 |
 Jeffrey Selman |
Posted on 09/07/2002 7:55:51 PM PDT by mhking
|
|
Cobb dads enter fray over evolution in schools
By MARY MacDONALD
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
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.
"I saw something wrong, and I went after it," Selman said.
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 board vote on instruction policy is set for Sept. 26.
Selman: I'm a patriot|
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: Teach all facts|
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.
"When he talks about an issue, he has studied it thoroughly," Hemphill said.
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."
Actually, this discussion, like most on FR, started in POST 1. The subject of this thread is who should control what is taught in public schools. As it happens, your attempt to hijack the thread, to the irrelevant question of what is scientifically true, remains an attempted hijacking.
Mobs deserve no respect. Real democracy's track record is, within a generation, to demolish the very concept of law with one fashionable caprice after another replacing real laws, followed by unbridled tyranny arising in the vacuum of law that results. The correct answer is--stop saddling humans up like donkeys to support an enterprise they care nothing about. The Constitution had no original provisions for an income tax, and for obviously good reasons. Nowhere is it writ that we need to hyperfund scientific activities. Private research universities and technical journals existed before government funding, and they will exist afterwards.
Wrong again. Do any of you others on your side wish to associate yourselves with this idiocy?
It is commonly accepted because it is what he plainly wrote in "The Republic". It is a great excuse for fascism, but the source of fascism is pretty obviously fanatacism married to thuggary, encouraged by a fatal need in the human heart to turn over the big scary questions to Daddy. No people, who truly want to be free, and are willing to pay for it, can be enslaved.
Actually, it is generally agreed that Gouvenor Morris of New Jersey drafted the document. Madison was kept pretty busy as the Secretary of the Convention. In any case, the first amendment is not a product of the Convention, unless you agree with Balrog666 that the Bill of Rights was adopted simultaneously with the Constitution. In any case, the quotes you cited from Madison were not made as arguments in the Amendment process. That is because Madison wanted the Bill of Rights to be adopted, which would not have happenned using the arguments you mentioned.
Gosh, I was wrong.
Now it's your turn to admit your own idiocy.
He wrote a lot of things in 'The Republic'. It consists of DIALOGS, remember. The position you mentioned was presented by one of the 'participants' in the the dialog, not by Plato, who, as in most of the dialogs, does not appear in the document.
As usual, you are wrong. The discussion concerns WHAT should be taught in public schools. Religion should not be taught in science class. The nature and scope of scientific inquiry is certainly germane to the discussion. Which reminds me, you have still failed to properly identify or convincingly defend post #28.
And what, exactly, does it mean to "hijack a thread"? To point out obvious flaws in your thought process? To illuminate blatant mischaracterizations on your part with regards to the nature of science, the need for logical proof, and the subject and original intent of your own blinking posts? Or, having been thoroughly discredited since the thread began, are you simply attempting to shift the focus elsewhere by crying foul?
Actually, this discussion, like most on FR, started in POST 1.
And, like most on FR, the discussion has diverged into several independent arguments, many of which are partially related to the original article, all of which you have lost.
I agree with the Chief Justice, Judge Bork, and most other conservative jurists that this decision was decided incorrectly. A few good Bush appointees, and it will be reversed.
Exactly! What should be taught in public schools is whatever the public wants taught.
Sorry, on FR conservatives do not support the positions of DU trolls.
Then you should have no difficulty in citing 18th on 19th century sources supporting your viewpoint.
Does that mean that everybody should quit swapping posts with you?
Please cite any evidence that Adams or Washington supportted your viewpoint.
What about the thieves who take the taxpayers money, and then refer to the taxpayers who employ them as a mob. If they are a mob, don't take their money.
Those of youwho are interested in the question of who should control public schools, and if religion should be taught in public schools, may be interested in this thread.
As long, of course, as you personally agree with it. And notwithstanding the flawless grasp the average person has on the fundamental intricacies of science.
I agree with you LCS. There is no nationwide answer for this, the cirriculum of schools and the subjects in science class should be decided in every community to serve every community's own population.
The discussion of the origins of the planet most certainly should not completely ignore beliefs that are held by large percentages of the local community that is paying for it.
People with strong feelings about it should attend school board meetings or serve on these boards. Unfortunately, IME no one comes to school board meetings to discuss curriculum issues when they are on the agenda.
Wrong again. Do any of you others on your side wish to associate yourselves with this idiocy?
Post #209 ought to clear this up. The schoolroom take on this question is that the Bill of Rights was promised to obtain anti-federalist signatures on the Constitution, and without that promise, the Constitution would have failed to obtain enough signatures to legitimize it in the minds of the general population.
The sources I quoted earlier are not so sure of this. It seems likely that the Constitution would have squeeked by without a Bill of Rights and some influential federalists argued for delaying it until Congress could get properly down to business, if not indefinitely, but Madison, who was not a huge fan of it, interestingly enough, seems to have felt it a point of honor to keep the promise that bought the anti-federalist signatures. And he pushed congress into drafting it immediately, and took the lead its formulation.
Some of the amendments were offered up by the Mason and the committee of um...detail? toward the end of the constitutional convention, however, the Bill of Rights was drafted in Congress, as a single document.
Since the BofR was a horsetrade for the Constitution, and since both documents were plowing new legal waters, I would argue that, although they are separately drafted documents, their ties are so intimate as to easily forgive someone 3 centuries later for suffering the impression that they are one document. They are certainly the result of one coherent political argument to obtain a signed Constitution viewed as legitimizing the new government.
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.