Posted on 12/19/2006 2:19:29 PM PST by Sopater
ATLANTA — A suburban school board that put stickers in high school science books saying evolution is "a theory, not a fact" abandoned its legal battle to keep them Tuesday after four years.
The Cobb County board agreed in federal court never to use a similar sticker or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.
In return, the parents who sued over the stickers agreed to drop all legal action.
"We certainly think that it's a win not just for our clients but for all students in Cobb County and, really, all residents of Georgia," said Beth Littrell of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.
The school board placed the stickers inside the front cover of biology books in 2002 after a group of parents complained that evolution was being taught to the exclusion of other theories, including a literal reading of the biblical story of creation.
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."
A federal judge ordered the stickers removed in 2005, saying they amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The school board appealed, but a federal appeals court sent the case back, saying it did not have enough information.
"We faced the distraction and expense of starting all over with more legal actions and another trial," said board chairwoman Teresa Plenge. "With this agreement, it is done and we now have a clean slate for the new year."
School board attorney Linwood Gunn said the agreement is not an admission that the stickers were unconstitutional. "The school board attempted to reach what they thought was a reasonable compromise," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Wow, gee, that stung.
Ho hum.
Don't you have a snake waving rally to go to?
True, true. I didn't say his ad hominem invalidated his argument. Indeed, if we didn't get a barb in here and there, this would be rather dull reading, no?
As for the "irreducible complexity" argument. It is an argument made often, but unfortunately does not refute, or even call Evolution into doubt. Namely because there have been no structures found which are irreducibly complex. In order to show IC a structure must not only need each and every one of its parts to function properly, but each of those parts must also have no other possible function.
I disagree with your IC refutation. If you think no structure are irreducably complex, go to YouTube and search for "Islamic Beheading". You'll see that people don't do too well without a head. Go to the microscopic level, take a protozoa and remove the nucleus.
Looking at evolution theory, if one goes along with the assertion that change occured gradually over time, that change being brought about by some sort of external influence upon an organism, or at least upon the chromosomes present in it's reproductive organs, than one must also accept that the change introduced must result in offspring that can survive with whatever change was introduced.
When you factor in the IC concept, you end up with quite a hurdle to overcome. Take a muscle, for example. Almost all muscles in a body depend on tendons at either end of the muscle, in order to attach the muscle to a bone or other solid structure. The structure is irreducably complex. You would have to have the entire subassembly in order to have a useful mutuation.
IC alone is not a wholesale refutation of evolution theory, but it seems to be potent enough to create antagonism whenever mentioned.
Also, your characterization of Darwinian proponents is a gross simplification and wildly inaccurate.
I'll agree it's a gross simplification. This whole discussion involves a great deal of oversiplifications. One might say the conversation is irreducably complex!
As for your emotional appeal, you make the mistake of assuming that all evolutionists are atheists, which is completely untrue. Also, you make the assumption that only humans have a belief in the divine (A probable, but unprovable conjecture).
Not an emotional appeal, rather, an application of the same hyperbole-laden hubris to which people of faith are routinely subjected to when discussing this topic. What goes around comes around.
Also, you make the assumption that only humans have a belief in the divine (A probable, but unprovable conjecture).
Ah, my theory is an assumption? Although I haven't done so much as a basic googling for it, I'm sure somebody out there as researched the matter. If not, I bet one could latch onto a wad of grant money. "Do monkeys have a monkey god?" Well, I assert they do not.
Besides, if you are right and God did create us and the world around us. Then he/she/it created us with the ability to observe and study the world which he/she/it created. If, through our observations and study we come to the conclusion that the best material evidence indicates that one of the books alleged to be the inerrant word of said God is, in fact, errant, then we should trust our God-given senses and abilities to lead us closer to the truth of His/Hers/Its creation.
And now you enter the domain of Theology! Good for you! Have you studied the Bible? Have you looked at the claims within it? I do pray you do with the same dilligence you are applying to your belief in Darwin's theory. I think you'll find the claims in the Bible do stand up to objective analysis and critique.
Of course, this discussion will probably rise and fall in untold future threads here on FR and elsewhere.
Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year.
perhaps computers should come with a warning label that electron valence theory is only a theory and the computer may not work according to science.
How about NO theories? Just give us the facts.
I agree, as long as the religion of evolution is also not taught in public schools.
Using the logic of evolution it could be true.
Oh yeah. Stirrups and reins but where were the riders? That will come in Chapter 5,671.
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
You would get a more intelligent response talking to a brick wall.
Of course this is a nonsensical statement standing on it's own. It's both a false statement and evidence of a Marxist point of view.
Merry Christmas.
I find that when someone has no ability to argue here, they just call you a liberal or a marxist.
Merry Christmas, Happy Festivus.
LOL, I've "argued" with you before. You usually take a pass like you did here. You didn't address the argument at all. TO repeat, a government that forbids religion in school is a marxist government, not one with a constitution like ours.
Moreover you seem to think that the government can excise religion from public schools. It is nonsense and I await your support for such a boneheaded statement.
I made my position clear, no religion in public schools, unless you preach all religions. So, if we teach creationism, we must teach Odin and Norse mythology.
Its not marxism, if you want to teach creationism, do so, just don't do it in a public school.
And if you think my view on this is boneheaded, then I am in good company with the courts.
How in the world can you equate "facts" into a "theory"? The only fact in the theory of evolution is the item being considered. Everything else is conjecture.
...buddy, this is just the warm up. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Keep an open mind and you might be surprised.
Answers in Genesis?
Vastly more actual scientists in the Evolution camp than the few in the Creationist camp.
I have an open mind, if someone disproves evolution, I will agree, but no one has over all these years. If someone on the creationist side comes up with real data then I will look at it.
But, you point a site that is a joke.
However, it appears you have dismissed/passed judgment on the site without exploring it fully, which leads me to believe that you are not really serious about exploring all sides as you claim to, nor will you give the creationist point of view a fair analysis.
Admittedly, creation scientists may appear small in numbers for the time being--however, consider that famed scientists like Louis Pasteur were Christian, and so were Marie Curie and Sir Isaac Newton, who believed in God and in creation--and used their scientific knowledge to benefit mankind. It is not politically correct for a scientist to admit to any religious belief today. To some, science has become their religion.
I agree with Einstein that both science and religion are intertwined.
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.