Oh, and death to the ACLU.
Posted on 01/13/2005 12:09:01 PM PST by Brilliant
ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution ``a theory, not a fact,'' saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
``By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,'' U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.
The stickers were put inside the books' front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They 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.''
``This is a great day for Cobb County students,'' said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. ``They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma.''
Doug Goodwin, a spokesman for Cobb County schools, had no immediate comment.
The stickers were added after more than 2,000 parents complained that the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life, such as the biblical story of creation.
Six parents and the American Civil Liberties Union then sued, contending the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state and unfairly singled out evolution from thousands of other scientific theories as suspect.
At a trial in federal court in November, the school system defended the stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism.
``Science and religion are related and they're not mutually exclusive,'' school district attorney Linwood Gunn said. ``This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science.''
But the judge disagreed: ``While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community.''
The case is one of several battles waged around the country in recent years over what role evolution should play in the teaching of science.
Last year, Georgia's education chief proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word ``evolution'' in favor of ``changes over time.'' The idea was dropped amid protests from teachers.
A school district in Dover, Pa., has been locked in a dispute over a requirement that science students be told about ``intelligent design'' -- the concept that the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power.
Gee, if stating that Evolution is not proven - theory is tantamount to "religion" that pretty much settles the case that Darwinists and believers in Evolution are another religion, doesn't it.
Yes, and I read not too long ago that one of the most fundamental and important sciences, physics, is being quitely dropped from the curicullum at many schools because they just don't have time to teach it, given all the other stuff they are required to teach. Why is evolution more important than physics?
Yep, my wife and I made the decision this week for various reasons. Our daughter is inquisitive and enthusiastic on top of being intelligent, and we plan on helping her stay that way!
It is indeed an incredible stretch for this judge to say that expressing doubt about a particular scientific theory is tantamount to teaching "religion."
A theory in science has a much different meaning then a "theory" as used in everyday speech.
In everyday English, a "theory" amounts to "an educated guess."
In science, an "educated guess" is known as a hypothesis.
Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a theory, which in science means, "a scientific idea supported by an abundance of evidence which has passed many tests and failed none."
Creationism/Intelligent Design/whatever you want to call it, is not science. Science does not include appeals to to the supernatural, it relies on natural events, inductive reasoning and observed phenomena.
There is a place to teach Creationism, that place is at home and in religious educational settings. (i.e. Sunday school.)
The reason evolution is taught in schools is because one cannot understand biological phenomena if one fails to understand the foundations of modern biology.
If you want to teach your kids that God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, then feel free. But do so in the home. If you want to teach your kids flat earth geography and hollow earth geology, then feel free, but again, do so in the home.
Evolution and God are not incompatible any more then science and faith are incompatible.
I for one have no problem reconciling my belief in God and my belief in science.
This article is not about teaching creationism, though. The article is about whether the school can tell students that evolution is a "theory."
Why make a federal case out of that?
Oh, and death to the ACLU.
Evolution is already taught as a "theory."
At least it is in every biology class I've ever been in and every book I've ever read on the subject.
Nobody presents evolution as a scientific law. (An idea which must be true, otherwise the universe would not function. i.e. the Law of Gravity.)
Evolution is always presented as a theory and the use of the word theory is generally explained so that students understand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory as used in common language.
I have no problem with educators informing children that there are other ideas about how life came to be.
What I do have a problem with is educators teaching those ideas if those ideas include an appeal to the supernatural.
School is simply not the proper place for the teaching of religious dogma. Churches do an admirable job of educating their congregants about ideas of faith.
Let the churches teach Creationism.
Let the schools teach science.
Reminding people that evolution is a theory has nothing to do with teaching religion or God.
You are entitled to your own opinion which you expressed, with one problem - the scientific idea based on evidence which has passed many tests and has failed none does not apply to evolution. Extremely few theories in science would fit that definition.
"Obviously I'm religious too, but religion should never take the place of science."
If you will read the judges opinion you will find he didn't rule in favor of evolution or the alternatives. He used convoluted logic to evoke the "establishment clause" where it was in no way violated.
In England all Englishmen pay taxes to support the Church of England (a specific denomination of Christianity) and it only. When the "establishment clause" was placed in the
bill of rights it was done so to specifically avoid there being a Church of the USA. I hardly think a disclaimer in a textbook - which does not mention any religious beliefs - can be reasonably construed as a violation of the establishment clause as it was intended. It is a horrible extrapolation of the constitution - added to years of horrible extrapolations.
Also, if indeed this "disclaimer" somehow expressed the views of "fundamentalists" as the judge wrote, then is he not violating the part about "the free exercise thereof" in that these fundamentalists also pay taxes and utilize the public school systems?
However one may feel about the evolution vs. anti-evolution debate, you must realize that this ruling is specious at best and greatly departs for the intent of the constitution. Bad rulings can cut both ways. Let this nonsense stand and it will come back to bite you.
I understand the zeal of those that want to keep anything from adulterating their view of proper science and how it should be taught. You should make you views known and use the political process to push it. However, using judical activism is a bad precedent that will result in all being hurt. I think the one thing most Freepers can agree on is that Judical Activism is wrong - please don't defend a bad court decision because it momentarily stops something you don't like.
It is obvious that there are many learned people here; however, all of you seem to be debating the wrong issue. The issue should be, on what basis is the use of these stickers unconstitutional. The constitution only talks about congress and I see nothing here indicative of congress attempting to establish a religion. I maintain too many people adhere to the edicts of a court before the edict itself has been judged for its legality.
No, their current line is, "When we say 'theory,' we mean 'fact.'"
Dan
Your nice little speech there has little to do with the judge's decision. Is evolution a theory or not?
I challenge you to point to actual scientific tests that evolution has failed.
I'll admit freely, I'm a social science/history major, so my biology background is fairly sketchy.
However, I have done a great deal of reading about the debate between creationism and evolution.
To my knowledge, there has never been offered a valid scientific test that evolution has failed.
Certainly, there are phenomena which evolution fails to explain, however simply not being able to explain certain phenomena does not mean that a scientific theory is wrong, it means that further investigation is necessary.
We don't need to be appeal to a supernatural entity when faced with something inexplicable, to do so simply creates a "God of the gaps," which we invoke every time we don't understand something. A "God of the gaps" is no God at all, it is simply an imagined supernatural force which is in constant retreat from science.
"Why does the Earth's magnetic field sometimes reverse its polarity? I don't know, it must be God..."
That's not acceptable.
I saw a t-shirt at the state fair this fall that read: "I used to have an open mind, BUT MY BRAIN KEPT FALLING OUT!"
That pretty much says it all...
"Certainly, there are phenomena which evolution fails to explain, however simply not being able to explain certain phenomena does not mean that a scientific theory is wrong, it means that further investigation is necessary.
We don't need to be appeal to a supernatural entity when faced with something inexplicable, to do so simply creates a "God of the gaps," which we invoke every time we don't understand something. A "God of the gaps" is no God at all, it is simply an imagined supernatural force which is in constant retreat from science. "
Great. If I promise not to use a God of the gaps argument, do you promise not to use a Science of the gaps argument?
You'll find a vibrant team of homeschoolers here on FR. I'm pinging one of my favorites to welcome you.
It will be harder and more rewarding than you are imagining. Many old hands helped my wife and I in beginning this way of living. You'll have lots of questions starting out, and don't be afraid to ask them. If I may be so bold, I recommend you investigate a local homeschool support group. Most of them have some field trips or other activities that will give you and your daughter some opportunities to interact with like-minded families. And I've never met a homeschooler who wasn't willing to help another family by offering their advice and experiences on curriculum, dealing with local school authorities, etc.
If you have any off-the-cuff comments, please feel like you can ask any of the many homeschoolers you'll meet here over the coming weeks.
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.