And just how many decades would one have to go back to find this golden age?
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.
Truly, there is no end to the kinds of Truth one can discover when one follows the only one source for absolute, objective Truth, and does not tragically limit oneself to a contrived subset of reality, dismissing any "truth" which is not obtained through observation or experiment.
And just how many decades would one have to go back to find this golden age?
Hell, why stop there? Let's teach them to be skeptical of the notion that drinking bleach will make you sick. Let's teach them to be wary of the theory that heroin is bad for you. Let's teach them to be "open-minded" about the theory that having lots of unprotected gay sex with random strangers increases your chances of getting HIV. After all, we want them to think critically, and to discover the answers for themselves, right?
This one is a keeper!
It just resonates in the mind: " ... endless horde of misguided luddites ..."
Tagline shift.
Dimensio, after reading the stuff IDers and creationists spout, isn't it obvious that they lack any semblance of an education in even rudimentary science? I'm a chemist, but I still have my freshman level of biology literacy. It just shows the poor job schools are doing in teaching basic science literacy. And that's what drives me nuts on htese threads. Creationists and IDers engaging in scientific discussion yet are completely unarmed for such metters.
I would not say these processes are completely random. Mutations, at the fundamental level, are chemical in nature. That means they are subjected to well know chemical phenomena and such mutation happens in every living thing including you and I. The problem with the stickers is that whoever wrote them doesn't know what science is and isn't qualified to comment on the subject.
Ichneumon, whenever you post, I always learn something new. Thanks.
Drop that bomb if you like, but you may not care for the response.
It worked then?...
And now I wish I hadn't mentioned the criticisms, because they're a distraction. All the high priests of evolution are pouncing on the heresy and ignoring the real question of the constitutionality of stickers that say "keep an open mind." It's complicating what's a very simple issue.
After all, if there are no "legitimate criticisms", how exactly should one proceed critically?
Everything should be approached critically. There are no legitimate criticisms of the claim that the earth is (roughly) spherical, but a student should never accept the fact uncritically, should never believe the earth is round because Teacher says so. He should be presented with the evidence and should use his own critical faculties to reach the conclusion.
Did I leave anything out, or do you plan to cap this tapdance with something else?
I'm afraid it is you who is wearing the tap shoes. The question at issue is whether it is unconstitutional to call for students to keep open and critical minds, and all you want to do is sneer about those who have doubts about evolution.
Did I mention the Constitution in that question? Of course not.
I agree, of course not. Don't be silly! I mean, after all, the Constitution is the issue here, and if you mentioned the Constitution, why, then you'd be addressing the topic rather than ducking it! And what's the point of that?
Will referring to the Constitution provide you with an answer to the question of why this theory is being singled out above all others?
No. It'll provide me with an answer to the question of whether singling out one theory above all others is forbidden by the Constitution. Which it isn't.
The answer, of course, lies in the question that you are ducking, thus far rather inartfully. Why this theory, and no others?
Why that question, and no other question? Why not ask me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It's exactly as relevant.
Surely a "marginal" reproductive advantage is better than no reproductive advantage, don't you think? How, pray tell, do you imagine such a concept indicts the theory of evolution as it is currently understood? Be sure to refer to specific examples of such traits where appropriate.
I already gave an example of such a trait. And the relevance is that the less of a reproductive advantage a trait provides, the more time it would take to become universal. The theory of evolution involves the stringing together of long chains of improbable occurrences. This is usually finagled by saying, "well, it happened over a very very long time", but while the amount of time involved may indeed have been long it was not infinite. When very small probabilities collide with very long numbers of trials, the result may be near certainty or vanishingly improbable or anything in between. To the best of my knowledge nobody has yet sat down and made an exhaustive calculation of the probability of evolution having proceeded as it allegedly did.
Ignoring, of course, the problem that the whole notion of "irreducible complexity" is garbage, soup to nuts. Disagree if you must, and I'll hold your hand and walk you through why that's so.
I must disagree. Take my hand.
This is it? These are the "legitimate criticisms" you have in mind? Please say it's not so - please tell me you have more arrows in that mighty rhetorical quiver of yours.
I can understand your desire... after all, the more arrows I fire from this particular quiver, the more targets you can focus on rather than paying attention the the real issue. The existence of legitimate criticisms has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the stickers. Stickers on physics textbooks saying precisely the same thing would be equally constitutional.
This debate, at least in part, is about the merits of evolution
The debate in the courtroom has nothing to do with those merits, at least it should not, as the Constitution is silent over whether speech is forbidden or permitted depending on its merits.
I'll be sure to keep an eye out for these wild-eyed radicals you have in mind here
I'm sure that Galileo's inquisitors did not consider themselves to be wild-eyed radicals... and I'm sure they would have had apoplexy over the notion of cautioning students to approach the geocentric theory with an open mind.
Sigh. About the best I can do on your behalf here is allow that you actually believe that. Sorry. It's the best I can do.
Of course it is; you're incapable of conceding that you are in fact demanding exactly what I claim you are demanding: that warning students to keep an open and critical mind is unconstitutional.
Of course, that's the problem - all you can do is imagine such a thing, since there's no serious proposal to do anything of the sort.
And if there were, I'd say it was stupid. As you are more than welcome to call Cobb County's stickers stupid. But only one of us is as disrespectful of the plain meaning of the Constitution as to twist it to his own ends.
In the interests of full disclosure, your argument here is hardly novel ... Do try to think up something original.
Now that is something truly novel, in admiration of which I remove my hat to you. Arguments become flawed when they are no longer novel?
Perhaps some more witty repartee...
Second time in this post you've used those exact words... they're hardly novel. Your own rhetorical quiver getting a wee bit bare?
Either the Constitution gives a crap about the merits of the label, or it doesn't. As it happens, it doesn't.
That is the crux of the issue in court...
Yes, just as whether a government should be able to condemn private property for no good public purpose was the crux of the issue in Kelo, just as whether the Massachusetts judges personally disliked discrimination against homosexuals was the crux of the issue in Goodridge. Whether those should have been the cruxes of the issues is highly debatable.
If you, a non-scientist, want to put a label on a science textbook casting doubt on a particular branch of science, don't you think it's just an eensy-teensy bit relevant to ask you to justify your action?
If I want to justify the stickers as a good idea, absolutely. If I want to justify the stickers as necessary to achieve educational goals, absolutely. If I want to justify the stickers as being not unconstitution, absolutely not.
You (or a layman on a schoolboard) aren't a scientist, so you don't know squat about what should be in a science textbook, and you have no competent business slapping labels on one.
Yes yes, for that we must defer to the scientific priesthood, with their holy white robes and their papal writs granted by the cardinals of the academy.
Come now. Biology doesn't want special treatment. Biology isn't begging to have a special mark of Cain slapped on it, exclusively.
If I continue to point out that your statements are entirely without relevance to the question of constitutionality, will you knock it off? I doubt it.
My remarks here are directed specifically against fundamentalist creationists who are trying to get biology textbooks wear a ghetto star, not christians in general, why don't you wait until you are pricked before you whine about the needle?
Because you're tarring with an awfully wide brush. I support the district in this court action, because they are right on the legal merits. I'm no fundamentalist creationist, so it's plain on its face that not all supporters of the district are wacko fundies.
The case for teaching ID in the classroom, in any slightest form...
...is about as strong as the case that applying a sticker that says "keep an open mind" constitutes teaching ID in the classroom.
Here, lets try out your theory in another way. Suppose I wanted to put a station of the cross, a podium, a crucifix and a confessional in the rec room of my school, and invite a priest to come in part time to supervise my philosophy class, allowing to attend, oddly enough, only devote catholics.
I think you made a typo in your first sentence; I think you meant to write, "here, lets [sic] try out something that's completely different from your theory." Do you really not see why your example might be more properly considered an "establishment of religion" than a sticker that says "keep an open mind?"
Let's try out your theory in another way. Suppose a geology textbook has a chapter on global warming. It says, in essence, that global warming exists, that the scientific consensus is that it's all due to human agency, and that if we don't impose strict environmental controls soon we will all die. In fact, it's not just a geology textbook that says this, it's all geology textbooks. A schoolboard decides that this is controversial and decides not to teach the material; it's successfully sued. So it stickers the books, cautioning students to keep an open mind about the material. Is this unconstitutional?
True... My experience is some that get all excersized over lies are sometimes the scam artists telling them.. Fear of being found out I suspect.. A second reality demands a good cell wall.. to hold in the lies.. partial truths and poisoned reality.. and to hold out fresh and healthy alternative views..
The idea of criminalizing speech one disagrees with is fascist. Sorry to have to tell you that but there it is.
I really don't see how upholding standards in science or any other subject is either leftwing or fascist. IMO it's 100% conservative.
What you just stated is a valid opinion that deserves airing. When you seek to jail the opposition for exercising the same right you have crossed a very serious line. When you cross that line you can count on me calling it what it is, fascism.
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.
Again, a valid opinion. Not on point at all in the CObb County sticker case since your assertions don't apply at all, but a valid opinion. If, however, I disagree with you, should I advocate jailing you?
And now I wish I hadn't mentioned the criticisms, because they're a distraction.
No, in fact it's quite clear that scientific criticisms of the theory simply do not exist except in the minds of those who have some ulterior motive for denigrating this particular aspect of biology. Your own inability to come up with anything other than the picayune (asserting - without support, no less - that "marginal" improvements are somehow a problem) and the nonexistent (irreducible complexity) is rather clear testimony on that score.
All the high priests of evolution are pouncing on the heresy and ignoring the real question of the constitutionality of stickers that say "keep an open mind."
LOL. Really, now - you've abandoned the moral high ground on the issue of dodging questions some time ago. Polemecist, heal thyself.
There are no legitimate criticisms of the claim that the earth is (roughly) spherical, but a student should never accept the fact uncritically, should never believe the earth is round because Teacher says so. He should be presented with the evidence and should use his own critical faculties to reach the conclusion.
I think you misunderstand what school is for. As much as it pains me to shatter such fundamental illusions, the point to school is to impart to children a factual base of information, our current best understanding of subjects such as history, mathematics, science, grammar, and so forth, so that they may have something to think critically about. You, apparently, would prefer to put the cart in front of the horse, but the point of school is not to turn class time into little junior roundtable discussions, a sort of sixth-grade version of the Trilateral Commission.
And so I say, begone! The Sixties are over, man, and I really doubt there are many people interested in your vision of little empty-heads sitting around and opining on things which they don't know a damn thing about. Knowledge, sir! Knowledge! Someone attempted to impart it to you once upon a time - do not deny it to your charges merely to satisfy some misguided sense of fair play.
The question at issue is whether it is unconstitutional to call for students to keep open and critical minds...
Oh, no, no, no. The question at hand is why this theory has been singled out from all others. You want to stand at the door on the first day of school and hand out fliers that say "Don't believe everything you hear"? Be my guest. But that's certainly not what's happening here, your clownish attempts to conflate the two propositions notwithstanding. This is not some general admonition to be critical we are presented with - this is specifically targeted at one particular subset of the science of biology, and so I ask again, why? Will you now, after all this, finally answer the question? Why this, and no other?
It'll provide me with an answer to the question of whether singling out one theory above all others is forbidden by the Constitution. Which it isn't.
Gosh, I'd sure like to live in a world where motive doesn't matter. Think of the fun we could have.
Sheesh. This is what passes for "conservative" in your neck of the woods - willful blindness?
I already gave an example of such a trait.
You most assuredly have not - you have merely asserted that such traits exist. Perhaps you'd like to take a moment and review the definition of "example", and then be so good as to actually provide us with one.
I must disagree. Take my hand.
Very well. Let us begin from first principles. Define "irreducible complexity".
The debate in the courtroom has nothing to do with those merits, at least it should not, as the Constitution is silent over whether speech is forbidden or permitted depending on its merits.
The Constitution seems quite vocal on the issue of of state agents promoting some set of religious beliefs to the exclusion of others. Perhaps you may wish to update to the amended version.
Of course it is; you're incapable of conceding that you are in fact demanding exactly what I claim you are demanding: that warning students to keep an open and critical mind is unconstitutional.
No, I'm afraid that's not it. See, as a conservative, I'm interested in excellence, which means teaching them by providing them with the best available information, and not in rap sessions or fair play or critical-thinking-without-anything-to-think-about. YMMV.
Arguments become flawed when they are no longer novel?
I merely inform you that this argument of yours was stillborn a long time ago around here. Take that as you will.
Second time in this post you've used those exact words... they're hardly novel. Your own rhetorical quiver getting a wee bit bare?
Guilty. What can I say? This combination of galactically overweening pomposity, cheap sophistry, and abysmal ignorance with which I am presented is dull and uninspiring. Sue me.
Indeed, the opposite of Truth is "the" Lie which is often characterized by a person living in a reality of his own making (a second reality).
Even so, I find it unhelpful - Spiritually and socially - to label misstatement, incompleteness, inaccuracy and the ilk as a "lie" because it is judgmental per se and will cause the correspondent to throw up defensive walls (or perhaps flame). Such hermetically sealed walls is the characteristic of a second reality, whereas those who seek Truth accept no obstructions.
Galactically overweening placemarker.
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.