Posted on 05/25/2006 2:59:09 PM PDT by 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.
Why ping me on this? That was not I you were quoting.
"Why ping me on this? That was not I you were quoting."
I??? Me? I? Me? I dunno.
I cannot answer that one,
Obviously... Look, if you can't even answer the *easy* questions in biology, why do you feel qualified to critique anything in the field?
since I am looking at the logic of common descent from a philosophical/logical standpoint, irrespective of the details.
Ah, yes, the old "don't confuse me with facts or evidence, I'm only interested in ivory-tower mental masturbation" ploy... It's pretty popular with you anti-evolution folks.
And logically speaking, I can see similarity.
...but you're incapable of discussing the implication of different *kinds* of similarity...
I cannot logically deduce common ancestry from similarity, that has to be done some other way than logically.
Horse manure. Common ancestry is logically deduced from the very specific *kinds* of detailed similarities (and differences) which are found in the DNA. This is exactly how paternal testing via DNA is done, for example. Determination of more remote common ancestry is done by the same kinds of methods.
Of course, when you haven't a clue how phylogenetic signals are extracted from DNA, I can see how someone grossly ignorant of genetics might think that the only method available might be, "golly gosh gee, this kinda 'looks' similar to me, but gee whiz, nothing beyond that level of analysis is even possible!"
Feel free to come back and try again when you've actually learned something about the topic.
Could someone please find me an anti-evolutionist who is capable of discussing this issue on any level above, "well *I* can't imagine how these things could be tested or determined, so I feel utterly confident in declaring that it's impossible for them to be!"
So you do not believe in paternity testing?
I am going to dip into my copy tonight.
So that was a different "Almagest" that posted to me at post 143?
I'm sorry. I meant to ping him.
Do you know where I can find him? Did he change his screen name?
Sheesh.
"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?"
The Devil told him.
I'll look up an old text and reference it for you.
"Were they wrong? You seem to be saying that you think they were."
I took a class in evolutionary biology in college -- back in 1969. The professor started out with:
"There are several competing ideas concerning the origin of life on the earth. One is divine creation. Another is aliens from space. Another is that life arose from natural processes. This class is not about any of these. It is about what happened to life after life got here."
All right then, that settles it!
Yes, it does indeed settle the issue of the fact that you were astoundingly wrong when you claimed that evolution was "untestable", because people have managed to go ahead and test it anyway, despite your declaration that this was somehow impossible.
Now, what creationist fallacy/misrepresentation/falsehood would you like to post next? I'll give you ten bucks if you post one I haven't seen before.
Let them teach their science, and let us teach our faith. Then they may freely choose which of the three roads to walk, and that they may enter by their own accord without grievance.
"How would an evolutionist explain the phenomenon of homosexuality? It should have died out according to natural selection."
Wrong. On several counts.
1. facultative homosexuality can be used to maintain dominance in all male situations. Returning to heterosexual behavior when females are available.
2. an obligate homosexual, as a non-breeding male, can improve the situation for genetically close breeders. Some evidence hinting at this includes the data observed recently that female relatives of homosexuals have more children.
3. There are several lethal genes that occur because they either need to be present in the same form on both chromosomes of a pair (recessives) or the are relatively common mutations.
No. Abiogenesis was not taught as part of evolution during my grade-school and high-school days. It was mentioned as a chemical problem. We did find out about the organic matter occuring in intersteller space though.
Huh?
Okay -- I get it now. I thought you were providing a quote from the post you were responding to, not making a comment yourself. So many people quote others without any indication that it is a quote -- so when I saw your words, and the smaller comment below it, I thought you were quoting someone above and responding below.
Now that I have cleared up my fuzzy head -- I'll respond. You made a comment; it looked like you were kinda kidding around with the other poster. But -- just in case -- I responded to your comment.
Your comment had nothing to do with legal issues. Even if it was a joke -- it was about science. I responded on that basis. And even if it were not about science, you do not have the authority, as far as I know, to order me to go somewhere else and not respond to things you say.
But -- even though you can't find the decency to ask my nicely -- I'll be happy to ignore you and let you ignore me -- but I can't promise not to respond to something you say, if I consider it appropriate to do so. Them's the breaks on a public discussion list, doncha see?
Here's a website that casts some doubt on the "intelligent" part of ID.
Of course, but some of us when we grew up "put aside foolish things".
Ovulation versus cretinism. Surely we believe in storks bringing babies. Every patriotic American and Christian must accept the obvious evidence.
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The allegeded human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork Science, University of Helsinki --- English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of Alberta)
source: http://www.antievolution.org/features/evohumor/storkism.html
It is if you operate under the assumption that all physical processes have taken place at the same rate throughout all time, and that all processes are "natural." How can science test such assumptions?
I'm curious why you would propose a defininiton of "dogma" that is confined to religious matters. Besides, religious "dogma" is not formed wholly apart from evidence in the first place.
"It is if you operate under the assumption that all physical processes have taken place at the same rate throughout all time, and that all processes are "natural." How can science test such assumptions?"
Could you tell us what physical processes you are referring to -- and what they have to do with evolution?
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.