Posted on 01/14/2005 1:52:17 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
They never stop chipping away.
People who behave like evolutionists are people with things to hide.
So apparently this judge has determined that these evolution disclaimers ended up on these textbooks as a result of Congress making a law:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
This man is a moron - did he even study constitutional law? Clinton appointee and Harvard grad. What else do we need to know?
The parents of those children that are Christian should immediatley remove those children from the schools where this has happened. Christians should not be in a place where God is not welcome. End of story.
If true then why is teaching atheism in Science class
permitted? What we have allowed is the very destruction of our society via tolerant neglect and ignorance of the
foundational principles. In short we have allowed the so
called educators supplant the church as the prophets
and moral teachersand having planted the wind we reap the
whirlwind.Reclaiming what has been lsot is always more difficult than hold onto what what was found.
The theory of evolution
Somewhere along the way that phrase has been banned?????
Now it dare not be called 'theory'?
The Secular Taliban strikes again
But such idiots think it's quite wonderful
TO MAKE "SCIENCE"
A RIGID, NARROW, BIGOTED, INQUISITIONAL RELIGION.
SHEESH.
Hypocritical farts.
I guess I'll be the only one here to say this is a good ruling (donning flame proof garb). Religion can be taught at Sunday School and Church. The classroom is the place for science.
"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."To me this simply adds a healthy disclaimer to a textbook in a way that lets children know that scientists usually disagree. They're a argumentative, bickering lot.
This case doesn't have a leg to stand on, even in the scientific community. Every self-respecting scientist would say to himself, "Yes, all we can do is theorize about the origin of the species."
The judge is incompetent, and he proves to me, a believer in the notion of separation of church and state, that the judiciary is going to far with this whole notion.
We started out in the 1950s protecting Jewish people whose parents had been thrown into ovens. We didn't want to make them feel unwelcome here. Now we're down to crass blockage of public skepticism. When skepticism dies, so does freedom. To me, this is healthy skepticism denied by the state. It has no relationship to any reasonable interpretation of the first amendment - except in violation of its core principles.
How is this religious instruction? How do we know that aliens didn't come down to earth and perturb our genetic structure, for example? In what way does this sticker not suggest that?
I'm saying that this sticker means one thing and one thing only: evolution is a theory. It could go farther and say that every single piece of understanding we have about the world is theoretical at some level. Until we have an accepted, grand unified theory of everything, even simple things are up for debate - within reason. It's reasonable to remind students that evolution is a theory under those conditions.
What's disturbing to some teachers is that the fact that what most scientists think of as "evolution" happens between two generations within a single species. Fruit flies "evolve" from one generation to another. For children to be told that this is "just a theory" is sophistry.
On the other hand, the sticker seems to apply to the whole field of evolutionary biology, and anyone who has ever studied science knows that important ideas about phenomonology in science are all theoretical, in other words pieced together from separately proven facts and carefully explained assumptions.
If I'm not mistaken, the science texts refer to it as the theory of evolution. There's no need for the sticker and there was only one reason it was there. The creationists wanted it there.
If the evolutionists were confident that the evidence supported their position then they wouldn't be afraid to inform students of all the facts, not just the ones they like.
What's materially wrong with a creationist wanting something in a textbook if it's a scientifically valid statement?
I don't see this as a battle between evolutionists and creationists. The ACLU is about as scientific as a shrew.
I think you answered your own question.
I agree....well said.
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.