11th Circuit vacates decision against Cobb County science textbook stickers

Alliance Defense Fund ^ | 5/25/06

[dukeman]

ADF filed friend-of-the-court brief in defense of textbook stickers which accurately stated that evolution is a theory

ATLANTA — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit today vacated a lower court decision that declared Cobb County science textbook stickers which stated “evolution is a theory, not a fact” unconstitutional. The court was critical of the district court for issuing its ruling against the stickers despite holes in the evidentiary record in the case and remanded the case back to the district court for new proceedings.

“No school should be in trouble for simply stating the facts. That’s what schools are supposed to do. Though we wish the appeals court would have ruled on the constitutional merits of the case without sending it back to the district court, we are pleased that the district court’s ruling against the school district has been vacated,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster.

In its ruling today, the 11th Circuit wrote, “The problems presented by a record containing significant evidentiary gaps are compounded because at least some key findings of the district court are not supported by the evidence that is contained in the record.” The full text of the court’s ruling in the case Selman v. Cobb County School District can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/CobbCountyDecision.pdf.

The lower court judge agreed that the stickers were not applied to the textbooks for a religious purpose and were devoid of religious content. Nonetheless, he deemed the stickers a violation of the so-called “separation of church and state” for the sole reason that many people were aware that Christians supported the stickers.

According to the friend-of-the-court brief ADF attorneys filed in the case, “The District Court’s analysis will lead to absurd results…. The Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit the passage of a secular law, for a secular purpose, simply because Christians actively lobbied for the law” (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3404).

The sticker which had been applied to each textbook read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

[Right Wing Professor]

OK. My reading of it is that it's an unsuccessful attempt at a mathematical argument against evolution. A scientific paper would describe experiments and analyze their results, or at least interpret other people's results. It does neither. Getting beyond the waffle about Gödel, etc., he seems to assert that biological functionality can only arise from an abstract code, but doesn't say why. I would argue that any successful combinatorial synthesis directly disproves this assertion. We have obtained functional molecules simply by combining parts at random and selecting for that functionality.

[Virginia-American]

I am not an astronomer, but know clearly that it's not called the "Theories of Celestial Mechanics..."

Are you sure? ever hear of Gauss' Theoria motus corporum coelestium

[Right Wing Professor]

We would expect humans and chimps to have similar genes whether we had the same ancestor or not.

Why?

In particular, why would you expect similarity in phenotypically-silent sequences?

[freedumb2003]

But it is not a question for courts to decide, is it? By attempting to use the courts to disqualify a scientific theory because it has religious overtones sets a very bad precedent. IOW you are relying on the courts to validate your own scientific theories and to invalidate the theories of those with whom you disagree. Is that what you want?

You have the reasoning backwards. Creationism and ID are no more scientific theories than angels holding airplanes aloft or the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating everything from his tendrils. The scientific community is the one who weighed in as far as TToE being a scientific theory. This is NOT "religious overtones." This is religious dogma.

Or would you prefer to just have an open no-holds-barred discussion in the schools and let students use their minds, instead of their lawyers, to resolve these conflicts?

There is no conflict in the scientific arena. There is absolutely no way to apply the Scientific Method to any religion-based "argument." If you can show how any Creation Myth can be gauged a "theory" with evidence and proper reasoning (none has yet to emerge), sure. There are some emerging theories on the origins of the Universe -- but they are based on the Scientific Method and use fact-based reasoning to come to their conclusions. CRIDerism is just {poof}

In the philosophical arena, sure - have at it. But you have to be ready to discuss ALL Creation Myths -- not just the Biblical one.

What the hell are you afraid of?

It is not a question of fear. If someone came into a math class and said "the Flying Spaghetti Monster has decided that Pi will now be 3.15" I would have a real problem with that. The argument "but yours is just a theory since Pi can't be calculated" wouldn't hold much sway with me.

America's greatness is in our youth. Teaching them that mythology is interchangeable with science can only weaken us.

[xzins]

Bingo. If the ACLU appeals, the USSC will grent Cert if only to toss Lemon onto the ash heap of history.

This is the real issue of this article.

Lemon is in its death throes, and it'll take a few more ID challenges to ring its death knell. Wouldn't it be funny if the ACLU or the evo-lobby found "something to like" in ID just to avoid the inevitable with Lemon?

[Virginia-American]

What would falsify the theory that whales evolved from land mammals?

finding a Cambrian fossil whale.

[microgood]

And last -- why didn't you answer my questions? Notice that I did answer yours. I am sure it was just an oversight. Here ya go:

What could falsify creationism? Or ID? I have never been able to get a creationist to answer this question. I wonder why?

The reason I did not answer is that I do not feel qualified. Since I am not a creationist or ID person, I do not know enough about either.

I did read the flagellum argument and Miller's refutation of it, and it appeared to me that the Flagellum argument, though compelling, was more philosophical then scientific in nature, but Miller's refutation of it actually created more problems than it solved.

Especially since Millers idea that a flagellum could have been a bunch of different things with different functions could have all come together as independently working other things to form a flagellum. That would seem to stand any idea of morphology on its head, since things could radically be turned into other things, not a gradualistic kind of process that the morphology interpretation requires.

[connectthedots]

This is a bit like the Taxman case about a teacher layoff that was based on race. When Taxman appealed to the USSC, the ACLU, the school system and the race baiters payed her off so the case became moot.

In this instance, there is no one to pay off.

I think the ACLU will let it stand. Evolution is not a big enough hill to die on. It does not go to the core of their purpose. It's a nice fund raising vehicle, but an appeal would dry up future funds from those who lok at evolution as thier one issue.

[thomaswest]

Re 97: have your read the Wedge Document? Have you read what DI says about ID? I am happy to stick to their descriptions of ID for the purpose of investigation of its scientific validity. If only we could get creationists to return the favor concerning evolution.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html. The "Wedge Document" The Wedge Document is an internal memorandum from the Discovery Institute (the leading proponent of Intelligent Designer "Theory") that was leaked to the Internet in 1999. The Discovery Institute later admitted to its authenticity. Since then, Discovery Institute hasn't talked very much about the document, or the strategy it outlines. The reason is crushingly obvious, since the Wedge Document makes it readily apparent that the Discovery Institute is flat-out lying to us when it claims that its Intelligent Designer campaign is concerned only with science and does not have any religious aims, purpose or effect. The Wedge Document is reproduced at the above site in full.

[Right Wing Professor]

Actually, now I've read it, this is a narrow ruling whose purpose seems primarily to cover the asses of the judges who shot their mouths off unwisely in the hearing about the timing of the petition to the school-board. And since the evidence in the case, once it's properly entered, supports Selman, the decision will ultimately be upheld.

[js1138]

Were they mistaken?

I'm sure most biologists believe that abiogenesis happened, as do I.

But it has the same relationship to evolution that cosmology has to chemistry.

Evolution is about how populations change over time; It doesn't require knowing how the first living thing came to exist. If you want to believe it was poofed into existence, be my guest. I have no reason to argue with you.

[shuckmaster]

What we see here is evidence of the capacity of the human mind to shoe-horn any and every observed fact regarding living or extinct biological entities into the pre-conceived evolutionary construct.

Isn't amazing that Darwin came up with such a simple theory as selection based on heritable difference in a changing environment gradually influencing the predominant alleles of the interbreeding population and 150 years later, every observed fact regarding living or extinct biological entities fits right in?

[microgood]

Why?

Because we both have similar physical characteristics and genes control that.

In particular, why would you expect similarity in phenotypically-silent sequences?

I cannot answer that one, since I am looking at the logic of common descent from a philosophical/logical standpoint, irrespective of the details. And logically speaking, I can see similarity. I cannot logically deduce common ancestry from similarity, that has to be done some other way than logically.

[shuckmaster]

On what judicial or constitutional principle is a court to reach its conclusions on the basis of presumtions regarding the motivation of a party to the issue in dispute?

The guy driving the get away car is just as guilty as the one robbing the bank.

[curiosity]

It is an unnatural URGE, which, left to die on its own would, in time.

Is that true if it has environmental causes? Not that I'm taking a position on whether it's genetic; my understanding is that there's no consensous on whether it's genetic or environmental or some combination of both.

[xzins]

I'm sure I can look of the textbooks of the 60's and show you that "protein stew" was taught as part of evolutionary theory.

I'm positive.

Were they wrong? You seem to be saying that you think they were.

[connectthedots]

The earth was only 4 Billion years old then. Now it's like 4.6 billion years old. You are a lot older than you think.

At least he is aging well.

[xzins]

at least he's aging well

Have you seen me lately! I look awful.

And the crown I had the other day should've been preceded by a root canal.

[connectthedots]

I'm sure I can look of the textbooks of the 60's and show you that "protein stew" was taught as part of evolutionary theory.

It was in the late '60s.

[Almagest]

<< How would an evolutionist explain the phenomenon of homosexuality? It should have died out according to natural selection.>>


Why? Explain your scientific reasoning behind this conclusion.