Posted on 05/05/2005 2:16:05 PM PDT by jennyp
MARIETTA - The Cobb school board will apparently have until the end of the month to excise more than 34,000 evolution disclaimers inserted in science textbooks now that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied its request to wait on removing the stickers until the appeals court hears the case.
On Jan. 13 Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the school board's decision to post stickers that call evolution "a theory, not a fact" into school books violates the separation of church and state and had to be "immediately" removed.
After hearing a Cobb high school science supervisor complain that removing so many stickers would disrupt classroom instruction, Judge Cooper agreed to postpone the removal date to a week after school ends on May 20.
However, on Jan. 17 the school board voted 5-2, with board Chairwoman Kathie Johnstone and Laura Searcy dissenting, to appeal the case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the proviso that the board's attorneys, the Marietta law firm Brock Clay, would represent them free of charge in the appeals process.
Moreover, Brock Clay filed a motion for stay on the sticker removal order until the court of appeals heard the case. That motion was denied Tuesday by Circuit Judges Joel Dubina, Frank Hull and Charles Wilson.
Marietta attorney Michael Manely, who, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, defended the plaintiffs in district court, said that to get a stay, it has to be proven that the case is likely to succeed on its own merits.
"This showed it's not likely to prevail," Manely said. "It's the first serious nail in the coffin from the Court of Appeals. They are expressing their preliminary thoughts on the subject. This is like a preview of what is certain to come. It tells the board that this corpse is beginning to smell really bad."
Manely, who turned over the case after Judge Cooper's ruling to Atlanta attorney Jeffrey Bramlett, a past president of the Atlanta Bar who is with the firm Bondurant Mixson and Elmore, said he expects oral arguments to be heard mid summer with a possible ruling this fall.
Manely said the school board could appeal the denial of the motion for stay, but to do so would be unlikely because the decision would go before all the judges on the 11th Circuit, whose decision would strongly influence the case's outcome.
"I'm disappointed," said board member Lindsey Tippins, who said he still wanted to go forward with the appeal.
"I think we have a valid case because the district judge said he found no intent to establish religion."
Board Vice Chair Dr. Teresa Plenge also said she wanted to proceed.
"If we don't proceed, we will be turning several hundred thousand dollars of tax payer money to the ACLU in punitive damages and it's costing us nothing because we're getting legal counsel pro bono," she said.
Dr. Plenge said Cooper's opinion could hold the school board liable for legal fees and an undetermined amount for the ACLU.
Manely estimates that legal fees could top $200,000.
According to the school system, the board spent about $74,000 in legal fees in the first case. Glenn Brock, a principal in Brock Clay has estimated the appeals cost at $25,000.
Asked what she plans to do now, Dr. Plenge said, "I guess we have to take them out. They're stuck, so it's going to be messing with the inside cover of the book."
School staff has already experimented with removing the stickers, using such things as nail polish. Removing so many stickers will not be easy, she said.
"I'm going to offer to help take out the stickers," said east Cobb parent Jeffrey Selman, who filed suit against the school board in August 2001, along with the ACLU, claiming the stickers were unconstitutional.
"I bet I can get a whole bunch of people to help them," Selman said. "God bless the judges. They can see right through this sham."
The stickers were first approved in March 2002 after the board received a petition signed by more than 2,300 residents who opposed science textbooks the board was adopting due to the evolution content.
"I think this is a serious issue and I'm anxious to hear the 11th Court of Appeals decision," Dr. Plenge said. "It's an issue that has been debated across the county and I think it's important for us to get a legal decision that tells us which is the right way to go. We thought we were doing the right thing, but then we were told we weren't. I think we need to have clear boundaries for all school systems," she said.
Brock Clay attorney Linwood Gunn, who is representing the board in the case, did not respond to a request for comment, while school system spokesman Jay Dillon said he has not heard of the court's decision.
3. Life sprang forth from something.....
That is not a third way.
If the something is not alive, life sprang forth from nothingness (nothingness meaning lack of life). If the something was alive, then how did it come into being?
...Not life, but containing the building blocks for life (amino acid chains) with a catalyst and energy enough to spark life into existence.
And amino acid chains sprang forth from the complete absence of amino acid chains (something from nothing again) and amino acid sprang forth from the complete lack of amino acid (something from nothing again)
What you are saying is something came from nothing or in this case - life sprang forth from nothingness or the absence of life even if it took many steps because each step would involve something new springing into being that did not exist earlier. This sets up an interesting issue - either life sprang forth from lack of life many times or all life on this planet sprang forth from one "something from nothing" activity. Does that mean all living things are related - plants, bacteria, all life came from a singular living thing? Maybe. Remember plant life, bacteria, you name all had to spring forth form nothingness (or the lack of whatever it is) - heck matter had to spring forth from nothingness or it was created by something or it "always existed" - all of these options are not supported by science as we know it now.
Life either:
1. sprang forth from nothingness (something came from nothing - a major violation of the laws of the known universe)
2. was created/designed (a major violation of the laws of the known universe)
No matter how you slice it - the origin of life (and/or matter) was miraculous / beyond the laws of the known universe.
While on the subject - ponder where matter came from. Did it "always exist"? Was it created? If you go back far enough in time, can you reach a point where nothing exists (not even space) - if so how could nothing start the universe with nothing to build it with(think about it)? Either all the matter in the universe has "always existed" like God or matter was created(out of nothing).
If you push back far enough you find science in on no firmer ground than religion. How is it possible matter "always existed" or how is it possible matter was created (and what was used to create it - remember before matter there was nothing and I mean nothing. Of course religion gives us God (or Gods). God has always existed - how can that be? If God has existed always why is God playing out this little drama on this little planet. That blows your mind just as much as what science has to offer on this subject.
The point is that the law of gravity and the theory of gravity (usually known as the general theory of relativity) are two completely different things. Strictly speaking, the law of gravity is not correct. The law of gravity is more than "things fall down." In fact it's more than just "massive bodies attract each other." It is quantitative. It gives a way to calculate the value of the attractive force between two objects. Watching an object fall is no more a proof of the law of gravity than watching a horse race is proof that horses can run at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour. Furthermore, the law of gravity cannot, and was never intended to, explain WHY massive bodies attract each other with the force that they do. That's why there's a theory of gravity. The general theory of relativity provides an explanation of why there will be a measurable force of attraction between two massive bodies. It also just so happens to predict that the law of gravity will not correctly account for certain observations. It turns out that this prediction that the law of gravity won't account for some observations is correct.
I presume that you'd also agree that finding bones and fossils and arranging them based on pre-conceived notions is not proof of evolution.
1) There are no facts that disprove it.
You can't prove an absolute negative. It's one of the fundamental laws of logic. By reading your posts, you either don't read material related to your arguements, or lack logic yourself.
Prove to me that purple unicorns don't exist. It's impossible.
Exactly right. There's no such thing as proof in science, whether it's proof of the law of gravity or proof of evolution. However, the evidence is strongly in favor of both ideas (at least in the limited scope in which the law of gravity holds true.) The point still stands that there is both a law and a theory of gravity, however. Theories never become laws, no matter how much evidence there is for them. Even the theory of gravity is on shakier ground than the theory of evolution, however, since general relativity is incompatible with other well-established theories in physics, most notably quantum theory.
It doesn't blow my mind because I believe there are some things we
will never know yet it is my duty and nature to attempt understanding.
See my post 404 above. I feel that reason is more important than faith
to reach scientific understanding. Reason is the tool of science and faith
is the tool of religion. Misguided faith can create a simpleminded fool.
Only one problem - you can't use reason or scientific understanding to speculate about the origin of matter or even the origin of life. No matter how you slice it, something from nothing and "aways existed" are not part of the realm of science and reason but we are forced to deal with these concepts if we speculate on the origins.
Also - don't kid yourself. Science is solely based on faith - faith that the scientific method works - faith that one exists and we are capable reasoning. All reason and knowledge rest upon an a priori foundation of faith.
I can and I do. We can't have full understanding yet but we
can speculate about it with reason and logic. Perhaps what
you really mean is you don't trust Science to provide answers
to questions you don't even want anyone to ask and you
don't feel safe trying to understand God's mysteries.
All reason and knowledge rest upon an a priori foundation of faith.
I'll grant that you believe you need faith before you can think
(that sounds like a philosophical issue to me).
I don't need faith to know that when I get up in the morning
the floor will be down and not up. Observation tells me that
I can expect it to be that way every day.
You seem to think Science is a "gee I pray this works" kind
of thing. It's not, and I think you need to test your assumptions
instead of just accepting them on blind faith
I can and I do. We can't have full understanding yet but we can speculate about it with reason and logic.
Really. How does one use science or even reason to explain the "something from nothing" or "always existed" models? Please present an example of using science or even reason to address the concepts of "something from nothing" or the "always existed" model.
Perhaps what you really mean is you don't trust Science to provide answers to questions you don't even want anyone to ask and you don't feel safe trying to understand God's mysteries.
No that is not what I said. Science as we know it now CANNOT address the issues related to the origin of matter and I said nothing about not asking questions (It is starting to sound like you are one of those evolutionists that directs all their arguments to a nonexistent creationist straw-man of their own creation)
I'll grant that you believe you need faith before you can think
Once again that is not what I said. All thinking is based on faith and all knowledge rests on a foundation of a priori faith.
I don't need faith to know that when I get up in the morning the floor will be down and not up.
You have faith in the concept that you exist and what you are perceiving exists. All thinking rests on a foundation of faith. You cannot prove you exist nor can you prove what you are perceiving is real - you believe it is so - that is faith. Everybody is in the same boat and everybody has pretty much the same belief system in this regard so few people question this belief (except for philosophers)
You seem to think Science is a "gee I pray this works" kind of thing.
I have no idea what you are talking about - I have said nothing even remotely close to that. What the heck does praying have to do with anything I said? Praying is related to religion. Faith is what we use when we accept a concept that can not be proved. While faith is part of religion - religion is by far not the only application of faith.
It's not, and I think you need to test your assumptions instead of just accepting them on blind faith
This statement pretty much proves you don't get it. The foundation of all thinking is faith which consist of assumptions that cannot be tested - and it has nothing to do with blind faith (Descartes was one of the first to point this out)
All thinking is not based on faith. Faith obscures thought.
If all knowledge rests on a foundation of a priori faith
humanity would still be swinging from branches in trees.
I need no faith in the concept that I exist. My existence
is the starting point. I need no faith to prove my existence
to myself.
Reason is what we use to understand and prove a concept
that can not be accepted or "explained away" on faith.
Actually that was my point all along (philosophy)- no change, no digression. As for semantics, once again I have no idea what you are talking about.
I categorically disagree with your assumptions.
Maybe - but I doubt very seriously you can support that position.
If all knowledge rests on a foundation of a priori faith humanity would still be swinging from branches in trees.
What a bizarre unsupported leap. All knowledge is based on an a priori faith foundation (the first principle) - if you are arguing with this position, I think you don't understand the subject.
Can you prove that you exist? No. You have faith.
Can you prove you are capable of reasoned thought? No. You have faith.
All knowledge is built on this foundation.
I need no faith in the concept that I exist. My existence is the starting point. I need no faith to prove my existence to myself.
Just because you ignore something - that does not mean the something does not exist. You cannot prove you exist - you seem uninterested in finding the foundation of your thinking so you assume - your position summed up is: I assume I exist and I don't really want to think about it any further. (Denial is not a valid way to disprove a position) One can not prove one exists. All methods of proof presuppose your existence (or somebody else's existence). Most people don't give this faith a second thought and then again some are in denial.
Reason is what we use to understand and prove a concept that can not be accepted or "explained away" on faith.
Reason is the application of knowledge - it is the process in which we use our intelligence. Reason happens at many different levels and they are not all rational (meaning not all reason is good - of course there is not one definition of "good" so this stuff gets real complicated fast). Faith is a reality - some things in our life cannot be explained or proved therefore faith must be applied. We use faith daily - we have faith that flicking the switch will turn on the light - we have faith in other people. Often our faith is wrong or misguided - but nevertheless faith is a key concept in our thinking. All thought is based on a priori faith foundation and all reason finds its foundation on these a priori faith. A great way to illustrate this is to have someone present a point and then ask them "why" - ask "why" to every answer and eventually you will arrive at faith. As I said earlier, Rene Descartes is known for, among other things like algebra and geometry, examining the a priori foundations of thinking - you might want to check it out (Kant also had a lot to say about the concept of a priori) This concept scares some people but the point is not to weaken our faith in our knowledge - it merely puts knowledge into a proper perspective.
Faith is the foundation of thinking - now we build very powerful and provable arguments and knowledge on top of this faith but if you dig deep enough into our knowledge you will find the foundation is faith. (I am not saying all knowledge is based on faith (per se) I am saying the foundation of knowledge is faith)
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.