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.
On the surface it is good circumstantial evidence for common descent.
What does "on the surface" mean?
If you pick it apart philosophically, it is using a theory(that this thing is what you say it is, which is a theory in itself) to provide evidence for another theory.
I don't follow. "that this thing is what you say it is, which is a theory in itself" doesn't compute.
What I said was:
1) there is a stretch of DNA found in the great apes, including ourselves, such that if one base pair is added to it, would allow us (and the other apes) to make ascorbic acid.
This is a laboratory observation, there is no theory here at all.
2) There is no such DNA anywhere else in the animal kingdom. The only animals known to need vitamin C besides the apes are guinea pigs and a couple of kinds of fruit bat. Neither of them has a a stretch of DNA like that found in the apes, although the change to their DNA that would allow ascorbic acid to be made is known. I guess it's possible that there is some undiscovered animal, somewhere, that needs vitamin C and shares our pseudogene, but none are known.
Again, no theory, just observation of dietary requirements and a bit of gene sequencing.
And even if the "genetic defect" is so accepted that it is now considered a scientific fact, scientific facts can be wrong and have been wrong.
Sounds like a defect to me; it differs from a useful gene by exactly one base pair.
Just exactly what sort of thing could be wrong here? The gene sequencing? Are you thinking that perhaps it was only done once?
And, defect or not, it's a piece of DNA that's only found in the great apes. It had to get there somehow. Either designed in, the inheritence of a single mutation in a common ancestor, or the inheritence of the same mutation happening independently at least half a dozen times.
I am not saying it is bad science or that its conclusions are totally wrong. But using theories to provide evidence for other theories reduces the certainty of the outcome
Again, what theory is being used to provide evidence?
Evolution for many people is a linchpin of a certain view of the world. One of the attractions of Darwinism, or certain versions of it, is that every event is a matter of chance. It goes back to the original argument between those Greeks who believed in being and those who believed in flux. It is enough for many that something "seems" to be true. "Whatever."
bump
"Evolution for many people is a linchpin of a certain view of the world."
That has nothing to do with the validity of the theory itself. The theory stands or falls on the basis of the evidence -- not on "world view." Similarly, *opposition* to evolution is a linchpin of the "world view" of creationists. That, in itself, doesn't make creationism wrong.
The fact that your "world view" causes you to refuse to accept evolution, apart from any actual refutation of its claims -- that fact says nothing at all about evolution. It only says something about you.
Your refusal to believe something does not make it false -- nor does your believing something else make that something else true. Truth is not what we want it to be, or wish it were. It is what it is, independent of our feelings about it. We are supposed to be pursuing truth. That is what you seemed to desire in your accusation earlier.
Again -- it's the EVIDENCE that counts. Why do you keep waxing philosophical instead of dealing with the evidence?
You are the one who decried the idea that people did not believe in truth. Here's your chance to pursue the truth about evolution. Not philosophical accusations; not moral insinuations; not nonsensical side-issues; EVIDENCE wins the day when it comes to scientific "truth."
"One of the attractions of Darwinism, or certain versions of it, is that every event is a matter of chance."
We are not talking about "certain versions" of Darwinism. We are talking about the current theory of evolution, as it stands today. And it is not true that the current theory posits that "every event is a matter of chance." I suspect you have already been corrected on this many times before. If so, you are either being dishonest or incredibly forgetful.
"It goes back to the original argument between those Greeks who believed in being and those who believed in flux. It is enough for many that something "seems" to be true. "Whatever.""
That is nothing but gobbledy-gook, and you know it. It is a red herring -- a false trail -- a dead-end. It says nothing about evolution, one way or the other.
You still have not dealt with ANY facts or evidence. Don't pretend you have facts on your side -- and don't pretend that you are making any inroads against evolution -- with this line of argument. And don't pretend to be so concerned with "capital-T" truth when you write things like this that have nothing to do with the truth value of the claims of evolution -- or your claims against it.
Accusing others of not believing in truth -- while at the same time refusing to examine truth claims for yourself --
that is the ultimate hypocrisy. If anyone rejected Christianity the way you reject evolution -- and if their arguments against Christianity consisted of the same kinds of canards, red herrings, ad hominem attacks, and non-sequiturs you keep using -- would that be persuasive to YOU?
I'm not quite sure what you're thinking of here. The chemical structure of DNA is an experimental fact; the only theories underlying it are things like the atomic theory of matter, the electronic theory of chemical bonds, things like that. At this level there's nothing special about DNA.
The genetic code is also an experimental fact; the theory that's needed to explain the experiments is again really basic stuff.
Something that's not well understood at the present time is the exact ways in which gene expression is regulated, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the facts about the various GLO genes.
So, yeah, there was some theory used in the lab experiments, but it's the same theory that all of chemistry uses. It's possible in principle that this could be replaced, but the replacement theory would still have to explain the same experimental results.
Bump
The textbook sticker should read: "The facts have changed with evolutionary theory."
The truth remains, though, that no one has ever grown life from non-life....spontaneous regeneration is an impossibility, and it's been proven to be such.
Evolutionary Biology by Eli Minkoff Addison-Wesley Publishing 1984.
Chapter 25 The Origin and Early Evolution of Life
A. Past and Present Theories
B. Chemical Evolution
C. Exobiology: The Search for Extraterrestrial Origin
D. The Evolution of Procaryotic Cells
Chapter 26 The Evolution of Eucaryotes
A. The Nature and Origin of Eucaryotic Cells
LOL!
And that's why the legal issue of the sticker in the textbook should be moot.
If the facts have changed, then to point that out on a sticker is not a religious issue. It's simple honesty.
Gravity isn't controversial, or disputed by anyone.
Think again:
Walter Wright's Push Gravity: "Wright's basic idea -- which he says is borne out by his experiments and calculations -- is that gravity doesn't emanate from the earth's core, it comes from the sun. He argues that the sun, because it is a huge mass in a constant state of combustion, emits forces which push or 'squeeze' objects toward the earth -- like Newton's apple. [...] his novel ideas have made him a sort of guru to what he calls his 'following' of teenage science students, sci-fi fans and even some physical scientists he calls 'unbrainwashed' by Newtonian physics."There is no gravity in deep space: "Planets and stars can't form from gas floating in space because there is no gravity in space that can clump it together. If you think I am mistaken, I asked my girlfriend who is a biology/chemistry major, and a creationists, to describe to me gravity. She described gravity in a similiar way to me: only celestial bodies have gravitational forces in our universe. This is why there is no gravity in deep space. My girlfriend will major with 3.98 in science studies, so she knows what she's talking about. Now gravity doesn't exist between anything but celestial bodies, so atoms can't have gravity, and are held together by, as my girlfriend described it "not as gravity, but the atomic force between matter." Therefore it would be impossible for planets to form by random clumping of particles because there is no gravity in deep space. Liquids are made by the rate of collisions between atoms. We can't even "clump" gas on earth where there is gravity, how can you do it in freaking outer space where the concept of gravity is nil? I mean in the voidless wonder of outer space, how in hades is there a gravitational pull? Remember, it's a game of rolling the die and having to get one number out of a million. And gases move from a high density to a low density, thus that disproves the idea that gases could 'clump' in outer space. My knowledge of physics is quite limited, but to me it seems logical: only a defined mass can have a gravitational pull. I have the following questions for you scientists: 1. If gravity is a potent force that would cause gases to come together, why didn't all gas clump in outer space? 2. As my evidence speaks to the fact that gas can't clump on Earth, where gravity is much more potent. Thus, how could it occur in deep space? Clearly god created the universe."
Teaching the Fa : "In other words, although it's no longer in Earth's environment, it is still connected to the realms of other particles in the Three Realms. Only this way can it be stable there. This is the reason why a satellite can stay there. Of course, the same interconnection exists in objects of the same weight but of different volumes. An object that has a small volume but a high density has the same amount of interconnection as an object that has a large volume, so it feels like they weigh the same. There are many other aspects of this if I'm to go into detail. What I was trying to tell you just now is that "gravity" doesn't exist."
The misquided scientifically accepted theory of UNIVERSAL GRAVITY is ABSURD : "Current theories (and that is all they are) on Gravity say that gravity is relative to the mass of an object. So by that logic, the Sun would produce 1,000's of times more gravity than say, the Earth. A gravitational field that strong would eventually suck everything into it (like a black hole). It would constantly draw orbits of planets, comets, etc. closer to the sun. It would suck the Moon right out of orbit around the Earth. But this is not the case. It is a PROVEN FACT that our solar system is EXPANDING. The Earth IS NOT GETTING CLOSER to the Sun. Now let's look here on Earth itself. If gravity was responsible for keeping us DOWN TO EARTH then while I am standing upright in the United States people around the world in Australia would be UPSIDE DOWN. Additionally people in Europe and Russia would be on their sides. That is absolutely proposterous and probably the reason humanity believed the Earth was flat for as long as they did. [...] Gravity is ABSOLUTELY NOT a DIRECT EFFECT of an OBJECTS MASS. If it was you would not be able to drop a peanut and a gold brick at the same time, from the same height (inside a vacuum) and have them both hit the ground at the same time. Which by the way has been PROVEN over and over again. To boot the Sun would pull us off the surface of Earth, thru Earth's atmosphere, freeze us in the vastness of space, pull us towards the Sun for us to thaw just before we impacted the Sun and burned to Death."
Gravity Does Not Exist: "Mr Martin, of Austin Drive, Didsbury, a former labourer turned amateur scientist, has spent five years trying to get someone to publish his view that gravity does not exist, but without success."
Atlantis Rising: "In this issue we have articles claiming that heavy skyscrapers cause earthquakes, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami was caused by oil drilling, the Templars worshiped John the Baptist as the Messiah, pyramids are actually giant radios, and that gravity doesn't exist, among other odd ideas."
Notes from Another Universe: Letters from crank theorists—often handwritten or manually typed, exhaustively diagrammed, up to a hundred pages long—have inundated university science departments for years. Neel Shearer, the graduate assistant who filters physicist Stephen Hawking's e-mail, says that Hawking receives "hundreds of letters a month, at least, mostly theories about how the moon doesn't rotate, why gravity doesn't exist, how to go faster than the speed of light." [...] Judging from the reams of odd theories sent daily to science journals, universities, and researchers, science cranks are more prolific than ever. This is true despite a discouraging silence on the part of the recipients. The author of one atmosphere-based theory of gravity estimates that he has mailed 5,000 copies of his work to physicists over the past 15 years but received just two replies. Presentation is part of the problem. "GENTLEMEN ARE YOU INTERESTED IN SEPARATING VALUABLE CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS FROM THE SUNSHINE RAY?" demands one impatient correspondent. [...] The few who did answer were single-minded. One retired commercial diver answered all my questions with an uninterruptible monologue on gravity (it pushes rather than pulls, he said).
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.
Almost without exception, the scientists who "have some problem or another with the theory of evolution" fall into two categories: a) biologists who are working out some of the details of evolutionary biology, whose work is misrepresented by anti-evolutionists as some kind of major objection to evolution when it actually isn't, or b) cranks who aren't primarily biologists who think that their expertise in engineering or whatever qualifies them to critique a field they don't actually grasp.
Of course there's also c) cranks who don't even remotely qualify as scientists, but the creationists keep falsely presenting them as if they were -- Kent Hovind, for example.
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.
Neither is evolutionary biology. It *is*, however, taught as an extremely well-established field, many aspects of which have been validated and confirmed so many times over, in so many independent ways, that it's proper to teach them as "here's the way it is", in the same manner as teaching that the Earth revolves around the Sun without having to insert all kinds of caveats and disclaimers.
Even that, however, is not the same as actually claiming that it's "definitive, irefutable fact" (neither is heliocentrism), since science never elevates *any* conclusion to that level of complete certainty -- *all* scientific conclusions are provisional and subject to revision, although the level of confidence in some is far higher than others, and in many cases properly approaches a level of confidence that is only a few steps removed from (but is not the same as) "certainty".
And no one is calling someone who doubts the existence of dark matter a knuckle dragging nutjob.
Because dark matter is still at a very tentative level of confidence, unlike evolution.
After all, proponents of Dark Matter and String Theory say those theories are the results of our best science too.
Indeed, but that doesn't mean that they have amassed the level of validation and the massive amount of confirming research and evidence, along multiple independent cross-confirming lines, which evolution has.
What makes the great majority of the anti-evolutionists worthy of derision is not the mere fact that they happen to disbelieve an overwhelmingly established field of science (although that does in itself demonstrate one or more shortcomings), it's the fact that their various "arguments" for disbelieving it are almost without exception laughably ludicrous. For example, and harking back to your gravity analogy, here are several "arguments" against gravity which are crafted in exact parallel to creationist arguments against evolution (in order to satirically show their ridiculousness):
The Downfall of Gravity (a long list of them, see the link)Sound familiar?And from here:
The THEORIES of gravity, (Newton's and Einstein's are the top two
right now.)
That bowling balls fall is an example of micro-gravity. Macro-gravity
is only a theory.
Anyway, bowling balls only fall IF YOU LET GO OF THEM. They don't
fall on their own.
Remember that nobody has seen gravity, and so it's just a belief.
Gravity is not falsifiable, so it can't be scientific.
I never saw stars and planets interact one another via gravity, so
gravity doesn't exist.
Gravitationists keep changing their data (Einstein's data don't agree
with Newton's), so they are lying.
Since theories of gravity keep changing, what is believed to be true
today might not be true tomorrow. Gravity is not everything.
People use gravity to support evil things. Such as dropping bombs!
Anti-gravitationists deserve equal time.
Gravity violates the third law of thermodynamics (that nothing can
fall all the way).
Some of the world's greatest scientists are anti-gravitationists.
I will post the theory of anti-gravitationism as soon as I get it
worked out.
Quite seriously, the vast majority of anti-evolutionists I've discussed this topic with -- and I've been doing this for over thirty years -- don't have the first clue about how science actually works, what evolutionary biology actually entails, how to construct a non-fallacious argument, what constitutes positive evidence, etc. etc. Their arguments are uniformly so bad, and based on so much ignorance and misunderstandings, that I'd call it gradeschool-level, except that it would be an embarassment to most gradeschoolers.
No one has "intelligently designed" it, you say? Wow, what a blow to the ID proponents.
spontaneous regeneration is an impossibility, and it's been proven to be such.
Do you have these vivid hallucinations often?
But just for fun, do feel free to attempt to substantiate this laughable claim of yours. We'll wait.
Hi Ichy, how's it going? You escaped again I see.
How old are you, twelve? And did you really think that your lame, childish taunt was going to distract anyone from the fact that you have failed to answer the question?
[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.]
Wrong.
No, it isn't.
Please take an Introduction to Symbolic Logic class and get back to me.
Yawn. Been there, done that, know far more than enough about the subject to realize that you're out of your depth here, and blowing smoke when you should be attempting to actually make a valid case for your assertions, if you have one.
The theory of evolution is based on circumstantial evidence.
No it isn't, but then we've already established that you're quite unfamiliar with the actual nature of the evidence and how it is evaluated. Heck, even you admitted that you weren't interested in "details", you just wanted to "philosophize".
That is different than logical deduction. Statistical probabilities are different than logical deduction. Logical deduction has rules associated to it.
That's nice. Now feel free to discuss the actual methods by which evolutionary histories are deduced, instead of issuing platitudes and random definitions. Oh, right, you can't -- you don't actually *know* enough about the field to discuss its particulars, so all you can manage is to flail about making vague generalities and brash claims in the hopes that no one will notice that you're just bluffing instead of getting down to specifics.
[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!"]
Saying things have a 1% chance of being similar or a 99.999% chance of being similar leads to the same conclusion when it comes to pure logic.
It might if that's how common ancestry was determined, but since it isn't, you're just bluffing again.
See how that works?
Yes, I see how it works when you don't know enough about the subject to discuss its actual methodologies, so you just mumble on for a while about "being similar" as if that might be relevant in some way.
[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!"]
I never said or implied any such things.
Of course you have. Several times you have made declarations about evolutionary biology based on what you *presume* about it, in your ignorance, instead of based on any actual knowledge of it. More often than not, you keep presuming incorrectly, and in the manner I described -- you keep thinking that if *you* aren't aware of viable methods, then there must not be any.
I never even said evolution or common descent was false.
I didn't say that you had.
I was asking questions and analyzing the answers to see when the pure logic ended and the science started.
No, you weren't, you were making multiple false assertions with great confidence, based on your complete ignorance of how things actually work.
If you are not going to go back now, at least take your meds.
If this is the "best" you're capable of, why even bother? Even your peurile insults are trite and unimaginative.
Oh, how horrible you are. What about the feelings of those who disagree with you? I accuse your theory -- and thus people like you -- of being like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
You can't be a conservative. Go back to DU! I'm hitting the abuse button. WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
You will learn the truth, but it will be too late. And I will laugh! As for your feelings, I don't care. Only my feelings are important.
</END LUDDITE RANT> |
LOL! And that's why the legal issue of the sticker in the textbook should be moot.
By that goofy standard, *all* textbooks on *all* subjects should have a warning sticker -- and so should religious texts. You haven't thought this through, have you?
If the facts have changed, then to point that out on a sticker is not a religious issue.
It is when the motivation is a religious one, as it is for all known attempts to put disclaimers or warnings on evolution textbooks. As the decision in the Kitzmiller case states quite clearly, the fact that evolution is *singled out* for "special" treatment in this regard reveals quite starkly that the motivation is not "fairness" or "accuracy" or any of the other cheap excuses the folks with a religious objection to evolution try to dishonestly employ to try to cover what really drives them, because if it were, they'd be putting those labels on almost *all* textbooks.
The Kitzmiller decision discusses this in depth (in too much detail to include here without including most of the 139-page decision), but one of its many points will help to get the idea across:
Second, the Dover School Board singles out the scientific theory of evolution, specifically and repeatedly targeting it as a “theory” with “[g]aps,” “problems,” and inadequate empirical support. In singling out the one scientific theory that has historically been opposed by certain religious sects, the Board sent the message that it “believes there is some problem peculiar to evolution,” and “[i]n light of the historical opposition to evolution by Christian fundamentalists and creationists[,] . . . the informed, reasonable observer would infer the School Board’s problem with evolution to be that evolution does not acknowledge a creator.” Id. at 1309.
It's simple honesty.
It's ironic -- and more than a bit creepy -- for you to claim "simple honesty" when it's entirely clear that it's anything but. Look, it's one thing for you and your cronies to lie about your actual motives, but it's even more outrageous for you to compound it by having the audacity to call it "honesty".
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html
excerpt:
Is Evolution a fact or a theory?
The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.
Why isn't evolution called a law?
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.
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.