Georgia court to hear evolution disclaimer arguments

The Globe and Mail ^ | 12/14/05 | DOUG GROSS

[doc30]

Didn't see this posted yet since Kansan, Dover PA, and today, the Carolinas are all involved in the ID/Evolution battles. More crevo fuel.

[doc30]

Pinging...Didn't know this was still going on in GA

[RadioAstronomer]

Me either. Thanks for the post.

[JamesP81]

In 2004, Georgia's school superintendent proposed a statewide science curriculum that dropped the word “evolution” in favour of “changes over time.” That plan was soon scrapped amid protests from teachers.

I'm an IDr myself, and I don't see a problem with the stickers, either. They should've been left in place. I fail to see how mentioning that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact is somehow a violation of separation of church and state (unless yoou're a member of the Church of Evolution is an Indisputable Fact). But this is kinda dumb. A duck is a duck and I'm going to call it a duck. It's called Theory of Evolution. Calling it by its name doesn't mean you have to believe in it.

[gondramB]

I can't believe Cobb county is wasting the money to appeal this. Actually I can.

[PatrickHenry]

Pinging...Didn't know this was still going on in GA

It never seems to end. I'm not eager to ping the list for this, because we've already deployed the list twice today, and one of those was for an education controversy in South Carolina. These education threads all involve the same issues, and I don't want to cause "ping fatigue" with too many threads going on at the same time, involving the same issue. Lemme mull it over. (Good article, however.)

[mouse_35]

As long as the sticker includes the SCIENTIFIC definiton of a theory, I wouldn't have a problem with the stickers either.

[mouse_35]

OOPS.That should be 'definition' not 'definiton'.

[PatrickHenry]

Asking "the few" ... to ping, or not to ping?

[Junior]

To ping.

[Right Wing Professor]

The hearing is tomorrow. Maybe wait until there's some hard news?

[Senator Bedfellow]

I say ping - volume doesn't seem like a problem to me yet.

[PatrickHenry]

The hearing is tomorrow. Maybe wait until there's some hard news?

The opinion could come months after the oral arguments. It certainly won't be the same day the attorneys argue. I guess I'll ping, just to keep the issue alive.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 320 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PatrickHenry]

Some background information, from The List-O-Links:

Eight Significant Court Decisions.
Selman v. Cobb County School District. The Georgia textbook sticker case.

[Coyoteman]

I fail to see how mentioning that evolution is a theory and not a proven fact is somehow a violation of separation of church and state

So you want this kind of a sticker for gravity, astronomy, and how many other sciences?

Just so folks don't go getting the notion that any of them are "theory and not proven fact"??

[PatrickHenry]

So you want this kind of a sticker for gravity, astronomy, and how many other sciences?

Why? They're not blasphemy, like eeeevoooo-loouuu-shun.
</internet idiot mode>

[Tzimisce]

Ah - but not allowing you to speak is free speech and rejecting ideas without even looking at the evidence is being open minded.

Doesn't matter - we're the left, the schools are OUR ivory tower and you can just butt out.

Vote Hillary in 08'. :)

[Politicalities]

So you want this kind of a sticker for gravity, astronomy, and how many other sciences?

I don't think that astronomy is either a theory or a fact. It's a field of study.

Whether you approve of the stickers or not is not the issue. The decision to affix the stickers belongs to the school board, not to you. The question before the Court is whether a sticker that reads "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." constitutes an unconstitutional "establishment of religion." It obviously does not, and I am frankly flabbergasted that any reasonable person would consider that it does.