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.

[microgood]

finding a Cambrian fossil whale.

Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

[thomaswest]

Re 216: I think it's safe to say that theological "insight" or "reasoning" has contributed nothing.

Agreed. And when scientists have made errors--and they have--it was never a creationist or IDist of preacher who uncovered the error and set things on the right path. It is amazing that in all the critiques of evolution from IDists, not a single one of them ever discovered a fossil; not a single one of them from their ivory towers has had their hands dirty in a lab, or actually measured anything.

Creationists, IDists have an astonishing record of never actually doing anything productive, but standing on the sidelines and offering negatives.

[DesScorp]

"Gravity is also "only a theory", but amazingly it doesn't get a sticker."

Gravity isn't controversial, or disputed by anyone. They may be in the minority, but there are a significant number of scientists that have some problem or another with the theory of evolution. Not quacks, cracker-jack degrees, real professionals with real degrees from real universities.

One of the big differences between this controversial theory, and other controversial theories (dark matter, string theory, etc), is that those other theories are not taught as definitive, irefutable fact. And no one is calling someone who doubts the existence of dark matter a knuckle dragging nutjob. After all, proponents of Dark Matter and String Theory say those theories are the results of our best science too.

[RobbyS]

You didn't teach Herodotus or historiography to "ordinary" high school students exc ept in the smallest bites. Evolution IS a big part of biology,and if you are going to be a biologist you need to know it. But if you think that it is as important as cell theory, for instance, as something that is comprehensible to the ordinary student and can be mastered by any above average student who applies himself, I must disagree. True evolutionary theory goes far beyond biology and embraces, as it is ardent supporters admit, geography and physical science. What the average student retains from it is pretty much confinsed to a confirmation of his belief in dinosaurs.

I was a teacher, not in that high school, It is the big school which is now along I-30 west of downtown. A friend of mine was teaching there; he was the head of the science department that year.

As far as Jefferson is concerned, I sugest again that you bother to read
the Virginia statute. His whole argument is Lockean and expressed in Christian language. Don't confuse him with Paine and certainly not Jacobins like Robespierre or Danton.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[RobbyS]

You are right. It does concern morality. The concern arises from the historical tie between atheism and evolution. The first generation of Darwinists held on to traditional Christian morality, but subsequent generations have abandoned it. The irony is that people who don't belive in truth will assert so strongly the truth of Darwinism, without knowing exactly what it is all about. They believe it for some of the same reasons that Voltaire believed in Newtonian physics, as a kind of counter-faith. If you read what Voltaire actually wrote about Newton, you soon realize his personal knowledge was on the level of a bright high school students. But he wrote so beautifully and his readers knew even less.

[Alamo-Girl]

For what it's worth, YEC doesn't mean anything at (or beyond) the speed of light.

Exactly! But people tend to forget relativity and inflationary theory (Age of the Universe)

Thank you for the pings!

[Alamo-Girl]

We could rephrase the theory: "Over the years, evolution theory has had changing facts."

Or perhaps: evolution theory has evolved.

[aNYCguy]

Gravity isn't controversial, or disputed by anyone.

Evolution is also not controversial within the scientific community. The theory is accepted by well over 99% of those practicing in the biological fields. It's truly the unifying theory of biology.

That makes those that reject it "crackpots" in just the same way that some people would consider physicists who reject gravity to be crackpots.

[Almagest]

"You didn't teach Herodotus or historiography to 'ordinary' high school students exc ept in the smallest bites."


That is correct -- but it has nothing to do with your point. Your analogy is ridiculous. High schoolers can learn about general history without Herodotus and historiography. Not learning about evolution -- at least ABOUT evolution, in general -- is a huge gap in "learning" about biology.


"Evolution IS a big part of biology,and if you are going to be a biologist you need to know it."


You admit it's a big part, but you don't want it taught. For some reason, I don't think you are saying this because of your concern about overwhelming the students with facts.


"But if you think that it is as important as cell theory, for instance, as something that is comprehensible to the ordinary student and can be mastered by any above average student who applies himself, I must disagree."


Yes, it is as important as cell theory. And while it is more difficult to understand than some topics, it is important enough to give them at least some general principles.


"As far as Jefferson is concerned, I sugest again that you bother to read the Virginia statute. His whole argument is Lockean and expressed in Christian language. Don't confuse him with Paine and certainly not Jacobins like Robespierre or Danton."


So then, you would be amenable to teaching Jefferson's true beliefs about "god" and religion as part of a history course? I am all for that. But I bet you aren't for sneaking deism into the history curriculum in order to establish deism as a contender.

We aren't talking about using ID just to tell students that some people believe in God. I think most of them already know that. We are talking about what DI is talking about -- sneaking theism into the science curriculum. That is exactly what they have said they want to do. HUGE difference.

[microgood]

If you could do science from a philosophical logical standpoint, we would have stopped with Aristotle. Science is in the details of the world. One detail is that there is conservation of bases that make no difference to the phenotype.

I would agree with this. Following the rules that lead you to the Big Truths of logic and philosophy allow very little knowledge to be accrued. You have to start violating the rules but sticking to a set of guidelines (the scientific method) that have changed signficantly over the years.

And of course it's false to say you can't deduce common ancestry from similarity. Lets say you have two families of kids playing together on a playground. Three kids are black-skinned, three are white skinned. If you were forced to bet, how would you bet on which kids share the same parents?

In this case, if you nail down enough of the particulars, you could actually logically deduce it directly. But with the genetic evidence you are using theories or other scientific facts (which can be proven wrong) as evidence for other theories which is an additional layer of abstraction so it cannot be deduced using pure logic. If you used probabilities, however, and then made the leap that 99% = 100%, you could use pure logic beyond that point, but not at that point.

The way I see evolution is that it is a huge filing system for every thing we know about life. You have to file it somehow and I think the way scientists have done it makes total sense. And in the process of doing that theories have arisen, some stronger than others, about all these millions of pieces of information. Then there are larger theories like common descent that apply to the whole file cabinet.

I have been told by many that universal common descent (a singularity) is a certainty. I am trying to find the chain of evidence to get there, but have been unable to so far. I think the evidence tracing us back to hominids is far more convincing than that all life came from a singularity.

[microgood]

Yes. Modern taxonomy (at least since about 1900) has grouped living things by ancestry. Genetic markers are more directly inherited than morphology.

Thanks.

[Almagest]

"It does concern morality. The concern arises from the historical tie between atheism and evolution."


What people do about their religious beliefs in response to a scientific theory has nothing at all to do with the truth value of that theory. The theory stands or falls on the evidence -- not on personal reactions to it.

It makes no more sense to reject evolution because some people have become atheists after accepting evolution -- than it does to reject the truth-claims of Christianity because some groups have engaged in mass-murder in the name of Christ.

How people REACT to facts and theories has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the facts and theories they are reacting to. It is meaningless. In my opinion, Calvinism and those who have pushed it have caused plenty of people to become atheists. Does that refute the claims of Calvinism? Nope.


"The irony is that people who don't belive in truth will assert so strongly the truth of Darwinism, without knowing exactly what it is all about."


Support your claim that those who accept evolution do not believe in truth. That is an outrageous accusation. Don't you have anything of a factual or logical basis to offer, or does your song only consist of repeating that same old verse attacking the morality, the character, and the motives of those who accept evolution.

The fact is that -- even if your accusations were all true -- that would STILL not do one thing to diminish the claims of the theory of evolution. It is the EVIDENCE that matters -- not the motives of the people who find that evidence.

I was a YEC for twenty years -- and I am intimately acquainted with their thinking and their methods. I think I can pretty accurately discern the motives behind their nonsensical attacks on evolution. But you know what? Even if I am right about that, those motives would have nothing to do with the validity or lack of validity of their actual arguments.

Same with evolution. It's the evidence that matters -- not fears, not anger, not motives, not belief about god, not ideas about morality. When it comes to refuting evolution -- it takes evidence.

The only evidence you have offered is evidence of your own lack of understanding of the theory, and of your sick attitude toward those who accept it.

[microgood]

So you do not believe in paternity testing?

Yes, I do. I was just analyzing the theory of universal common descent from a purely philosophical perspective, and when using pure logic you cannot use probabilites. I understand how certain paternity tests are.

[RobbyS]

The advocates of ID don't deny evolution, or at least the empirical side of it. What they are contesting is the adequacy of Darwinism as an explanation of the data. As science, evolution is much more difficult to get a hold on than cell theory. Cell theory is something you can get your hands on. It is something happening right before one's eyes. Evolution is ofttimes like the history of 6th Century England, where we get glimmers of truth like the Arthurian legend.

[RobbyS]

Evolutionists obviously believe in its truth, but many doubt that truth with a capital "T" exists. It's a relativist age, and the only dogma that relativists subscribe to is that "truth" is a purely personal matter.

[Almagest]

"The advocates of ID don't deny evolution"


Didn't say they did. What I DID say was that they have revealed their real motive in the WEDGE document, and it's not about science. I have this weird idea that only science should be allowed in a science class.

You think evolution is too hard to teach, but if it is, you want to complicate it even more by bringing in ID, which is nothing but nit-picking at evolution? That is going to make evolution easier to understand?


"What they are contesting is the adequacy of Darwinism as an explanation of the data"


So far -- the theory has done a remarkable job of explaining the data. What it has not explained is not going to GET explained by saying, "Well, we haven't quite figured all that out yet, so that must mean that we never will. Go-- oops-- the "unknown designer" must have created it that way, and it's "irreducibly complex. We have reached the end point."

No -- science consists of continuing to try to understand and explain things about the natural world that we do not yet understand that well. It does not consist of throwing up our hands and invoking Go... oops... the "unknown designer." That's not science, and it does not belong in a science class.

[Almagest]

"Evolutionists obviously believe in its truth, but many doubt that truth with a capital "T" exists. It's a relativist age, and the only dogma that relativists subscribe to is that "truth" is a purely personal matter."


So if "evolutionists" defend the claims of evolution as truth -- you complain that they are closed to other ideas.
And when we keep telling you that all conclusions in science are tentative, and we never declare a final "truth" -- you complain that we are relativists and don't believe in truth.

But you can proclaim your own version of "capital-T" truth and if anyone objects -- again -- they are relativists and don't believe in truth.

Heads-I-win-tails-you-lose. Gotcha. The hypocrisy shines through loud and clear.

[microgood]

I don't believe you. I have read your posts. And it raises the question: What qualifies you to challenge evolution on so many points?

Listen newbie, if I ever find anyone that cares what you think, I will sure pass this on to them.

[Almagest]

"Listen newbie, if I ever find anyone that cares what you think, I will sure pass this on to them."


Yep -- I'm a newbie -- uh -- Oldie! Am I to take that as some sort of insult? That means my arguments are invalid -- right?

Why can't you answer the question? What qualifies you to nit-pick at evolution, if you don't feel qualified to explain what falsifies creationism or ID?