Posted on 11/12/2004 4:54:43 AM PST by fr11
ATLANTA - First, Georgia's education chief tried to take the word "evolution" out of the state's science curriculum. Now a suburban Atlanta county is in federal court over textbook stickers that call evolution "a theory, not a fact." Some here worry that Georgia is making itself look like a bunch of rubes or, worse, discrediting its own students.
"People want to project the image that Georgia is a modern state, that we're in the 21st century. Then something like this happens," said Emory University molecular biologist Carlos Moreno.
The federal lawsuit being heard this week in Atlanta concerns whether the constitutional separation of church and state was violated when suburban Cobb County school officials placed the disclaimer stickers in high school biology texts in 2002. The stickers say evolution should be "critically considered."
Some scientists say they are frustrated the issue is still around nearly 80 years since the Scopes Monkey Trial the historic case heard in neighboring Tennessee over the teaching of evolution instead of the biblical story of creation.
"We're really busy. We have a lot to do. And here we are, having to go through this 19th century argument over and over again," said Sarah Pallas, who teaches biology and neuroscience at Georgia State University in Atlanta.
Moreno and dozens of other science instructors, along with the county superintendent, argued that the stickers only make the state look backward. And high school teacher Wes McCoy worried the issue could tarnish his students.
"I didn't want college admission counselors thinking less of their science educations, thinking they hadn't been taught evolution or something," McCoy testified.
Moreno recalled how, after graduating from Georgia public schools, he headed north to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites), only to find that people were less than kind about his educational roots.
"They felt Southerners were not only less well educated, but less intelligent," Moreno said.
Doughnut shop worker Maria Jordan, 48, said her Atlanta customers were shaking their heads over the latest dispute. "Lord, don't we have more important things to worry about?" she asked. "It's just a flat-out embarrassment."
As for what they are saying elsewhere around the country, she said: "Whatever Georgia's getting up north, we're putting it on ourselves."
Good luck. Do you truly think many of the creationists will really take the time to read and learn?
It's not that Christians are an embarrassment to society. It's that creationists are an embarrassment--a deep shame in fact--to Christianity, and a humiliation to the conservative movement in general.
When liberals denounce conservatives as uneducated fools, and point to creationism as evidence, the charge sticks fast.
> No one has ever observed evolution
EEERRRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
But that's not how complicated things actually form, is it? Bad model, bad result. Garbage in, garbage out.
The funny thing is that jumping together all at once from tiny constituent parts isn't the evolutionary model at all. It's the creation model. Yes, it's ridiculous. Even God wouldn't make a bacterium that way.
> Do you truly think many of the creationists will really take the time to read and learn?
Creationists? Read? Wouldn't bet on it.
I have to agree - stories like this unfortunately reinforce the worst stereotypes of conservatives.
21st century Atlanta is behaving like 16th century Rome, where christians imprisoned and tortured scientists who dared to say that the earth revolves around the sun.
It hasn't happened in the five years I've been doing this.
But Yankees evolved from monkeys so who cares what they think ;o)
Congratulations! You agree with these guys:
http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/contemporary/0029.htm
I'm going to be extremely pissed off if this Judge deems that placing a sticker in a text book to say Evolution is a Theory not a Fact is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What the hell kind of protection does the CONSTITUTION provide for the the subject matter in high school text books???
What makes you say that?
If you desire to have a world view devoid of a spiritual dimension you will gravitate to the theory of evolution or some other theory like it.
Nonsense. The TOE, like every other scientific theory, in no way covers spiritual issues. That's an area that science leaves to priests and rabbis.
After all, he was the only one who was there at the time, thus the only one capable of fulfilling the scientific requirement of observation.
Question for you: If you see footprints in the snow, can you logically conclude that somebody walked through there previously? Following your logic, you can't. Also, following your logic, OJ did not murder his wife and her boyfriend because nobody actually saw him do it.
Codswallop.
Please propose an experiment that could theoretically disprove the "theory of intelligent design." For a theory to actually be a theory, there needs to be a theoretical way to disprove the theory.
Suit challenges textbook evolution disclaimers.
ACLU Suing Over "Evolution Is Just A Theory" Warning Sticker On Textbooks.
ACLU Sues Over Evolution Disclaimer.
Court challenge begins in Georgia on evolution.
I remember in college a text-book giving the exact date that an event happened as something like 400,304,053 years ago. Sure... whatever you say. It must be true or they wouldn't have been so precise.
Yankees evolved from Southerners? (hey, two can play the insult game).
Sure... whatever you say. It must be true or you wouldn't have been so precise.
Along the same line of thinking, the creationist would say that the design of the foot proves a designer was necessary for the very foot that made that footprint.
Since you have shown that you recognize that a footprint did not get there by random (could have been a fascimile), then I am sure you would know that a foot that made the print is complex enough that it did not get there by accident either.
Creationist logic would say that since we did not see the footprints being made, we cannot scientifically conclude that they were made by a person.
Which would be the correct conclusion to reach, logically.
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.