Replies

If the issue is really errors in textbooks, why does the disclaimer single out evolution?

I hear you, but I was kind of hoping for the elimination of printed text books. It would be cheaper to issue interactive CDs in HTML format, even if you had to distribute Web-TV units to the computer-deprived.

Textbooks are always at the mercy of politics and social trends. My fourth grade health book had rules for what time of day to use the bathroom.

"They have... lost(link)---a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

"That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

Same old witch doctors indeed. The parallels to the Edwards case -- where the Supremes squashed Louisiana's Creationism Act, which required that both evolution and "creation science" taught, or neither -- are uncanny:

"In this case, the purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint. Out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects. . . . The Establishment Clause, however, "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma." Id., at 106-107 (emphasis added). Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment."

I think Edwards is also where Louisiana (and Alabama before them) draws inspiration for these disclaimers:

"We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S., at 42. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

I'm not sure simply singling out evolution for special criticism avoids the Establishment Clause problem the way that actively teaching competing theories (I know, I know, there aren't any, but bear with me) would, but that appears to be what the creationists are trying to hang their hats on.

If the issue is really errors in textbooks, why does the disclaimer single out evolution?

Because many people go around saying stuff like "evolution is a FACT", in over-reaction to complaints from creationists. It is perfectly reasonable to correct this gross misapprehension and make sure that children understand the true nature of science and how it relates to hypotheses such as "evolution".

If the issue is really errors in textbooks, why does the disclaimer single out evolution?

What's with the pictures in these supposed children's science books showing at one end a monkey and at the other a man? And in the sequence one can clearly see a neanderthal, supposedly already shewn to not be related to homo sapiens. And let's not mention the pictures of "missing links" never ever unearthed. Fact or fiction?