Posted on 12/19/2006 2:19:29 PM PST by Sopater
ATLANTA — A suburban school board that put stickers in high school science books saying evolution is "a theory, not a fact" abandoned its legal battle to keep them Tuesday after four years.
The Cobb County board agreed in federal court never to use a similar sticker or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.
In return, the parents who sued over the stickers agreed to drop all legal action.
"We certainly think that it's a win not just for our clients but for all students in Cobb County and, really, all residents of Georgia," said Beth Littrell of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.
The school board placed the stickers inside the front cover of biology books in 2002 after a group of parents complained that evolution was being taught to the exclusion of other theories, including a literal reading of the biblical story of creation.
The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
A federal judge ordered the stickers removed in 2005, saying they amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The school board appealed, but a federal appeals court sent the case back, saying it did not have enough information.
"We faced the distraction and expense of starting all over with more legal actions and another trial," said board chairwoman Teresa Plenge. "With this agreement, it is done and we now have a clean slate for the new year."
School board attorney Linwood Gunn said the agreement is not an admission that the stickers were unconstitutional. "The school board attempted to reach what they thought was a reasonable compromise," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Actually, your definitions supported my positin quite well.
Thanks
You have it exactly backwards. Science is limited to a purely natural approach toward evaluating reality. That's the problem.
"No discussion with you is worth pursuing, and I'm sure you feel likewise."
Interesting that you think you know how I 'feel' after having got the point backwards in the first place.
I didn't describe your position using your definitions.
But your position as described in post 77 is your position, which you've attempted to defend on this thread.
I fully understand your position, which is that science can't be trusted.
Again you demonstrate that you have my position exactly backwards.
My position is that science has its place, but serving as ultimate authority on matters of supernatural vs natural creation is not it.
BS. I'm repeating your position without the weasel words.
That is not backwards.
You don't think science is authoritative.
Which means it can't be trusted.
Go play your word games with someone who can be fooled by your nonsense.
On the other hand, we have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena.
Thanks, I'll stick with science. It doesn't seem that inferior a method for judging reality when one considers the alternatives.
Bears repeating. I for one am sick of hearing the sputtering from the ignorant and uninformed "but, but, it's only a theeeooory."
Again, you misrepresent my position. I said that science, being deliberately limited to naturalistic phenomena by definition, is not equipped to recognize supernatural creation.
For any supernatural evidence, science *must* propose undiscovered natural effects because of the way it is defined. Science requires a naturalistic answer, by definition.
Science will even do this to protect existing naturalistic theories (like the 'dark matter' 'dark energy' proposals for the cosmos) before it will recognize it is in error. The only evidence in favor of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are motions of observable matter that are not consistent with the prevailing model. Invisible 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are required for the prevailing model to 'work'. There is no other reason for their proposed existence.
Are you aware that fully 96% of the matter and energy needed to explain the observed motions of the objects in a universe modeled by the current standard model is invisible *by definition*. And this is for observations that surely do have other naturalistic explanations.
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-03/cover/
How much more stridently will science propose undiscovered natural effects as being responsible for truly supernatural events such as the creation of the universe and the creation of life?
This is silly. I don't know how many different ways you can say that science is inadequate while denying the fundamental assertion of your comments.
I'm through representing or misrepresenting your position. People can read and judge for themselves.
This sticker is dishonest start to finish.
2) It is directed only at the theory of evolution, not at all scientific theories, although within science the methods are standardized. Now, who is it that singles out evolution for special treatment (read fundamentalist religion).
3) They ask for "critical consideration," as if that's the fair thing to do. Teach the controversy! Its just a theory! Absolutely wrong, as usual. In evolutionary sciences, there is no controversy. These are dishonest claims manufactured by adherents of certain fundamentalist religious beliefs based on a) their denial of the findings of science and evolution, b) a willful disregard for the actual scientific use of the term "theory," and c) a political agenda pandering to their base, which is obviously unfamiliar with science and evolution and willing to believe whatever they are told. Check out the evolution journals in your schools library and learn what is really going. If you are at an adequate institution, these periodicals probably take up several floors.
Sorry Dave, it just won't wash.
You write "they've banned even challenges on evolution" knowing that is not true.
What is banned is promoting a fundamentalist view of religion in science classes, where it has absolutely no business.
You and your co-religionists are doing apologetics (defense of religion), not science. You should be honest and admit it.
Science does not rely on "faith and dogma" and anyone who claims otherwise knows little about science. Those are religious terms, and pertain to religious belief not scientific methods.
You claim that "both sides use science to defend their beliefs," but you fail to mention that only one side uses science honestly. As shown by the creationist websites, creationist distort, misrepresent, and even lie to support their a priori religious beliefs. That is not science and everyone knows it. You should know it as well.
You are glib, but you still can't get past the fact that you are doing apologetics (defense of religion) not science.
Based on your religious beliefs you are telling lifelong scientists how to do their jobs. That's apologetics (defense of religion) not science.
You should be honest enough to admit it. You are not doing science.
Baloney
Creationism is entirely based upon religious fables.
Evolution is based upon tried and tested science that is repeatable and testable.
Ah, to hell with it, you are purposely ignorant and unwilling to think, learn and attempt to understan. You deserve the ignorance you brought upon yourself.
Prior restraint is a legal term referring to a government's actions that prevent materials from being published. Censorship that requires a person to seek governmental permission in the form of a license or imprimatur before publishing anything constitutes prior restraint every time permission is denied. More recently, prior restraint has often taken the form of an injunction or other governmental order prohibiting the publication of a specific document or subject. Sometimes, the government becomes aware of a forthcoming publication on a particular subject and seeks to prevent it. In other cases, the government attempts to halt ongoing publication and prevent its resumption. These injunctions are also usually considered to be cases of prior restraint, because future publications are stopped before they start.
But since this seems to be an agreement between the school district and some parents[School board attorney Linwood Gunn said the agreement is not an admission that the stickers were unconstitutional. "The school board attempted to reach what they thought was a reasonable compromise," he said.], I'm not sure what will happen if a teacher comments to the students that evolution is just a theory.
And the fact that evolution is the only theory taught, and that it's taught as fact, is why it's singled out by creationists! Face it, evolutionists have no other theories at all, and they have such blind faith in Darwin that they are completely closed to any discussion to the contrary.
Pish posh pish posh. The scientific method has no means to deal with history, what it cannot immediately observe and repeat. Science cannot assure us George Washington is who is buried in his tomb. Science cannot assure us Napoleon was a world leader, it cannot prove the earth was not created 6,000 years ago.
The scientific method may allow for observation and documentation of phenomena, but it has no means of dealing with what has already passed. You can test the bones of an old skeleton in George Washington's tomb, you might even be able to extract the DNA, but you have no means whatsoever to conclusively state it is George Washington's DNA.
Looking at carbon dating, sure the analysis might show that item "X" is 30 million years old, but you have no way of knowing that item "X" was in fact made 6,000 years old with the appearance of being 30 million years old. Sound crazy? Get out a sheet of paper and draw a person. Were you obligated to draw an infant? Could you not have just as easily have drawn a child, an athlete, or an old man with a cane?
The scientific model works with what you can see and touch in the here and now. When it comes to evolution, science can look at stuff here and now, and put forth theories, but those theories have no more validity than what you choose to give it. In reality, science can do nothing to prove what is happened in the past, it can simply offer up convincing explanations for what may have happened.
Going back to the George Washington example, you have to rely on the legal/historical mode, one of a preponderance of witnessess. How many people saw George Washington get buried there? We have multiple unrelated recordings of this event? Is there any reason to disbelieve their testimony? Any reason for them to lie about it? Any reason to expect somebody swapped out the bones in the tomb? No? The we accept it as fact that the bones in George Washington's tomb are his, based not on science, but on a preponderance of historical records pointing to it.
And so you look at old skeletons and fossils and declare "Science shows us this is true." But that isn't science at all, it's history. You cannot duplicate your theory in a lab. You cannot put forth a hypothesis, test it with a control subject and an experiment subject, and document your findings. And even if you could do such a test, you would still have us accept an extrapolation of today's test results to events that allegedly occured millions or billions of years ago. It's the legal/historical method packaged up and sold to the world as "Science". You take an assemblage of various findings, and present a preponderance of testimonies, building the case for accepting your assertion as fact. That's what goes on in courts every day. But, it isn't science, and it does not establish fact. It simply tries to convince based on a preponderance of evidence, and thus never can rise above the level being a theory, a possible explanation of origins.
"the sticker caper was a bonehead idea from the start."
Right. The students should be smart enough to figure out that the darwinists are blowing smoke up their butts, without stickers.
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.