Evolution Ruling Tossed Out in Georgia

Atlanta Journal - Constitution ^ | 5/26/06 | Kristina torres, Bill Rankin

[Hoodat]

The federal appeals court in Atlanta on Thursday declined to rule on the constitutionality of controversial Cobb County evolution disclaimers because the court said it did not have enough information to make the decision.

The ruling was the latest twist in a nationally watched case that has raised questions of local authority over schools and whether Cobb's sticker -- which called evolution "a theory, not a fact" -- runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The ruling means more arguments from lawyers and, perhaps, a new trial.

-snip-

The 11th Circuit noted that all parties in the case agree that some evidence presented to Cooper during a four-day trial is now missing. "The problems presented by a record containing significant evidentiary gaps are compounded because at least some key findings of the district court are not supported by the evidence that is contained in the record," Judge Ed Carnes wrote.

[Virginia-American]

But if some group wants to force evolution only on the schools, it's OK because those purporting it claim the respectability and backing of *science*. They're smarter and therefore know better what is best for all of us.

Therefore, ignoring the wishes of the parents, whose children are the ones being educated and who are paying for the school system, is justified because they really don't know better and what's best for them, so they need to have the courts decide it for them.

NOT!

This is quite absurd. If you're going to teach biology, you have to include evo. If it's questioned, it is necessary to point out that 99+% of biologists think it's true. This makes it part of science.

It seems ast though you're treating evolution as if it were some sort of belief or something like that. This is incorrect; it's part of the science of biology.

[blackie]

[ml1954]

Irrelevant Reply Placemarker

[whispering out loud]

The difference is, there isn't evidence against these other theories, ie, nor are they based upon theories that can be solidly refuted. The evidence, and theoretical evidence backing the toe can not only be refuted, but also plausible alternate explanations can be brought for these evidences, heck some if not most of them even make more sense if thought through. This is why the toe is questioned, and others aren't they are based in sound evidence, and the toe is based on theories based upon theoretical evidence. It's just that simple, and the fact is that it is JUST A THEORY and should be presented as a theory, I ask the question again, is the disclaimer a lie? No, no it's not a lie, the toe is a theory, so why are we upset, is telling the truth not an admirable trait anymore, I thought only Dem's took pleasure in lying, and distorting the truth.

[ahayes]

I'm afraid I have to flat-out contradict your entire post. In my personal study I have travelled from young-earth creationism to being convinced that evolution has happened and is still happening and that there is no other model that explains the evidence.

The disclaimer is not a lie, but it is silly because the same goes for every other scientific theory. If they're going to slap one sticker on they ought to plaster the whole book with stickers referring to every scientific theory known.

[Coyoteman]

The *physics* and *gravity* comparisons to evolution are ludicrous. No way evolution is as well established as those are

Sure it is.

From an NSF abstract:

As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.

[Coyoteman]

The evidence, and theoretical evidence backing the toe can not only be refuted, but also plausible alternate explanations can be brought for these evidences, heck some if not most of them even make more sense if thought through. This is why the toe is questioned, and others aren't they are based in sound evidence, and the toe is based on theories based upon theoretical evidence. It's just that simple, and the fact is that it is JUST A THEORY and should be presented as a theory, I ask the question again, is the disclaimer a lie? No, no it's not a lie, the toe is a theory, so why are we upset, is telling the truth not an admirable trait anymore, I thought only Dem's took pleasure in lying, and distorting the truth.

I must disagree with ahayes in post #105; this sticker is a lie because it is deliberately misleading.

There are more ways to lie than telling a falsehood. Another is to utter a truth in such a way as to be totally misleading. That is what is done in this sticker.

The reaction of undereducated school children will be, "Well, if its just a theory I don't have to pay any attention to it!"

Never a mention that the theory of gravity and germ theory are on equal footing with the theory of evolution, and that the theory of evolution may be on solider footing.

Never a mention that a theory is the highest point in science, and an idea only reaches that point after considerable testing and validation.

Never a mention that there is no controversy within the various evolutionary sciences, but that the controversy is between the various evolutionary sciences and religious belief.

No, the goal is to cast doubt on the theory of evolution for religious reasons, but to masquerade as "clarifying" science. This sticker is a lie from start to finish.

[metmom]

I understand that evo is taught in science and why. My objection is *only* evo. Creation was taught in schools for as long as, well, until the ACLU got involved. Since then it has been slowly but surely edged out and banned. People want it BACK in schools; not introduced as if it had never been there before, just put back where it always had been.

[Coyoteman]

I understand that evo is taught in science and why. My objection is *only* evo. Creation was taught in schools for as long as, well, until the ACLU got involved. Since then it has been slowly but surely edged out and banned. People want it BACK in schools; not introduced as if it had never been there before, just put back where it always had been.

Evolution is science. It belongs in science classes.

Creation is religion. There are over 4,000 religions still being practiced in the world today.

Creation does not belong in science classes. And, if it was included, why do you suppose your particular brand would be the one chosen.

I'm partial to "Old Man Coyote" myself. Are you saying your belief is better?

And how would you prove it? What evidence would you bring to the discussion?

[puroresu]

You seem to be arguing that the population of the United States should be somehow legally obligated to believe the theory of evolution. It isn't a lie for others to disbelieve a theory that you happen to believe. Nor is it a lie to disbelieve a theory that 99% of the experts in the field believe.

I asked earlier how many biologists believe evolution is God's method of creation. In other words, how many of the 99% of biologists who believe in evolution also believe God guided it, and it wouldn't have worked otherwise. What's the percentage? 20%? 35%? 50%?

Do you want to include a section in biology texts telling students that 40% (or whatever percent it is) of biologists believe God guides evolution and that it couldn't work otherwise? If you don't include it, then by your own definition aren't you lying by omission?

[tgambill]

not really, you must be one of the "them thar yankees" or a "forenier"....:) Back at you a little later......

[SoFloFreeper]

Local school boards are chosen by the voters of the community, and they have the right to decide curriculum.

The judge was right in this case.

[Elsie]

I think it's a typo. He meant to say deficit.

We'll see......

[csense]

There are more ways to lie than telling a falsehood. Another is to utter a truth in such a way as to be totally misleading.

A truth can not possibly be misleading. It can however be considered irrelevant in context. That said, your job now is to show either that the content of the sticker is false, or if true, is irrelevant in context.

If you cant show either one, then you simply don't have a case.

[Coyoteman]

There are more ways to lie than telling a falsehood. Another is to utter a truth in such a way as to be totally misleading.

A truth can not possibly be misleading. It can however be considered irrelevant in context. That said, your job now is to show either that the content of the sticker is false, or if true, is irrelevant in context.

If you cant show either one, then you simply don't have a case.

csense! You're sober today!

(See what I am saying about how speaking a truth can be totally misleading?)

[whispering out loud]

contradict all you want, you are entitled to your right to be wrong. Some explanations being, for fossil evidence looks to me like tragic deformities, or even possibilities of just previously living species that have long since become extinct. the fact is that if man evolved from apes, they would still be doing this today, and they're not, if they were, there would be wandering around a species that is half man half ape, I don't suppose you believe in "the big foot" do you?

A little history lesson, dinosaurs fossils were first discovered in the 15 or 16th century, and it was said that man and Dino's did not coexist. If this is true, why then are dinosaurs "the behemoth, and Leviathan" recorded in the bible? (see Job chaps 40and 41) If they did not coexist man, and they were not discovered until the 1500's then how prey tell did they know of them in the Bible? If you do the math, and trace back population growth charts, "population reference bureau, allexperts.com, and several other Internet population growth charts for reference" the human population dwindles out around 7000 years ago, kinda funny about seven thousand years ago was the flood. Now I know most of the evo's will say it was due to the cultivation of agriculture. A couple of things about that though, firstly around that time the worlds population was around nothing, so basically scientist believe that a hand full of people could not survive on the bounty of the earth, but had to cultivate their own food before they could thrive? That my friend is Bologna, the earth without any man made help is capable of sustaining millions of lives, let alone thousands, or hundreds as the case would have been. Secondly, Agricultural tools were said to have been developed around ten thousand years ago, according to the scriptures, Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden of Eden and told "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." For your refference that was in Genesis 3 So here God forces man to farm for himself, sounds to me like there was a reason for man to create agricultural tools.

The answers are there if we look for them, man has in no form existed for more than 10 thousand years, yet it took millions or even billions of years for man to evolve from "whatever". How is this possible, (rhetorical question because I've been down this road several times before with others, and the only thing they bring is the fossil charts, and theories based in theories, as evidence, and I don't buy it, not for a second.) The fact is that evolution is a theory that can be explained away, it just doesn't make sense, gravity that makes sense, as does inertia, and other theories, and they all have practical uses, the toe makes no sense, and has no practical uses. As it has no practical uses, I don't see why they should teach it at all until it is further substantiated, but if they must teach it, I wholeheartedly agree with the disclaimer.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Some explanations being, for fossil evidence looks to me like tragic deformities,"

No doubt.

"the fact is that if man evolved from apes, they would still be doing this today,"

Why?

"A little history lesson, dinosaurs fossils were first discovered in the 15 or 16th century, and it was said that man and Dino's did not coexist. If this is true, why then are dinosaurs "the behemoth, and Leviathan" recorded in the bible?"

Those are dinosaurs only in the imaginations of creationists.

"If they did not coexist man, and they were not discovered until the 1500's then how prey tell did they know of them in the Bible?"

They didn't.

"If you do the math, and trace back population growth charts, "population reference bureau, allexperts.com, and several other Internet population growth charts for reference" the human population dwindles out around 7000 years ago, kinda funny about seven thousand years ago was the flood."

Only if you know nothing about history and assume that present population growth has always been the same.

"A couple of things about that though, firstly around that time the worlds population was around nothing, so basically scientist believe that a hand full of people could not survive on the bounty of the earth, but had to cultivate their own food before they could thrive?"

It was more than a handful of people, and conditions were not great everywhere. If you discover how to plant crops and can stay in one place, it can be advantageous to wandering around.

"The answers are there if we look for them, man has in no form existed for more than 10 thousand years,"

Sure he has. In modern form he has existed for more than 10,000 years.

"The fact is that evolution is a theory that can be explained away, it just doesn't make sense, gravity that makes sense, as does inertia, and other theories, and they all have practical uses, the toe makes no sense, and has no practical uses."

Please explain how gravity works.

"As it has no practical uses, I don't see why they should teach it at all until it is further substantiated, but if they must teach it, I wholeheartedly agree with the disclaimer."

Why was evolution singled out, when every theory in science is unproven?

[durasell]

Why was evolution singled out, when every theory in science is unproven?




Because only about six people in the entire world truly understand quantum theory....

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Because only about six people in the entire world truly understand quantum theory...."

And I'm not one of them. lol

[durasell]

I'm with you on that. And I really enjoy science reading. I even watched the TV show Elegant Universe, which I thoroughly enjoyed, but it didn't bring me any closer to understanding string theory.