Posted on 01/18/2005 6:53:09 AM PST by mike182d
MARIETTA, Ga. (AP) - Members of a suburban district's school board plan to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution ``a theory, not a fact.''
In a 5-2 vote, the Cobb County school board decided to appeal last week's ruling. Board members said U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper's order to remove the stickers immediately ``amounts to unnecessary judicial intrusion into local control of schools,'' according to a statement.
Monday's decision came after board members met with lawyers for three hours in a closed session.
-- snip --
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
It is no longer science when the facts are interpreted within a framework of evolutionary ideology.The ideology becomes more important than the science.
The concept of murder as a moral/immoral act has nothing to do with the TOE.
Murder can never been seen as a 'type' of 'natural selection', true?
Sure it can. Killing others certainly prevents them from passing on their genes. Whether or not such action is moral or immoral is beyond the scope of the TOE.
Finally, an admission. A complete admission would be:
"The ToE is in the truest sense of the word, amoral, and we use it to justify the current acceptance of all sexual behavior between men and women, and we use it to teach this acceptance to kids in public school the objections of their parents notwithstanding."
gobucks, you really need to keep taking your medication. Your obsession with the (non-existent) human sexual morality aspect of ToE is unhealthy, as is your ludicrous belief that Christians get better sex. At least you are keeping the verbiage quota down, for the moment. On the other thread I got the impression that you were being paid by the word.
Regardless of my attendance at scientific conferences too? The ones w/ all the neat posters, and 'talks'?
All that is anecdotal as well? How 'bout all the 'anecdotal' evidence regarding how 'healthy' professor's kids are? I mean, it is commonly known that prof's kids are really well adjusted, yes?
yep ... the truth is only what the journals state. The stuff that GETS INTO JOURNALS is the only stuff that is trusted. Oh, let's not forget who controls what gets into journals.
The scientific gate keepers can be totally trusted to be fair and unbiased and not screw w/ samples such that worries about grant proposals for next year are ignored. Right. Your credibility is going way, way up.
Next thing you're going to tell me is that profs are 50 percent democrat, 50 percent republican, just like the general population, right?
More of our tax dollars wasted for a religion. Yay!
So what does Orionblahblah's observation about evolution have to do with a judge declaring that a sticker is a violation of the prohibition agaisnt a state church in the Constitution's First Amendment?
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy".
"gobucks, you really need to keep taking your medication. Your obsession with the (non-existent) human sexual morality aspect of ToE is unhealthy, as is your ludicrous belief that Christians get better sex."
Ludicrous? I'm grinning now mr T! That adjective is over the top. I'm almost tempted to start a sex thread for all Freeper christians and seek their input...
(btw, from the other thread, I didn't forget that your reading skills are just great! Glad to see you're keeping up!)
the only thing we need less than warning stickers on text books is judges arguing that those stickers constitute a state endorsement of religion. Georgia, you're reviving the image of the hick southerner.
What ideology is that then? The ideology where you don't assume that the answer to every difficult question is "God did it?"
You'll have to supply examples to justify the idea that virtually all biologists (including many who are religious) are interpreting the data through an ideological prism when they accept ToE.
I'd suggest the opposite; since the tiny minority of scientist rejectors of ToE are 100% religious (I am not aware of a single one who is agnostic or atheist) they are the ones viewing the data through an ideological prism. The accepters of ToE comprise atheists, agnostics, catholics, protestants, and many other world religions which implies strongly that acceptance of evolution is ideology neutral amongst scientists.
So this thread is dissolving into another shouting match between New Earth Creationists and imported materialists probably responding to a call for reinforcements.
Yet no one can explain the central issue of the thread; how can a federal judge declare that a sticker is a violation of the prohibition against an official Federal state church in the Constitution's First Amendment?
Do some of the materialists care to intelligently address the main issue?
Out of context quote-mining. The last resort of the creationist with no genuine arguments.
"Sure it can. Killing others certainly prevents them from passing on their genes. Whether or not such action is moral or immoral is beyond the scope of the TOE."
Really? Is the fact that most of the top 10 ten mass murderers in the history of the USA were homosexual also beyound the scope of TOE? I'm trying to 'get' this really now. For homosexuality, from an evolutionary behvavior standpoint is very strange to me. The genes, you see, don't make sense. It is stranger still the mass murderers where 'naturally selecting' the way they were; but oops, TOE has nothing to do w/ the morality of these behaviors, right?
Evolution is not a theory; it is a model. A theory can be tested, and if evolution was indeed a scientific theory, it could be tested and those tests repeated.
I've known plenty of professor's kids and they have not made an impression on me as being particularly well or poorly adjusted.
Next thing you're going to tell me is that profs are 50 percent democrat, 50 percent republican, just like the general population, right?
In terms of discussions of scientific theories, how is the political affiliation of scientists relevant?
"Well, since creationism is a "religious" theory, I would assume that would be why. "
Does the sticker in question contain a dogma that would clearly identify it with a denomination or not?
If not, then what does that have to do with establishing a federal church?
And maybe you shouldnt assume so much if you really want to understand an issue.
Ok. It is all anecdotal.
I concede, I have no reasonable proof that most scientists have a vested interest in corrupting the morals of kids.
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.