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.
The fact that we can't understand how everything works doesn't mean that God is behind it.
On the other hand, the fact that we understand how certain things work does not mean God is not behind it.
Irrespective, though, the issue here is not whether we should be teaching creationism in the public schools. The issue is whether a judge should be ordering public school educators not to tell students that evolution is only a theory. Now we're at a point where the judges are telling our educators that they aren't doing a good enough job of teaching evolution. The judges are dictating how we've got to teach it.
It's as though they are trying to create public division.
Yes indeed. I think that was called newspeak by Orwell.
Rommy, I'm afraid that doesn't make sense. You are separating Darwin's "racism" as you call it from his "scientific conclusions" as if they were 2 totally separate things. You have completely missed the point. His teachings on the races WERE HIS SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS. They are the one and the same. Where in the heck did you get "politics" from? This has nothing to do with politics. Why are you trying to cover for Darwin? He didn't publish his "findings" as political statements, but as his SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS.
So now the judge thinks he's a scientist? The theory of evolution has always been called just that: the theory of evolution.
It may have significance and value, but it doesn't make it any less of a theory -- just as it's always been.
If scientists are so sure that it's a fact, why has it been called the theory of evolution for all these years?
And now the judge contravenes that? Trying to make a name for himself, I guess.
My apologies for using a liberal source, btw, but they happen to be the authorities on newspeak/doublespeak/gnospeak.
He should be removed from office. That is totally outrageous. Noone can say that it is NOT a theory at least with any credibility.
Perhaps the ACLU will file a law suit....lol
Thank you! We've begun looking into local resources, and also many parents from my daughter's school are current or former homeschoolers.
Incorrect.
His ideas about race may have been influenced by his scientific conclusions and may have influenced those conclusions.
(I'm not going to go further into that debate, it's been many, many years since I cracked open Darwin and I've no desire to look for it on my bookshelf right now.)
However, his scientific conclusions had to do with the process of natural selection and how and why it may have occurred.
Those conclusions have been tested over and over again by scientists and have never been demonstrated to be wrong.
Lastly, if you dislike my use of the term "political" then feel free to replace it with "cultural."
That might be, but that's not my argument. I'm not calling Darwin a racist, you are. His teachings on the races were NOT racist political statments. They were his SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS or at least what he thought were SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS. Would you agree that his "scientific findings" in this regard were NOT fact, but a "theory" If so, would you be opposed to that being pointed out in school, whether it's on a sticker or some other form? If not, are you opposed to schools pointing out that other parts of "scientific findings" are theory, as well, and not fact?
So far you have reduced your argument to "Darwin's scientific findings dont' invalidate his scientific findings".
Now THAT is a poor argument.
What the 2000 parents found offensive was the teaching of evolution as fact in a textbook with no room for opposing theories or other points of view. They felt the stickers were necessary lest the children be unprepared for dissenting opinions later in life. Why should the children not be encouraged to dig deeper? Apparently 6 parents and the ACLU thought they should not be encouraged to look further and raised a complaint. The judge's ruling can only be taken to mean that evolution is either a "fact" or a "religion". Either way is equally ridiculous. If the Neanderthals on this thread are willing to stick up for 2000 citizens instead of 6 parents, the ACLU, and an activist judge, then I'll comfortably stand with them.
Ping me when she replies. I'm curious as well.
I stold one of your quotes for my FReeper page..
Oh help yourself. I'm glad you enjoyed them.
"The issue is whether a judge should be ordering public school educators not to tell students that evolution is only a theory."
You don't get it, this is the problem. Saying evolution is 'just' a theory is intentionally dishonest. Yes evolution is a theory, but a theory is as close to fact as science gets for a broad explanatory model.
Just out of curiosity, how do you think the scientific hierarchy works for hypotheses, realtive to validity? What are the states an hypothesis passes through as it gets more and more accepted by the scientific community? Obviously the way it actually works means nothing to you, so I'm curious how this imaginary system of yours works...
Though many enemies of Christianity possess political clout, they lack the power of prayer and faith, tools all Christians should be using to fight back with, (along with the vote and putting pressure on our Legislators). If we just keep sitting on our hands and waiting for others to do the work, how long will it be before the religious oppression gets to the point of no return? They are already using RICO to fight agaisnt Christians in the anti-abortion front, and 'hate crimes' to fight against Christians in the anti-homosexual 'rights' front. What's next?
Again, it's been a long time since I read Darwin, and I'm not going to further debate whether or not he had racist beliefs and used the theory of natural selection to justify them.
What I will say is that regardless of whether or not he may have applied the theory of natural selection to certain narrow minded beliefs he may have held, that in no way means that his conclusions regarding the process of natural selection were incorrect.
Applying science incorrectly does not invalidate science, it just invalidates that particular scientific inquiry.
Race may or may not have been an element of Darwin's scientific findings, but the theory of evolution, as presented in biology classrooms and textbooks in no way deals with race.
There has existed in the past a system of thought known popularly (and somewhat misnamed) as "social Darwinism" that often was used to justify racism.
However, we are not discussing social Darwinism here, we are discussing the theory of evolution, a theory which has stood up to every scientific test ever applied to it.
I gave ya credit on my FR page.
Funny I never gave it a second thought on the timeline of Darwin before your quote.
Oh Good Lord.
There's no "spiritual warfare" being waged here.
The theory of evolution is not anti-Christian.
It is a scientific theory; science, by it's very nature, does not attempt to prove or disprove religious dogma, rather it seeks to explain natural phenomena.
If you prefer to believe in a universe where natural pheonmena exist only at the command of supernatural entities, then feel free.
But don't imagine that those who oppose the teaching of evolution in the classroom are anti-Christian.
I believe in God, I just don't believe in the literal truth of Genesis. That doesn't make me anti-Christian.
I believe in God, I believe in evolution.
What's wrong with that?
Scientists cannot explain key elements of the Darwinian theory except to define it by the theory itself. That's circular logic. I challenge you to read The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel and see what you think about the science of Darwinism. Theology is irrelevant to the issue of intelligent design. It doesn't become religion until you start to ask, "What do I owe this Creator?" Science supports the intelligence theory. Just keep an open mind and give that some consideration.
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.