Posted on 05/25/2006 7:02:37 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
But that isn't what it says now is it. Evolution is a theory only...as Creation is a theory looking at it from a general view, etc....yes, I want my children taught that Evolution is a theory because it is. Physics is not necessarily a theory...as planes do fly...but, I doubt I came from a self evolving form of primate. :)))) you people just make my day.....lolol
And good luck doing much with nitrogen. You need to go review your chemistry.
Oh yes, and oxygen is a completely unworkable source for energy to build sugars. Chemosynthetic organisms that do not use carbon dioxide and light are dependant on other sources of energy such as carbon dioxide or methane and hydrogen sulfide or ammonia.
Also note that plants build sugars in photosynthesis only to consume them by aerobic catabolism.
Darwinists take the problems of origin and lack of evidence of transitional species on faith buttressed by a few miserable conjectures. They wince and retreat from the bright harsh light offered by other disciplines, such as mathematics/combinatorics, that show how outrageously implausible their faith claims are.
Darwinists deceitfully malcharacterize Intelligent Design theory as superstition and metaphysics when in fact it is fully rational (arguing solutions by best inference) and based wholly and solidly in natural phenomena (information, Shannon entropy, and artifacts of intelligence and design).
Darwinists are in a panic because their miserable and shabby faith claims are being challenged by strong and original thinkers who are asking why evolution, if it is science, needs to be propped up and defended by the state from criticism.
Judge Jones of Kitzmiller infame, a lightweight, embarrasingly unoriginal and petty little thug of a thinker, thought he could defeat the honest critics of intellectually bankrupt Darwinism by judicial fiat. But how did a theory of science come to require the protection of the ACLU and the state?
Judge Jones and the intellectually slothful high priests of Darwinism would do well to remember Thomas Jefferson's admonition: “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
OK, this raises a question I've had but keep forgetting to ask. How do scientists know what the early chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere was? The atmosphere that existed before life began and at it's earliest beginnings.
"I would use the incorrect statement on the sticker as an opportunity to point out to the students that those supporting such a sticker don't know what they're talking about."
Then where's the proof that evolution is a fact? When did Science claim the break through and announce that evolution is no longer a theory but a proven, irrefutable fact of science.
Date and article please.
What, exactly, does this mean?
It is the evolutionists who are misrepresenting science. Take for instance, Leshner, the CEO of the AAAS, who relies entirely on misinformation to make his case (see here for a discussion on the topic).
When evidence is presented against the Darwinistic view of life, they just say "oh, we already knew that" as if that invalidated the argument (for an example of that on this board, see here, also see my conversation with Chris Hyland on Uncommon Descent and my summary of all such interactions)
Most evolutionists seem to be completely unaware of what the debate is about anyway, though some of them seem to be intentionally unaware.
There's a pretty picture and a discussion here.
Theories do not graduate to fact.
"Theories do not graduate to fact."
Exactly
If you're going to criticize the theory of evolution for merely being a theory to be consistent you should go forth arguing against Newtonian gravitational theory, the theory of relativity, molecular orbital theory, and the theory of quantum mechanics as well.
Since it is well known in science that a theory is never validated as absolute truth, the attempt to single out the theory of evolution in this manner indicates both an ignorance about science in general and a purposeful attempt to target one scientific theory for political and religious reasons, not because of any scientific objection.
Theory is theory is theory is theory. Period.
If it's not proven to be fact, it's theory.
Why is that so hard for evolutionists to understand?
People come in here and constantly attack, flame and demean those with religious beliefs, yet get a stick up their ass when someone questions their dogma.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
If it's not proven to be fact, it's theory.
Once again you're missing the point. A theory cannot be proven to be fact by definition. Suggesting this as a possibility for any theory is just silly.
People come in here and constantly attack, flame and demean those with religious beliefs, yet get a stick up their ass when someone questions their dogma.
I am not responsible for the hypothetical actions of hypothetical others, attacking me with this basis just makes you look bitter and hyper-reactive.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
Although I usually see this line used by teenage fangirls who just got a negative review for their fan fiction shipping Aragorn and Legolas (cuz they're hawt, duh), I will stifle my giggles and say, "Same to you, buddy."
This is the night the lights went out in Georgia.
Not really. Although people are unwilling to pay for public education, they do because the consequences of not paying school taxes are not worth it. The schools get their money.
As a matter of fact, all the reports I've read show a reverse correlation between the amount of money spent per pupil and the quality of their education. The more money spent, the worse it tends to be.
One of the features of a constitutional republic is that voters and their elected officials can make value judgments. We can choose George Bush to be our president over John Kerry, and we can do so for any damn reason we please. We can do so (for example) because we want a more Christian nation and feel that George Bush's opposition to abortion and gay "marriage" is preferable to Kerry's opposite stances on those issues.
It's not the place of a judge to psychoanalyze voters and disqualify their choice if he deems it to be "religious" or "stupid". Thus, the courts can't overturn Bush's election on the grounds that Christians helped elect him. Or because the "smart" people at Harvard and Yale mostly voted for Kerry. After all, if only secularists had voted, Kerry would surely have won.
Value judgments are made all the time by voters and/or officials. Is it a violation of "separation of church and state" if voters approve a ban on gay "marriage"? What if a state legislature bans tax funding of abortions, while continuing to fund every other legal medical procedure?
All you're telling us is that more people disbelieve the theory of evolution than disbelieve the theory of quantum mechanics. That's true, but how is that a constitutional issue? Is it constitutionally obligatory to believe in the theory of evolution?
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.