Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 12601

Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation
Thursday, January 13, 2005 Posted: 3:36 PM EST (2036 GMT)


ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia, has ruled that a suburban county school district's textbook stickers referring to evolution as "a theory not a fact" are unconstitutional.

In ruling that the stickers violate the constitutionally mandated separation between church and state, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that labeling evolution a "theory" played on the popular definition of the word as a "hunch" and could confuse students.

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."

The disclaimers were put in the books by school officials in 2002.

"Due to the manner in which the sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life," Cooper wrote in his ruling.

Cooper said he was ruling on the "narrow issue" of the case, brought against the Cobb County School District and Board of Education by four parents of district students, was whether the district's stickers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

His conclusion, he said, "is not that the school board should not have called evolution a theory or that the school board should have called evolution a fact."

"Rather, the distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolution movement, and that was exactly what parents in Cobb County did in this case," he wrote.

"By adopting this specific language, even if at the direction of counsel, the Cobb County School Board appears to have sided with these religiously motivated individuals."

The sticker, he said, sends "a message that the school board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and creationists."

"The school board has effectively improperly entangled itself with religion by appearing to take a position," Cooper wrote. "Therefore, the sticker must be removed from all of the textbooks into which it has been placed."

Five parents of students and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the stickers in court, arguing they violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

The case was heard in federal court last November. The school system defended the warning stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism as some parents claimed.

"The Cobb County school board is doing more than accommodating religion," Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents, argued during the trial, according to a report from The Associated Press. "They are promoting religious dogma to all students."

Lawyers for Cobb County, however, argued in court that the school board had made a good-faith effort to address questions that inevitably arise during the teaching of evolution.

"Science and religion are related and they're not mutually exclusive," school district attorney Linwood Gunn said in an AP report. "This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science."

According to the AP, the schools placed the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/e...ling/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The best comment about this is the one I read on MeFi:

I want to put a sticker on a textbook that says, "Gravity is a theory, not a fact."

While I'm at it, I might as well start a campaign to remove the teaching of this fuzzy so-called "theory" of gravity in our schools, and replace it with my new theory, called "Intelligent Pulling." Which basically states that God makes stuff stick together, not some "physical" force.
posted by salad spork at 12:22 PM PST on January 13

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 12601

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cp...ookdisclaimers/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: I cant say I buy this completely,
Posts: 2506

Thank you, Jesus!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24362

While I am all for seperation of church and state, and I am a true believer in evolution, I do have to ask the challenging question: Is there anyone here that would place the "Theory of Evolution" on the same fact shelf with the likes of a spherical earth, our sun being the center of our solar system, etc?

Perhaps the labels in question were designed to further some creationist agenda (and probably were), but is not the court saying that evolution is a fact accepted by the state? And if it is, what if it--we are wrong? What if some other challenge to this accepted doctrine arises; one that might be unconventional by the accepted standards of our scientific intelligensia? Will they too be dashed upon this precedent? Does this already happen in the halls of research?

I am playing the devil's advocate here and asking whether ideas should be quelled or allowed to die a natural death in open debate. It is my opinion that the natural death of an idea is not only more justifiable, it is more permanent.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2003
Location: I cant say I buy this completely,
Posts: 2506

Creationism did die a natural death a long time ago...some people just havent admitted this fact and are trying to ressurect it(hmm, is this ressurection thing a theme?).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24362

quote:

---

Originally posted by 3MTA3
Creationism did die a natural death a long time ago...some people just havent admitted this fact and are trying to ressurect it(hmm, is this ressurection thing a theme?).

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26385

I think it's the notion that, of all the things in an introductory science textbook that could be said to be presented overly-simplistically or as harder fact than it might actually be, to single out evolution and put a big ass sticker on the front of the book to that end probably has some kind of agenda attached to it. In this case, practically speaking anyway, it's pretty much inarguable to be a religious agenda. And, in this case, that agenda specifically undermines the intent of the book, and it also specifically adds a religious agenda to a public school curriculum.

I think there is a legal case to be made here either way, though I can't say I sympathize terribly with the defendants.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Den
Posts: 11010

Weren't there recently like three threads devoted to this topic? I vaguely remember formulating thoughts on the subject.
Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. The unanswered questions that creationists should pound on, are about the origin of life itself, and intelligent consciousness.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35570

Anyone who makes the 'theory not a fact' distinction is retarded or deliberately uninformed. And that is a fact, not a theory.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24362

Theoretically.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5073

There are plenty of unexplained questions in evolution, but the idea as a whole seems pretty well-established. ID or creationism have no place in a science textbook, beyond maybe the mention that "many people in the world do not accept evolution as an explanation for the current diverity of species".

I think others pointed it out, but the sticker claims evolution is a theory regarding the origins of life. It seems to me that evolution is silent about the *origins*, except inasmuch as it explains how it could be that many species arose from few. But the transition from nonliving to living is not part of evolution, is it?

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Pere Ubu land
Posts: 1080

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
Anyone who makes the 'theory not a fact' distinction is retarded or deliberately uninformed. And that is a fact, not a theory.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Pere Ubu land
Posts: 1080

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talarohk
But the transition from nonliving to living is not part of evolution, is it?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24362

.

Attachment: apeman24.jpg
This has been downloaded 69 time(s).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Pere Ubu land
Posts: 1080

This is what I was recalling through the dim prism of memory. Make of it what you will.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5073

Although I can't download the full article, that's pretty cool.
(devil's advocate)
However, given that so far, the only way we have directly observed the formation of self-replicating molecules is by having them designed and made by a sentient being, I'd say the evidence for the origin of life lies in the ID/creationist camp.
(/devil's advocate)

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Pere Ubu land
Posts: 1080

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talarohk
Although I can't download the full article, that's pretty cool.
(devil's advocate)
However, given that so far, the only way we have directly observed the formation of self-replicating molecules is by having them designed and made by a sentient being, I'd say the evidence for the origin of life lies in the ID/creationist camp.
(/devil's advocate)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5073

I was mostly just joking. I was saying that, if we are trying to look at hard evidence of how living matter might have arisen from nonliving matter, we have only seen one incidence even close to that (the one in the article you link--I know it's not technically living, but that's clearly the direction they are headed), and that one was accomplished by the direct intervention of intelligent beings. Thus, the evidence so far for how living things can arise is: Intelligent design (one incident), Random evolution (none yet).

Really, it was a joke.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24362

It is fairly clear that you dunces have failed to explore all the halls of prestigious learning on this subject. How can anyone rationally approach the subject of creation vs evolution without first consulting renowned experts like Jack Chick? Have you no integrity?




Heh. Sometimes I just kill me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Pere Ubu land
Posts: 1080

Wow. I had heard of him through various DnD circles (shush!) ridiculing but never was moved enough to investigate. Thank you for saving me the effort. :P

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5073

Losing things is NOT the opposite of evolution, and there's no reason why the attachment of muscles to the tailbone or the whale pelvis invalidates the idea that they are vestigial.
I thought the strong nuclear force held nuclei together, and that it was stronger than electromagnetism over very small distances (although to be fair, I have no more evidence to believe that than the idea that it is Christ's love. Smug could probably explain the evidence.)

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Pere Ubu land
Posts: 1080

Additionally, the Piltdown Hoax is a good example not of science's weakness but its robustness. It demonstrates the power of peer review, and give us reason to be confident that even in the face of deliberate chicanery the truth will eventually be revealed.

I'd also say that points 2 and 5 have been directly observed. Point 3 is impossible to see in any one person's lifetime, but astronomer's have plenty of observational evidence nonetheless.

I suppose that of the two points listed the weakest are 1 and 4. I wouldn't hazard to guess which is weaker between them.