "...fear of the conjunction of civil and ecclesiastical tyrannies was central to John Adam's understanding of American history and the revolutionary crisis..." (this from Samuel Adams) and to Rakove p 310 from which I briefly quote Madison's own words concerning his education: "under very early and strong impressions in favor of liberty both civil and religeous"

Madison caused the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 to be altered from the anemic "The fullest toleration..." to "all men are equally entitled..." for the very stated purpose of preventing such things as the ecumenical assessments of the 1780's which is more famous (at least, to the Supreme Court) for opposing.

How anyone in their right mind can think that the establishment clause means anything other than what it most obviously says, taken in context with the government-limiting reason for the Bill of Rights, strains my capacity for astonishment--and yet it continues to crop up. Sometimes I dispair for the republic.

Steller evolution is, of course, total poppycock. All you have is a fragmentary record of a bunch of stars shining away. The notion of star types evolving into each other has no tangible support whatsoever. No one has ever seen all the various changes implied by the Hartzsprung-Russell diagram performed by a single star.

Obviously, the Hartzsprung-Russell sequence is a figment of overactive athiest imaginings, and steller evolution is a fraudulant science. Furthermore, there has been a quarter of a century of controversy over the exact detailing of the sequencing. For that matter, we have changed the theory of gravity several times now because of new data. How can you have a science if no one can agree on the same evidence?

Well it has to show two things to be believed: prove that it happens, and show how it happens.

Leaving aside the exact nature of belief, Science has no such comprehensive requirements. Science just needs to tell a more useful story than whatever went before. Ptolomaic astronomy didn't tell an untruthful story, just not a story as useful as Copernican astronomy.

from: "Establishing the History of the Establishment Clause" by Larry Pahl paraphrasing from: William Lee Miller, "The First Liberty: Religion and the American Republic"

After proposing this amendment, he was a member of the committee of eleven to consider it, and then was the head of the House conference committee that negotiated with the Senate to produce its current wording.35 Because of Madison's, "nor shall any national religion be established," accommodationists have ballyhooed that his intent for the establishment clause was only that it prevent a national establishment and not the larger and more encompassing separation of the Remonstrance. But Samuel Livermore, an Episcopalian from New Hampshire, proposed an improvement on Madison's wording:

"Congress shall make no law touching religion, or infringing the right of conscience."

Madison promptly withdrew his proposed amendment and Livermore's passed the House, 34 to 20. This fact is not mentioned by those who hang on the apparent meaning of Madison's first draft.36 The lack of notes kept in the Senate's secret deliberations on the amendments has not kept hidden the fact that the more accommodationist amendments proposed--which would be what Rehnquist and the Religious Right would want in abundance--were twice rejected. As William Lee Miller concludes: "One may be allowed to infer that the majority in the Senate intended something more in the way of separation."37 Some think the eventual wording from the conference committee was written by Madison.

counting the noses of the pigs at the trough is an adequate way to discern physical truth from pig droppings.
It is always good to see the respect that some scientific types have for the people who ultimately pay their salaries.

It assumes (rather like Plato recommended) that only the most seasoned and respected experts on a particular subject are fit to pass judgement on it.
An appeal to what is commonly accepted as Plato's viewpoint, which is, of course, the source or all fascism.

Scientists, widely respected by their fellows, who specialize in the subject under discussion are the arbiters of scientific truth.
Possibly, but the subject here is not what is scientific truth, but is on the subject of who decides on what taxpayers money shall be spent.

The Establishment clause means that the federal government can not pick a single religious sect and establish it as the official religion of the US, supporting it with tax dollars. The Free Exercise clause means that no individuals or groups shall be limited by the government in practising their particular election. This is clearly two different ideas, and could have been passed as a separate Amendment, but the committee that wrote the amendment put them both in the First Amendment.

I notice in passing that you have not been able to cite a single word written or spoken in the Amendment process which supports your viewpoint.

Post 28 was about what decides political controversies, logic or a consensus among the electorate.

Your memory is far too short. Or you're a liar. Your choice. Here is the whole of post 28:

Aric2000:

Lucius Cornelius Sulla:

The discussion in question began in post 23 regarding scientific proof of god. You claimed that the theory of evolution depended on science disproving the existence of god. Aric2000 correctly pointed out that without physical evidence, science must assume an absence of supernatural effects; the supernatural nature of god puts such a being outside the realm of science.

Now, you can choose to believe in the existence of god with or without the sanction of the scientific community. But your belief remains a matter of faith. No matter how much you want it otherwise, closing your eyes and wishing really hard, even in large groups, has no discernible effect on reality. If you want to propose a new theory that explains the diveristy of life on earth using an invisible, unseen, undetectable entity as a mechanism, you're going to have to provide some kind of evidence for such a mechanism before your theory will have any scientific validity.

I notice in passing that you have not been able to cite a single word written or spoken in the Amendment process which supports your viewpoint.

except, of course, by its probable drafter, Madison, as per post #209

Thank you for pointing out that my viewpoint is that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while yours is that of the hard leftists who control most law schools and journalistic legal analysis.

...and, of course, it's probable drafter, Madison, as per post #209.

And, just in passing, let me suggest to you what an incredibly thin reed you are trying to hold up against the onslaught of history. Intentionally kept-secret debates in congress is not likely to be considered a major indication of the intentions of the founding fathers by anyone not still wrapped in swaddling clothes. Publicly expressed thoughts about freedom of religion and freedom from religion were key results of the reformation at the time of the founding and populating of the new world. No educated person, less than 2 centuries separated from the 30 Years War, or the genocide of the Anabaptists, or the multitudinous other mortal sins of the Catholic or Lutheran controlled governments of Europe, could fail to have noticed the fundamentally pernicious nature of church allied with government, or to have a heated opinion about it. Certainly not in america, the land populated by people trying to escape it. Radical separatist opinions were to be had at any corner pub, on any day of the week. Hatred and disgust for church-allied governments was the political air one had to breath in 1775.

To imagine that congress took no heed of that, nor had any active sympathy for it among the ranks of the amendments' drafters is to strain credibility beyond the breaking point.

The Establishment clause means that the federal government can not pick a single religious sect and establish it as the official religion of the US, supporting it with tax dollars.

You mean, for instance, by the federal supreme court disallowing christian prayer in publicly supported schools with mandated attendance, for example?

Of course, you are exactly correct. But you refuse to notice two major points which the Supremes do not: 1) the implications of using no tax dollars whatsoever for funding religeous practices, or the implications of the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, thrusting federally recognized individual rights down onto state and local governments. 2) the painfully obvious fact I have been at pains to point out: that, as per post #209, the founding fathers intentions were more thoroughgoing than merely refusing to hand over the reins of government to religeous tyrants. If that was what they intended, that is what they would have said. Supposing that the founding fathers had a sudden change of heart between the writing of the 1st Amendment and the writing of the Virginia Bill of Rights, and its subsequent application to the public funding of ministries is a defense that betrays a lack of understanding of what motivates a passionate, educated heart, such as those possessed by Madison, Adams, Washington and Jefferson.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.