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.
And you question my honesty? Name a life form that is not of some species?
<< So far, you have not given an answer to my 2 questions, except "I don't know." >>
At this point, as far as I know, no one knows. I know that many religious people are convinced that they know, but the scientific evidence is not there, and we are talking about science. No one knows -- SCIENTIFICALLY -- how life got started. And even when/if they figure it out -- that still would not preclude the involvement of a god.
<< Are you willing to stake that Evolution is not contingent on a beginning here on earth? >>
Evolution of life on earth is all we know about right now. Life is here, that's obvious. Why should I "stake" anything right now on something no one knows anything about?
All I know is -- it did start, and evolution deals with what happened after that. The study of biogenesis is interesting -- but not crucial to evolution.
<< Then your [sic] conceding to your first answer, whether you want to or not, that, "God, by definition, can do anything." >>
It's not a matter of "want to or not." I have no "want to" in this area, beyond the fact that I "want to" understand the world more than I do. The idea that "God did it" doesn't particularly bother me, as long as that idea is not used to stop or hinder scientific study of HOW he did it.
Nor does the idea that "aliens did it" bother me. The idea that "it just happened without aliens or God" doesn't bother me, either. Nor does some unknown alternative bother me. I don't have an emotional or religious stake in the answer. Each of these would have to be based on some sort of evidence for me to "want" to "stake" anything on it.
If you are looking for an atheist to fight with, ya got the wrong guy! I am not an atheist, and I am not hostile to the idea of a supreme deity creating life. I AM hostile to the nonsense put forth by creationists in opposition to the tons of actual science dealing with evolution.
<< In other words, the, "God in the gap" theory; but instead of God, it's "Evolution in the gap" theory. >>
Uh, nope. Evolution has no "stake" in how life began. All that matters to evolution is that life did begin and that it reproduces. That's it. Now it's true that evolution pretty much precludes that life began a few thousand years ago with the creation of one man and one woman of our species.
But the evidence points where it points, and I am not interested in "tweaking" the evidence to make if fit what I "want." That is the approach of creationism. Real science tweaks the THEORY to make it fit the evidence.
Where evolution encounters "gaps" -- it just calls them "gaps" and continues studying them. Many of those "gaps" have been closed. There will always be more questions to study -- and that is the beauty of science.
The "god of the gaps" argument, on the other hand, is the habit of invoking "God" every time we come across something we don't understand, rather than working to try to understand it better. Even if it IS true that "God did it" -- that should not be used to preclude the study of HOW.
Maybe God made things work the way science has discovered. Maybe there is no god to do that. Whether there is a god who did this or not -- it works that way. Without being able to "detect" that god -- we HAVE been able to figure out a lot about how it works that way.
That's science. While some scientists are "anti-god' -- there are plenty who are not. Science itself is agnostic in that regard. It does not deal with "god-stuff." It only deals with the natural world.
<< And you question my honesty? >>
No. I gave two possibilities: ignorance or dishonesty. IT is looking more and more like dishonesty to me -- but I can't be sure. Signal to noise ratio is pretty high in most of your posts.
<< Name a life form that is not of some species? >>
That is beside the point you and I were discussing. Darwin was not dealing with how life got started. He was dealing with how life got the way it has gotten. And since that time, science has built on that foundation -- changing some of it, tweaking it here and there -- but the basic theory has been shown to be sound -- regardless of how life got started in the first place.
There was no free oxygen in the early earth, and the idea that life could not begin with water around is stupid.
Ah, the old "Evolution in the gap" conard: If you can't give an answer to a question, just call it silly! BAHHAAAA, LOL !!!
In our Government schools, this is read,
"Secular-Evolutionist" are convinced that they know. Do you believe that there is no anti-Christian agenda involved in science classes at government highschool systems?
On another thread, celmak is claiming Mount Pinatubo released many times more greenhouse gases than humans release in a year. He's only wrong there by a factor of a few hundred or so. A true scientific illiterate is among us.
<< Secular-Evolutionist" are convinced that they know >>
I am sure some of them believe that life started without a "god" -- just as religious people believe the opposite. Science is not a conspiracy. There are certainly anti-Christians elements in the public schools -- and as I have said before several times, I am aware of the many problems in the schools.
I taught in many different kinds of schools for decades, and I knew many hundreds of teachers, including many dozens of science teachers. I do not recall any science teachers whose purpose was to attack anyone's religion. They just wanted to teach science.
I am sure there are some science teachers, though, who do have that purpose, just as there are some history teachers, math teachers, etc. There are also quite a few in all these categories who are Christians. There are also some who want to use their platform to attack others from the viewpoint of Christianity.
All of this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. What people's "motives" are in their teaching has no relevance in relation to the actual evidence. The evidence is what it is, regardless of our motives.
On the contrary, it is Atheism that hinders science, history proves this out. Who has killed more scientist, Christian or Atheist countries? Who thinks that junk-DNA is worthless, Christians or Atheist? What is a better driving force, To see how God works so as to have a better relationship with Him, or to insult God by saying he does not exist, and His creation is nothing more than a tool for the strongest man?
Leave aside teachers with an agenda either way, would you agree that the ACLU wants NO questioning of evolution in government schools?
Yes, it is. There are questions about its magnitude, and whether its overall effects will turn out to be bad or good, but even the skeptics don't doubt it's happening.
<< What is a better driving force, To see how God works so as to have a better relationship with Him, or to insult God by saying he does not exist, and His creation is nothing more than a tool for the strongest man? >>
Motives do not create evidence. Evidence is what it is, regardless of the motives. If an atheist finds evidence in his search to "disprove God" -- then that evidence with either stand up to scrutiny or it won't. Same with a theist.
The best driving force for science is to KNOW -- and along with that to wonder about any future benefit. We have discovered many things that, at the time, did not appear to have any great benefit, only to find out later that they were quite useful.
I have spent my life around religious people, and I have known a lot of atheists. Most of the atheists I know are not concerned about "insulting God" because they do not believe there is "anyone" there to insult. They do get a kick out of goading theists, but of course, most of the theists I have known have been rabid in their denunciations of atheists. Sauce for the goose and all that.
None of this has any relevance to the evidence for evolution. Scientists -- as scientists -- are not out to "insult God." They are out to learn more about our world. And again -- regardless of their other motives, the evidence they find either does or does not stand up to scrutiny.
You seem to have shifted gears -- from the beginning of life without oxygen and water to the "grand conspiracy against God." What happened to providing some evidence for your contentions, as you were asked to do by others? Why are you shifting gears?
I don't know anything about the former -- and while I do see plenty of "anti-religious" folks working to advance their agenda, I see plenty of "anti-science" folks doing the same, and most of the latter are religious folks, sadly. A lot of people have agenda, and a lot of them work to promote it. Creationists are among them. So are evolutionists. So are religious folks of all kinds -- and scientists -- and pizza parlors -- and baseball managers.
None of all that has anything to do with the evidence.
<< Leave aside teachers with an agenda either way, would you agree that the ACLU wants NO questioning of evolution in government schools? >>
Not necessarily. Some in the ACLU probably do. But others may be like me, and just want whatever questioning there is to be scientific questioning, and not irrelevant philosophizing and religious distractions that have nothing to do with the evidence.
Try telling this to the ACLU, they are trying to outlaw any questioning of Evolutionis-Darwinism, and ridding our schools of anything that has to do with the Bible, whether they be in 2 different courses. Where would that leave high schoolers?
By the way, ever read what the science book being taught in the school from where the Scopes trial originated had to say about the races?
And man has everything to do with it! Bad human, bad human. Next, decrease the surplus population! LOL!
Oh, we're all laughing, guy. At you, not with you.
Speaking of evidence: who's pushing all this junk science, Christians or atheist? Although I have to admit, some of these atheist have some Christian organizations convinced it's man's fault for global warming (some say global cooling, they can never get this one right).
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.