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 ...
Creationists do not want creationism taught in science class, please understand that.
Really? What other 'althernate' theories do they propose other than 'creationism' to be taught in the science class?
--Creationists do not want creationism taught in science class, please understand that.--
From the ICR website:
PHILOSOPHY
The programs and curricula of the Graduate School present the standard factual scientific content of comparable courses in accredited secular institutions, using standard scientific textbooks, journal articles, and other learning materials. In addition, where appropriate, supplemental interpretive material is presented in accordance with the distinctive ICR mission and beliefs and in accord with the cherished American principles of academic freedom and civil rights, as applicable particularly to private Christian educational institutions.
While somewhat innovative in the current educational context, this approach to the understanding and teaching of science is essentially the same as that of the founding fathers of science (Newton, Boyle, etc.), and of our nation and its first schools and colleges. In no way does this philosophy subtract from the standard scientific content, but rather enriches it. Opposing philosophies are treated extensively and fairly, so that graduates are well equipped in all areas covered by secular institutions, with the supplementary advantage of learning also the rationale for the creationist interpretation of scientific data related to origins and Earth history.
Actually, I am interested in how many ways you can avoid addressing what I am actually saying; that science is, by definition, unable to sit as the ultimate arbiter of truth because of its self-imposed requirement of naturalism.
"I'm through representing or misrepresenting your position. People can read and judge for themselves."
You mean you aren't going to address a 'scientific' theory that is 96% imaginary?
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-03/cover/
At what point, exactly, does 'science' simply admit that it doesn't have a clue? 99.9999% ???
Heck. At one time "science" could not see the embryo or microbes. Are you saying that they don't exist?
Which century in the Dark Ages would you have been most comfortable living in?
Give me a break. I am no longer interested in addressing what you are saying because it is total nonsense.
PHILOSOPHYThe programs and curricula of the Graduate School present the standard factual scientific content of comparable courses in accredited secular institutions, using standard scientific textbooks, journal articles, and other learning materials. In addition, where appropriate, supplemental interpretive material is presented in accordance with the distinctive ICR mission and beliefs and in accord with the cherished American principles of academic freedom and civil rights, as applicable particularly to private Christian educational institutions.
While somewhat innovative in the current educational context, this approach to the understanding and teaching of science is essentially the same as that of the founding fathers of science (Newton, Boyle, etc.), and of our nation and its first schools and colleges. In no way does this philosophy subtract from the standard scientific content, but rather enriches it. Opposing philosophies are treated extensively and fairly, so that graduates are well equipped in all areas covered by secular institutions, with the supplementary advantage of learning also the rationale for the creationist interpretation of scientific data related to origins and Earth history.
The Institute for Creation Research equips believers with evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework [emphasis added].
Although they do not say it in so many words, it appears that they are taking the same approach that the Creation Research Society takes. The Creation Research Society (CRS) has the following on their website:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.
CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
It sounds like these creationist groups are perfectly willing to advocate or teach "science" as long as it conforms to their religious beliefs.But any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing (or teaching) apologetics (defense of religion), not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as these, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science and move into the realm of apologetics.
--You say that creationists don't want creationism taught in science class. --
You misunderstood my post.
You misunderstood my post.
Sorry. I apparently misread a line. Please regard my post as supporting your position.
No, you're wrong. In cases such as these, the group filing the lawsuit gets to claim legal fees if they win, but the defendant does not. In other words, the attacker has a stacked deck. The ACLU can appeal this all the way to the supreme court racking up legal fees, but the school district would never see one cent of their legal fees reimbursed if they won. It amazes me how many ACLU supporters are ignorant of this. A school disctrict or small town is not a bottomless pit of tax money.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. I've never heard of a rule where plaintiff can recover legal fees, but the defendant can not. Perhaps you could provide a link to an authoritive source.
I just wrote a $4,600 check to my school district yesterday, and I don't have any kids attending local schools. You picked the wrong week to tell me that a school district is not a bottomless pit of tax money.
Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act of 1976
Where a plaintiff wins his or her lawsuit and is considered the "prevailing party," § 1988 acts to shift fees, including expert witness fees, and make those who acted as private attorneys general whole again, thus encouraging the enforcement of the civil rights laws. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_attorney_general)
...... Groups like the ACLU routinely abuse this to loot the taxpayer. And people here unwittingly cheer them on.
Here's a little more, where Brownback tried to address a small part of the problem:
Brownback Examines Legal Fees for Judicial Activist Groups
Groups like the ACLU use civil rights law to force taxpayers to pay their attorney’s fees
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today chaired a hearing of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution to discuss a bill that would prevent judicial activist groups from using a 1970s-era civil rights law to force taxpayers to pay their attorney’s fees in cases related to public displays of religious faith.
“Groups with a partisan political agenda should not have their legal costs reimbursed by state and local governments,” said Brownback. “If a group like the ACLU wants to sue a city for displaying a religious image, it should pay the bill itself, not take advantage of a provision that was designed to reimburse poor individuals pursuing civil rights cases.”
The Public Expressions of Religion Act, S.3696, would require parties to pay their own attorney’s fees when litigating cases regarding the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing or promoting a particular religious view. This would remedy a nuance in the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Awards Act of 1976 which allows winning parties in Establishment Clause cases to recover attorney’s fees.
At the hearing, Shannon Woodruff of the American Center for Law and Justice testified that, “While the attorney’s fees statute of the civil rights bill was enacted for the laudable purpose of ensuring that those who cannot afford an attorney may still seek judicial protection of their basic civil rights, it produced the unintended effect of financing a fierce campaign against any and all expression or accommodation of religion in the public arena. This campaign, orchestrated by a few interest groups, is fueled not only by ideology but by the potential for large fee awards against government defendants.”
Brownback added, “It’s part of our democracy that a judicial activist group has the right to sue a local or state government for a perceived violation of the First Amendment. But it’s wrong for these well-heeled activist groups to abuse civil rights laws so that their legal costs are paid for by taxpayers.”
When faced with a lawsuit over an alleged violation of the separation of church and state, most local and state governments acquiesce because losing the case would mean paying the attorney’s fees of the group bringing suit. For example, when the ACLU sued Los Angeles County to remove a small cross visible in the county’s official seal, the county chose to remove the cross rather than face the risk of losing the case and paying the ACLU’s legal bills. When several groups won a case in Alabama to remove a Ten Commandments display from a courthouse, taxpayers were forced to pay the ACLU and others nearly $550,000.
Brownback is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chairs the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.
Was this case a civil rights lawsuit?
Okay, name any other theory taught.
And Darwin's theory has no more place. If you want to teach it, do so in a hippy-liberal coffee shop. Not in school, at least not in a science class. Maybe in a history class, perhaps. But in a science class? Nope. The scientific method is simply incapable of dealing with origins.
--Okay, name any other theory taught.--
You're kidding right?
Judges are irrelevant to the discussion, other than imposing their twisted interpretation of law on us all. If judges were all-wise and all-knowing, and are to be trusted, how on earth did we get the Kelo ruling and end up witnessing Eminent Domain turn from a rare necessity to a government land seizure bonanza?
Judges, regardless of political affiliation, are proof that if we have evolved at all, we haven't evolved enough.
Actually Darwin's theory does, because it is science.
Get it?
Creationism/ID is religion.
Get it?
No. Name any other theory besides Darwinian evolution taught as a theory relating to the origin of the species.
It is science how? Because you say it is? Can you demonstrate it in a laboratory? Reproduce your hypothesis under controlled circumstances? I think not. And even if you could demonstrate some sort of genetic change in a laboratory, there is no assurance that what you demonstrated in the lab is what happened in the past.
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.