Law Professor Crosses Evolution Battle Lines: Conservative leader sides with ACLU

The Fulton County Daily Report (via Law.com) ^ | 12-15-2005 | Greg Land

[Lurking Libertarian]

The fight over how public schools should teach the theory of evolution is usually expected to fall along familiar battle lines.

Thus, at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today, lawyers for the liberal American Civil Liberties Union will argue that school board members from conservative Cobb County violated the Constitution when they ordered that stickers questioning evolution's validity be placed in high school biology books.

But this case defies simple labels for Georgia State University law professor L. Lynn Hogue, who has led the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation, worked for the disbarment of President Clinton and proposed a Georgia law that would allow the display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings.

Hogue signed on to an amicus brief filed on behalf of Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education, which supports the ACLU side of the case.

"I'm sympathetic with their cause," said Hogue, who also has pushed for gay marriage bans, fought Atlanta's domestic partnership ordinance and battled the University of Georgia's affirmative action program.

"From my perspective as a conservative, I think science education is important," he added. "And I'm not religiously sympathetic to anti-evolutionists, who I think are lunatics."

[Lurking Libertarian]

Yes, Virginia, there are conservative evolutionists.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Alerting Darwin Central to a possibly ping-worthy thread.

[EagleUSA]

The ACLU. Like the rest of the communists trying to tear apart America.

[orionblamblam]

> there are conservative evolutionists.

How can there not be? The two are both logic-and-evidence based. Liberalism and creationisn are not.

[Paradox]

"From my perspective as a conservative, I think science education is important," he added. "And I'm not religiously sympathetic to anti-evolutionists, who I think are lunatics."

As an evolutionist, I am bothered by the name calling and slandering by BOTH sides of this issue. Why is his last comment neccessary?

[Tax-chick]

"From my perspective as a conservative, I think science education is important," he added. "And I'm not religiously sympathetic to anti-evolutionists, who I think are lunatics."

So what matters in evaluating the situation is his personal feelings about "anti-evolutionists," not anything to do with the law. How conservative of him. (/phooey)

[ASA Vet]

I agree his opinon wasn't fair.
One doesn't have to be a lunatic to be a supernaturalist.

[DoctorMichael]

".....Hogue signed on to an amicus brief filed on behalf of Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education, which supports the ACLU side of the case......

Independently of the ACLU, Hogue signed on to an amicus brief filed on behalf of Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education, which supports, while not supporting the ACLU directly, just happens to support the ACLU side of the case.

"........Yes, Virginia, there are conservative evolutionists............"

You rang?

[DoctorMichael]

"......."And I'm not religiously sympathetic to anti-evolutionists, who I think are lunatics.".........."

Agree completely!

[cripplecreek]

Yes there are.

[sagar]

I don't see why there is even a "debate". It isn't as if creationism has any scientific or rational merit. It is just based on ancient legends and feelings.

- "My granddaddy wasn't an ape!!"
- "Darwin isn't god!!"
- "95% of Americans believe in God!!"
- "You ask evidence? Check out [Ancient Scripture].[Chapter#].[Verse#]"

^^^ Irrelevant arguments.

[PatrickHenry]

Very pingworthy. From the article:

"I'm sympathetic with their cause," said Hogue, who also has pushed for gay marriage bans, fought Atlanta's domestic partnership ordinance and battled the University of Georgia's affirmative action program.

"From my perspective as a conservative, I think science education is important," he added. "And I'm not religiously sympathetic to anti-evolutionists, who I think are lunatics."

Hogue is equally candid on his view of intelligent design, which suggests that organisms developed over time in accordance with the design of an intelligent agent. He called the theory "bull----."

[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.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Thank you, Paradox.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If you ever want to step beyond ridicule mode and actually understand the other side, click here

[Dimensio]

You left out "Second Law of Thermodynamics" and "I have never studied any biology past junior high don't find it plausable, therefore it is impossible!"

[longshadow]

Any bets on how long before THIS professor, a card carrying conservative if there ever were one, gets his face beaten by a couple of "good ol' boys" drivin' a pickup truck, for speaking out against inserting religiously-motivated unscientific claptrap into public school science books and characterizing creationists as "lunatics"?

[rootkidslim]

What his is saying is that his religion does not compel him to disavow theories that are well supported by an ever growing wealth of evidence, and embrace a nonscientific fantasy based on the mythology of Bronze Age "prophets."

[longshadow]

Correction:

".... and characterizing creationists anti-evolutionists as "lunatics"?

[Dimensio]

As an evolutionist, I am bothered by the name calling and slandering by BOTH sides of this issue.

It isn't slander if it's true. I used to think that the majority of anti-evolutionists were merely ignorant of science. After seeing the bizarre arguments that the vast majority of them employ and being told that I have the same ideas as Hitler for no reason other than accepting evolution as a sound scientific theory, I've changed my opinion on the matter.