Posted on 12/14/2005 12:02:42 PM PST by doc30
Atlanta — Nearly seven months after schools in a suburban Atlanta county were forced to peel off textbook stickers that called evolution a theory rather than fact, a federal appeals court is set to consider whether the disclaimers were unconstitutional.
In January, a federal judge ordered Cobb County school officials to remove the stickers immediately, saying they were an endorsement of religion. The ruling was appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear arguments on Thursday.
Advocates on both sides say the appeals court's decision will go a long way toward shaping a debate between science and religion that has cropped up in various forms around the country.
“If it's unconstitutional to tell students to study evolution with an open mind, then what's not unconstitutional?” said John West, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that supports intelligent design, the belief that the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power. “The judge is basically trying to make it unconstitutional for anyone to have a divergent view, and we think that has a chilling effect on free speech.”
Opponents of the sticker campaign see it as a backdoor attempt to introduce creationism – the biblical story of creation – into the public schools after the U.S. Supreme Court disallowed it in a 1987 case from Louisiana.
“The anti-evolution forces have been searching for a new strategy that would accomplish the same end,” said Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University and co-author of the science book that was stickered. “That purpose is, if not to get evolution out of the schools altogether, then at least undermine it as much as possible in the minds of students.”
The disclaimers were placed in the books in 2002 by school officials in Cobb County, a suburb of about 650,000. The stickers were printed up after more than 2,000 parents complained that science texts presented evolution as a fact, with no mention of other theories.
The stickers 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.”
The school board called the stickers “a reasonable and evenhanded guide to science instruction” that encourages students to be critical thinkers.
Some parents, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, sued, arguing that the stickers violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the sticker “conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders.”
In Pennsylvania, a federal judge has yet to decide whether the Dover Area School District can require ninth-grade biology students to learn about intelligent design. A few days after the trial ended earlier this fall, Dover voters ousted eight of the nine school board members who adopted the policy.
The same week, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.
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.
And I say, too bad. Their ignorance is their own problem.
We were doing great in our discussion up to this paragraph. I do not like to be--and will not be--associated with "left-wing" for any reason. Conservatives can disagree over evolution without accusing each other of this "left-wing" garbage.
There is a significant difference from biology here; there really is *scientific* controversy as to how much if any global warming exists, how much if any people are responsible for it, its effects, and so forth.
On the other hand, there is no scientific controversy about the existence of evolution and the dominant role Darwin's theory plays in it. The evidence for not only the existence, but also for the detailed shape of the primate family tree, or the horse's, or carnivore's, or whatever's family tree, is much less ambiguous than the evidence that global warming is because of fossil fuel use.
And again, I'm not saying criminal/high crime penalties are appropriate for "promoting or believing" something, but that they are appropriate for public officials who try to force science teachers to lie to children
Do you really think this sticker mounts to a hill of beans ...
No, it's not as important as a lot of other things, like reading and math. But that doesn't make it unimportant. Teaching kids that politics can and should trump science, and telling them lies about what actual scientists think and do, is morally wrong. (Actually exposing them to politics trumping science may not be that bad, if you think kids should learn cynicism early and often)
But if you're claiming that the status of any strenuous application of the establishment clause is similar to that of the never explicitly stated but supposedly implied "right to privacy" (let alone the "emanations of penumbras" thereof such as the right to abortion) then would you claim the same for the free exercise clause?
Remember it's in the very same sentence, and even shares the noun object.
Maybe, for instance, you think it's a dismissible "emanation of a penumbra" to say the government can't merely burden, but not prohibit, the free exercise of religion? It should be Constitutionally acceptable to require that anyone praying in public first apply for license to do so. Right? I mean, so long as the government regularly grants the license they aren't actually "prohibiting" the free exercise of religion! Of course this would be fine, because if we go a step beyond the specific language of "prohibiting" that would put us into the realm of penumbras!
Of course courts the have stuck down FAR less onerous burdens than licensing prayer. Surely you must think they're horribly out of control in this?
I see now. So we need stickers also for the germ theory of disease, which Christian Scientists take personally; any mention of the clinical efficacy of psychoactive drugs, which Scientologists take personally; any reference to religious holidays, which are offensive to Jehova's Witnesses. I'm just barely getting started. History and Government texts will certainly need their stickers too. Well have to warn students of controversy surrounding appeals to stuff like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in America's founding documents, which is the offensive hypocrisy of slave-owning hegemons to some Americans.
Can't you see where your logic takes us? Where it already HAS taken us?
I'm sorry but curricula should be formulated SOLEY on the objective academic merit of proposed content. Once you start monkeying with that to mollify identity groups there's no end to it. If some group is upset about some theory in some discipline which is objectively a part of that discipline then that's just tough.
Your argument smacks of fascism
Up until a few minutes ago, I was going to say thanks for a civil discussion of an admittedly inflamatory idea (fraud and high crime trials in addition to establishment clause ones).
I really don't see how upholding standards in science or any other subject is either leftwing or fascist. IMO it's 100% conservative.
I don't think conservatives should be arguing for something that amounts to affirmative action. Especially when ID and creationism can be discussed in philophy/methodology of science, comparative religion, rhetoric, etc classes. As I've said repeatedly, it's the misrepresentation of evolution in biology class that's the problem.
Actually, that's not what I said, but it's immaterial in any case. The point is that there is debate about evolution, as there ought to be, as there ought to be debate about everything that's not religious dogma.
I, in turn, presume that these supposed inadequacies are merely a fig leaf to cloud some deeper purpose behind the stickers.
Hey, feel free to presume all you want. It's a free country. I certainly wouldn't be so mind-bogglingly foolish as to claim that it's unconstitutional for you to express your opinion.
Feel free to disabuse me by citing one or two difficulties, however.
I already have. Again, not that it matters to the question of whether the stickers are unconstitutional.
If they're that offended by the truth, then they'll have to just go ahead take it personally. But they shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that their outrage somehow requires schools to stop teaching facts, or allows them to introduce "alternatives" to facts into science classrooms.
Science has standards, and we're not going to let anyone break them because they're somehow "offended" by the results. That's just conservative PC-ism, as bad as (and in some cases worse than) the liberal version.
And as long as the evos are willing to use the Federal courts to force their point of view onto Public schools the conflict will continue back and forth.
Where did *this* hallucination come from? When and where have "evos" *ever* used courts -- federal or otherwise -- to "force" the teaching of evolution in schools (except as a response to the creationists using laws or courts to *force* evolution *out* of classrooms)?
Evos here on FR state evolution should be treated like any other science.
Because it is. Unfortunately, the anti-science crowd won't leave it alone like other sciences (although truth be told, they have a general animosity towards science in general).
But they know why it isn't and why it never will be.
The only way that evolution is not "like other sciences" is because there is an endless horde of misguided luddites who keep issuing fatwahs against it. And the rest of us aren't interested in sliding back into the Dark Ages, thank you very much.
And, of course, a sticker calling for open and critical minds constitutes teaching ID and violates the First Amendment, right?
It would be an interesting (and foolish) notion if that's what I was saying. But it's not. Could you or anybody please explain how these stickers constitute an "establishment of religion"? Heck, I read the lower court's opinion and I still don't get it. As best as I can tell, the judge ruled that if religious people like something, it's unconstitutional.
There is no profound and obvious reason why biology should get this special treatment
"Congress shall make no law giving one science special treatment" doesn't seem to be in my copy of the Constitution. Is it outdated or something? Was there a misprint?
Given that one understands that, the thin veil of objectivity is ripped away from the ID judicial movement ... and it is revealed for what it is--a stealth attack by christian creationists to make room for teaching their religeous doctrines in the classrooms of public schools.
Wow, cool, I'm a christian! Wait 'til I tell my rabbi, he'll be quite surprised.
When the Christians start insisting on having their religious doctrines in the classrooms of public schools, you can raise First Amendment objections... and I'll be standing right next to you. But not before.
Tell me what in the stickers is a lie, and I'll buy you a beer.
But I agree that public schools should not be lying to children. I don't see anything about it in the Constitution, but from a policy standpoint I believe open deception in the public schools is wrong. To that end, I'm sure you'll agree with me that we should immediately abolish the absurdities that pass for drug education.
Who said anything about the Feds?
Uh... the frickin' judge who ruled that these stickers violate the federal Constitution?
Missed you on these threads for the last couple of weeks (but the wit seems as good as ever).
Does Darwin Central provide sabbaticals or something? Nobody ever told me about those.
Should I consult my union rep.? (Or will that put me down in the brown ops section of the janitorial pool with b_sharp?)
placemarker
Yeah, that Madison, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and the rest, what a bunch of left-wingers, eh?
The "intrepretation" of the establishment clause which you dislike is the same as theirs, son.
Are you sure you really want to try to categorize this as "left-wing", microgood?
The Republican Party is in the process of specization.
Thanks. Sorry for vanishing for a while, but on the evening of November 26th, I came down with some kind of virus (a friend works in a clinic, she tells me it's been going around), and for nearly a week I had a fever fluctuating between 101 and 103.2. For a while there, even operating the TV remote was rather a mental challenge. The fever finally subsided, but the damned thing's been lingering on and rotating symptoms on me -- one day I'd be sneezing my brains out, the next I'd have a ticklish throat and coughing if I tried to talk much, etc. I've *still* got some of it hanging on and keeping me from feeling 100%, but I'm starting to feel somewhat human again.
Add to that a couple of outpatient surgeries during the same period to get rid of what my urologist tells me is the biggest kidney stone he's ever seen stuck in that particular location (8x14mm, woo hoo!), *and* then trying to make up for lost time at work after the health issues, and it should become obvious why I've been absent from Freeping for a while.
Meanwhile, I've got another item to add to the "suboptimal design" list -- what kind of idiot would design a drain system (the ureter) which *tapers* in a way that lets potential blockages enter the system, but not leave? That's a sure recipe for plumbing jams.
Does Darwin Central provide sabbaticals or something? Nobody ever told me about those.
If this was a sabbatical, you can have mine from now on, I don't want another. ;-)
If I'da known I'da wished you well. Maybe something like "hope everything comes out all right."
(Does this put the lie to "this too shall pass" ???)
It's a lie of omission. The stickers either belong on every science textbook, or on none. It is singling out biology because of political pressure.
abolish the absurdities that pass for drug education.
Another cave-in to pressure groups, IMO.To the extent that "drug education" lies to kids it is counterproductive. EG tell them that pot is as dangerous as heroin, they try pot, find it's not that big a deal, try smack...
Who said anything about the Feds?
I wasn't clear. I was advocating fraud and high crime prosecutions for the liars who mandate teaching ID or creationism as though it were science. I was emphasizing that these would be state cases, not federal.
It is true that the sticker case was heard in Federal Court and was based on 1st Amendment claims.
Actually, that's not what I said, but it's immaterial in any case.
Your handle is on post 59 - did you have someone else typing for you when you said "My point, which I trust I made, is that there are legitimate criticisms of evolution, and that it should be examined critically... which is exactly what these stickers call for"?
The point is that there is debate about evolution, as there ought to be, as there ought to be debate about everything that's not religious dogma.
There's debate about lots of things, and yet it's only this one thing that seems to be singled out for special treatment. I have a theory of my own, but why do you think that is?
It's a free country. I certainly wouldn't be so mind-bogglingly foolish as to claim that it's unconstitutional for you to express your opinion.
Glad to hear it. I wouldn't claim that about you either. Unless, of course, you were an agent of the government, in which case, some of your pronouncements made in an official capacity might very well run afoul of the Constitution.
Figuring out how the previous statement might apply to the Cobb County school board is left as an exercise for the reader.
I already have.
Not that I've seen - perhaps you'll be so good as to direct me to them.
Again, not that it matters to the question of whether the stickers are unconstitutional.
The First Amendment covers silly falsehoods as well as truthful statements. On the other hand, selling silly falsehoods is likely to be rather more difficult as a political matter. I'd sure hate to see you in a jam like that, so perhaps you should consider whether your heretofore-unspecified difficulties are really what you think they are.
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.