It would be an interesting (and foolish) notion if that's what I was saying.
Either evolution lacks scientific merit, such as to justify the special label, for biology books only, that you are lobbying for, or it doesn't. That is the crux of the issue in court, and that is the issue you are too shy to talk about. 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? You seem to want to make the discussion exclusively about whether you have a right to poop out this label. Very well, we can, indeed, make this simpler by adhering to your proposed agenda:
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. If you fail to understand this, your school would be quite properly disenfranchised by accrediting institutions who demand competence in the teaching of subjects requiring expertise. The exact same thing would happen if you insisted on making a case for street rap instead of english in english class, or atonal noise in music theory class.
Keep it up, in a public school, on the public dime, and the least you are going to be guilty of is fraudulent conversion, and misappropriation of funds--or, if they continue with this coy act about their supposedly non-existent creationist motivation, perjury, as in the Dover case.
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.
Come now. Biology doesn't want special treatment. Biology isn't begging to have a special mark of Cain slapped on it, exclusively. You don't see astronomers besieged by astrologers in court, do you? Or geologists being asked to have their textbooks defaced by flat-earthers, do you?
It is patently obvious to the court what concerns of what special groups of creationist science cranks are behind these attempts at labeling biology textbooks, the fact that you can't seem to notice is not too telling.
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.
Eh? I'm rather surprised myself. 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?
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.
In the cases before the court, it is patently obvious who the culprits are, and what the religious agenda they are pursuing is, and what the advantage to that agenda is of the labels. The case for teaching ID in the classroom, in any slightest form, on its own merits, is about as good as the case for crop circles, alien abduction, crystal healing, astrology, or UFOlogy, any of which, like ID, MIGHT be true, and have at least as good positive forensic scientific evidence to weigh in with. When it comes to writing science textbooks, you aren't entitled to make unscientifc declarations, period. When you insist on doing so, and your particular declaration is avowedly in support of your religious aganda for the public schools, and your groups are the major participants in the legal actions--it would be fairly braindead of the court not to notice.
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 mean, after all, it's a philosophy class isn't it? Last time I heard, the Supreme court wasn't against philosophy.
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?