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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

A truth can not possibly be misleading.

This post shows that you are reasonably sober today.

[csense]

csense! You're sober today!

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

...and you can demonstrate it's truth, let alone relevancy....how.

[csense]

This post shows that you are reasonably sober today.

See my reply to Coyoteman

[Dimensio]

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.

Actually, the label is a lie. It claims that the theory of evolution is a theory regarding "the origin of living things", suggesting that the theory of evolution covers abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not cover that topic, however, thus the disclaimer is false.

[Dimensio]

...and you can demonstrate it's truth, let alone relevancy....how.

You claimed that a truth can never be misleading. Clearly, your statement is in error, as it is possible to construct a truthful statement in such a way as to imply a false circumstance.

[csense]

...Then demonstrate how a truth can be relevant, yet misleading. The stage is yours:

[Dimensio]

Then demonstrate how a truth can be relevant, yet misleading.

A truth can suggest a false previous condition, by stating a mundane event as though it were surprising or unusual. In such a case, the content of the statement itself may be factuall, even if the intended implications of the statement are not. As an example, "All biologists agree that evolution is an unproven theory" suggests that there are other theories that are proven, even though by definition theories can never be proven. The context is correct, however the implication -- by singling out evolution as an "unproven theory" -- is that the theory is somehow less established or credible than other scientific theories.

Moreover, as I have already pointed out, the content of the sticker is factually incorrect. Thus, not only is the sticker misleaning in implication, it is also false in fact.

[csense]

"All biologists agree that evolution is an unproven theory"

Regardless if scientific theories do or do not lend themselves to proof, that you presume to know what every biologist on the planet believes to be true, is extremely hard to believe, so I'm going to have ask that you demonstrate this before I can proceed with this example any further. Or, you can posit something else entirely. It's up to you.

[Right Wing Professor]

A truth can not possibly be misleading.

This post shows that you are reasonably sober today.

ROFL!

[Doctor Stochastic]

We should probably admit that we are wrong.

[Coyoteman]

We should probably admit that we are wrong.

Amazing, isn't it.

To the lurkers: For a good exposition on the art of lying, including the very thing we have been discussing, I recommend Heinlein's Time Enough for Love, 1973. In the early chapters the main character provides an excellent discussion of the subject.

[connectthedots]

Although I am in favor of the stickers, it would not be accurate to say the US District Court judge's decision has been overturned. It has been vacated.

That said, the 11th Circuit gave a very strong indication that it will not tolerate the twisting of the facts and the law by the trial court judge. If the trial judge has half a brain - no sure bet - he will rule in favor of the stickers. If he does, I doubt the evolutionists will appeal. They must see the handwriting on the wall.

[csense]

That's it? You guys are going to bail the minute someone asks you to demonstrate something?

I think that's more of an indication to the lurkers than anything else. Thanks for your time.

[Dimensio]

Very well. I will phrase it in a more vague, and likely more sustainable claim: "Most professional scientists agree: evolution is an unproven theory".

[Dimensio]

That said, the 11th Circuit gave a very strong indication that it will not tolerate the twisting of the facts and the law by the trial court judge. If the trial judge has half a brain - no sure bet - he will rule in favor of the stickers. If he does, I doubt the evolutionists will appeal. They must see the handwriting on the wall.

Forgive me, but I am not certain that it is wise to accept the legal predictions of someone who had predicted a win for the defendants in the Dover trial -- and then later denied making any predictions of a verdict.

[connectthedots]

You mis-state what I said about the Dover trial. I did say that if the judge applied the facts to the law, he would have ruled for the defense. As you can see from a few recent decisions at the appellate level, it is quite possible that Jones would have been reversed if the trial court decision had been appealed.

[connectthedots]

I also said that the Dover decision would have no impact on other cases. You guys said it set a precedent and I said that the decision would not be binding or persuaxive with any other court, even cases within the same District. You can hardly say I was wrong about that point.

[Dimensio]

You mis-state what I said about the Dover trial. I did say that if the judge applied the facts to the law, he would have ruled for the defense.

This is incorrect, and my statement is an accurate representation of what you stated. In fact, you said "I think the judge will rule very narrowly in favor of the defendants, but there won't be any leeway for actually teaching ID in the classroom." Note that you offered no caveats in your original posting; you specificaly predicted -- without any qualfiers -- that the defendants would win.

[connectthedots]

You have a problem understanding the words "I think"?

[Dimensio]

You have a problem understanding the words "I think"?

I do not, however I fail to see the relevance of your specific choice of words for conveying your message.