Ga. Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed

[Amelia]

Ga. Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed

Thu Jan 13, 2005

By DOUG GROSS, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

"By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.

The stickers were put inside the books' front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They 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."

"This is a great day for Cobb County students," said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. "They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma."

In a statement, the school board said it was disappointed by the ruling and will decide whether to appeal. A board spokesman said no decision had been made on when, or if, the stickers would be removed.

"The textbook stickers are a reasonable and evenhanded guide to science instruction and encouraging students to be critical thinkers," the board said.

The stickers were added after more than 2,000 parents complained that the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life, such as the biblical story of creation.

Six parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) then sued, contending the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state and unfairly singled out evolution from thousands of other scientific theories as suspect.

At a trial in federal court in November, the school system defended the stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism.

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

But the judge disagreed: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community."

The case is one of several battles waged around the country in recent years over what role evolution should play in the teaching of science.

Last year, Georgia's education chief proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word "evolution" in favor of "changes over time." The idea was dropped amid protests from teachers.

A school district in Dover, Pa., has been locked in a dispute over a requirement that science students be told about "intelligent design" — the concept that the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power.

Officials in Alabama said they do not think Thursday's ruling affects the several-paragraph evolution disclaimer in the front of that state's science books.

The disclaimer says that "any statement about life's origins should be considered theory, not fact," and lists four of the "many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook." One of the questions is, "How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of 'Instructions' for building a living body?"

[LifeHiscost]

Having been a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church for approximately half a century, ever since the membership was composed of about 600,000, it is extremly exciting and gratifying to see the fulfillment of many of the prophetic

statements in the beginnings of this particular body of believers.

[:"red"] "That [spirit] is the guarantee of our inheritance [the firstfruits, the pledge and foretaste, the down payment on our heritage], in anticipation of its full redemption and our acquiring [complete] possession of it--to the praise of His glory." [/] Eph 1:14

Lift Jesus up!!

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

The stickers were added after more than 2,000 parents complained that the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life, such as the biblical story of creation.

---

What really needs to happen here is for students to be taught precisely what IS and what is NOT, a scientific theory. What do we mean when we employ that term scientifically? What does it indicate? What does it imply? How does it differ, in fact, from what we would term "fact"?

I don't think it is necessary to "mention rival ideas about the beginnings of life" in a science textbook, because quite frankly, outside of faith-based ones, there aren't any. Evolution is the only theory formulated by the proper application of scientific methods. Creation, properly speaking, is not a science; it is a matter of FAITH.

THE BIBLE SAYS AS MUCH. Please read Hebrews 11:3. I cannot stress this highly enough. The SAME Bible which shares the Genesis account of Creation "In The Beginning" indicates in the book of Hebrews that it is only BY FAITH that one may understand God spoke the world into existence -- and why? -- because [:"blue"]"things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."[/] (Heb. 11:3). Those attempting to derive, via the methods of science, a scientific theory of origins to validate the Creation account in Genesis are doomed to failure precisely because of this point. NO ONE on earth today can study anything BUT "things which do appear", and scripture indicates the answers regarding our origins simply don't lie there (though many other things do, such as medicine and technology).

As for the stickers themselves, without actually seeing one for myself I can't know what their actual impact is visually, but from the description given in the article they didn't seem either inflammatory or religion-pushy. I would not -- for the reasons stated above, obviously -- want to see creation "science" offered as an alternative, however. Belief in a Divine "Fiat Lux" Creation is a matter of FAITH ... and cannot be scientifically plumbed or ascertained from what we see in this world, this universe, today. It's a choice of faith. You either believe it's that way or you don't.

Frankly I like it better that way than with pseudo-science.

[Bravus]

The thing that worries me though, is that no scientific theory is a fact. Facts are little building blocks of information that take their meaning from theories. But you don't see stickers on textbooks saying that universal gravitation is 'merely a theory'. A theory is a theory, and it does certain things, and there's nothing 'mere' about it. And a fact is a quite different kind of thing.

There's not even such a thing as a 'true theory': there are theories that are well supported by the evidence, and then... well, there are no other kinds, because if a theory is not well supported by the evidence it's not a theory, just a mistake.

The theory of (biological) evolution has exactly the same status as any other scientific theory, and pretending it doesn't is very unfortunate. For that matter, the theory of cosmological 'evolution' (the processes by which stars and planets are formed) is of the exact same kind too, and has the same kind of warrants.

As Nico says, believing in supernatural (i.e. breaking the established laws of science) creation is completely sustainable, but only through faith. A supernatural event is by definition and automatically outside the realm of the laws of science.

Anyway, this horse too is in danger of being beaten into its component molecules and ions, but I'm a science educator as well as a believer and sometimes I just have to toss in a little education.

(And those who have a problem with education have already told me so, so they can keep it to themselves this time. I'm not talking to you.)

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

The thing that worries me though, is that

no

scientific theory is a fact. Facts are little building blocks of information that take their meaning from theories. But you don't see stickers on textbooks saying that universal gravitation is 'merely a theory'. A theory is a theory, and it does certain things, and there's nothing 'mere' about it. And a fact is a quite different kind of thing.

There's not even such a thing as a 'true theory': there are theories that are well supported by the evidence, and then... well, there are no other kinds, because if a theory is not well supported by the evidence it's not a theory, just a mistake.

The theory of (biological) evolution has exactly the same status as any other scientific theory, and pretending it doesn't is very unfortunate. For that matter, the theory of cosmological 'evolution' (the processes by which stars and planets are formed) is of the exact same kind too, and has the same kind of warrants.

---

I must have totally screened out or blipped over the word "merely" in the slogan there -- I don't recall even seeing it!

Thanks for clarifying the above -- it goes a long way toward answering some of the questions I raised earlier. I myself was not clear on the distinctions or what exactly the terms meant. So once again -- what helps is to be taught what is meant by a scientific theory, what that term means, how it relates to the notion of fact (rephrasing the questions a bit here), etc.

Bravus do you think people may confuse the definition of theory with that of hypothesis -- and that forms part of the problem here?

[Bravus]

Actually, I think the word 'merely' might be mine, but it's definitely implicit in the sentence. I had originally written 'just' a theory, but that made the second half of my sentence say 'there's nothing 'just' about it', which was ambiguous. I think the actual stickers just (merely?) say 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact.' Actually, I'd be happy to let them have that one, as long as they added 'as is everything in this textbook except the data table at the back'! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yes, there's definitely confusion between the way scientists use the word 'theory' and the way it's used in everyday life: and the sticker plays on and exacerbates that confusion rather than working to reduce it. In everyday life I might say 'I have this theory that what my computer needs is more RAM'. By using the word 'theory', I'm basically saying 'mildly informed guess'. But that's not how the same word is used in science. Even an hypothesis in science is much stronger than what a lay person usually means by 'theory'.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Belief in a Divine "Fiat Lux" Creation is a matter of FAITH ... and cannot be scientifically plumbed or ascertained from what we see in this world, this universe, today. It's a choice of faith. You either believe it's that way or you don't.

Frankly I like it better that way than with pseudo-science.

---

And I'm satisfied to believe that when the Word says,

[:"red"]"God spake and it stood fast." [/], that is a fact, notwithstanding it to be rejected by the unbeliever and also not proveable by the accepted norms of the wise of this world.

[:"red"]

"[No] for God selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is foolish to put the wise to shame, and what the world calls weak to put the strong to shame." [/]

1 Corinthians 1:27

Lift Jesus up!!

[bevin]

Quote:

---

This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

---

I agree completely with the sticker's explicit words.

Unfortunately they are rarely followed.

I think the parents would protest even more if the science teachers really stood up and presented the full strength of the evidence that (a) supports the notion that the earth is way more than 100,000 years old, and ( life on earth is way more than 100,000 years old.

Unfortunately the last thing the parents who promoted the sticker ACTUALLY want is to have their child approach the material as described.

/Bevin

[Amelia]

My guess is that most kids dont know the definition of the word "theory" and the teachers arent providing it. Thus giving the air of fact about what they are teaching.

[cricket]

Bravus writes: Actually, I'd be happy to let them have that one, as long as they added 'as is everything in this textbook except the data table at the back'!

I'll add on my opinion here and say that even the data table at the back is also based entirely on theory.

Nothing in this world, as we know it, can be claimed to be completely factual without the understanding that God has. Fact can only be viewed through His eyes.

And that's a theory!

[Amelia]

Separation of sticker and state

By David N. Bass

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

January 15, 2005

Suggesting that evolution is a theory rather than fact endorses religion and causes anguish among impressionable school children in an Atlanta suburb, at least in the opinion of U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper.

On Thursday, the Clinton-appointed district judge dove head first into the evolution versus intelligent design debate by ordering the Cobb County Board of Education to remove a sticker from science textbooks stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Added by the school board in 2002 to be more inclusive of differing beliefs regarding human origins, the sticker concludes by suggesting that evolutionary instruction "be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Not surprisingly, it wasn't long before atheists began experiencing concern (perhaps we should call it theophobia) that school children might actually seek alternatives to evolution to account for origins of the human species. Michael Newdow wannabe Jeffrey Selman, accompanied by four other plaintiffs and the ever-present American Civil Liberties Union, sued the school district under the contention that the sticker violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Georgia Constitution.

Their rationale for the lawsuit raises some interesting questions. Can a sticker that never mentions the words Creator or creationism be construed to endorse intelligent design? Can stating a fact (namely, that evolution is only theory, a reality conceded by many evolutionists themselves) be somehow tied to religious extremism? Can merely implying that there might be other theories to account for mankind's origins establish a state-sponsored religion?

Apparently, Judge Cooper thinks so.

The Judge declares in his ruling that an "informed, reasonable observer would understand the school board to be endorsing the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalists and creationists that evolution is a problematic theory lacking an adequate foundation." How can a sticker that comes nowhere near to specifically backing creationism or debunking evolution accomplish this, one might ask? According to Judge Cooper, it does this by somehow conveying "an impermissible message of endorsement" and by telling "some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others that they are political insiders."

That's a central theme of Judge Cooper's rationale. To avoid offending the small number of atheistic children in public schools, every possible vestige of God or religion must be wiped away, including any insinuation that there just might be legitimate theories on origin aside from evolution. Forget about the vast majority of Jewish, Christian and Islamic students who believe in alternative origin theories – the all-important goal is to appease atheists.

There's only one problem with such judicial logic: The Georgia Constitution itself creates "an impermissible message of endorsement" in its preamble by entreating the people to rely "upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God." That sounds pretty close to a theistic, creationist view to me. Is Judge Cooper now planning to declare the constitution of his own state unconstitutional for public schools?

If evolutionary theory is sound as a whistle, why is Judge Cooper so terrified at the prospect of school children pursuing alternate theories? Alternate lifestyles are a boon to civilization, but not alternate theories on origin? How does offering creation science alongside evolution dilute and denigrate the viewpoint, unless the theory already has holes in it? Liberalism is advertised as the political philosophy of diversity. Why not be inclusive of all views?

The reason is simple. The prevailing judicial philosophy in America is that some views are acceptable within our modern society, while others are not. An evolutionary perspective that declares life meaningless and establishes man as the final moral arbiter is considered objective and scientifically based. As a result, nothing else should be taught in public schools. On the other side of the coin, creationism is based on emotion and ignorance and therefore should be shielded from impressionable young minds.

Sound familiar? It should. It's the same standard used by communist tyrants to discredit Christians or others who believe in an Authority above government as "second-class citizens," which is always a precursor to outright persecution. Cooper is quick to condemn the Cobb County School District for using stickers that create a class of "political outsiders," but he conveniently ignores the inferiority experienced by theists when they read the hundreds of pages devoted to evolution in the textbook, all of which denigrate their core philosophy.

That trend is the symptom of a growing problem. Theists are continually being relegated to second-class citizenship in favor of a minority of atheists and humanists in society today. While Judge Cooper's decision might seem insignificant, it raises an interesting question: When will government-sponsored discrimination against theists end, and, more importantly, who will stop it before it leads to outright persecution?

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

David N. Bass is a 19-year-old Christian homeschool graduate who writes for World Newspaper Publishing and is a regular columnist at AmericanDaily.com, IntellectualConservative.com and RenewAmerica.us. While attending college, he interns at a pro-family public-policy organization. Bass is currently working on his first novel.

[Nicodema]

It's a shame this young man couldn't write without such offputtingly loaded language and sneaking in all sorts of obvious political agenda. I'm sure he had some good points to make but they were buried under blatant ignorance of the meaning of "theory" in a scientific sense and what amounts to an immense whine-fest over not getting his way. The latter, coupled with this sour-grapes spirit evinced in such lines as --

Quote:

---

To avoid offending the small number of atheistic children in public schools, every possible vestige of God or religion must be wiped away, including any insinuation that there just might be legitimate theories on origin aside from evolution. Forget about the vast majority of Jewish, Christian and Islamic students who believe in alternative origin theories – the all-important goal is to appease atheists.

---

-- generally makes the whole sufficiently bitter as to be impalatable. The real tragedy here is that these kinds of sentiments and attitudes are placed out in the forefront of what gets represented to the world today as constituting a Christian viewpoint. It may be the viewpoint of a self-proclaimed Christian, but it is far from a Christian viewpoint.

[bevin]

The author's background is interesting

Quote:

---

David N. Bass is a 19-year-old Christian homeschool graduate who writes for World Newspaper Publishing and is a regular columnist at AmericanDaily.com, IntellectualConservative.com and RenewAmerica.us.

---

Apparently, with this background, he has never received a proper education about evolution. Consider the mistakes in the following section.

Quote:

---

An evolutionary perspective that declares life meaningless and establishes man as the final moral arbiter is considered objective and scientifically based. As a result, nothing else should be taught in public schools. On the other side of the coin, creationism is based on emotion and ignorance and therefore should be shielded from impressionable young minds

---

1. Evolution says NOTHING about the meaning of life. The question itself is not easily accessible by scientific debate.

2. Evolution does not establish man as the final moral arbiter. Again the question itself is not easily accessible by scientific debate.

3. No evolutionist believes "nothing else should be taught in public schools". Instead they simply say that information in a science textbook should be scientifically based. If the creationists can provide valid experiments and tested hypothesises, those should be covered also. History of World Religions. Comparative Religion. These are also valid subjects. Just don't expect them to treat Fundamentalist Christianity with any special grand-father clause.

4. "creationism is based on emotion and ignorance" - all the Creationists have to do is provide some solid experiments, results, and hypothesises...

5. "therefore should be shielded from impressionable young minds" - actually, this is the BEST that the creationists can hope for, until they produce those experimental results....

David is an excellent example of a blind-spot in the education being provided by/to some (not all) Christian home-schoolers. At 19 I might have written a similar article (although not as well). It was not until I was 20-25 that I began to realize how badly the SDA church and the other creation science (falsely so called) organizations were misrepresenting the facts.

/Bevin

[Amelia]

Ga. School Board to Appeal Evolution Ruling

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

MARIETTA, Ga. — Members of a suburban district's school board plan to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution (search) "a theory, not a fact."

In a 5-2 vote, the Cobb County school board (search) decided to appeal last week's ruling. Board members said U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper's order to remove the stickers immediately "amounts to unnecessary judicial intrusion into local control of schools," according to a statement.

Monday's decision came after board members met with lawyers for three hours in a closed session.

"We have to make our best judgment based on the facts," said Curt Johnston, a member who was chairman when the board adopted the disclaimers in 2002.

He said the board believes the judge erred when ruling the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

Board members said they would pursue the appeal at no additional cost, a promise stemming from board attorney Glenn Brock's pledge to do his remaining work on the case for free. Brock's law firm has charged the school board about $74,000 so far.

Brock said he will request a stay from the judge's order that the disclaimers be removed immediately.

The board's decision to appeal surprised Jeffrey Selman, the leader of the parents who sued to remove the stickers.

"They're ludicrous," Selman said. "They're ignoring the ruling."

The evolution disclaimers were prompted by a petition drive begun in 2002 by Marjorie Rogers (search), who described herself during testimony in November as a creationist who believes the Bible's book of Genesis (search) is factual.

The disclaimers 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."

Six parents sued to remove the stickers saying the disclaimers violated the principle of separation of church and state.

Judge Cooper heard three days of testimony in November. He issued his ruling last Thursday.

Emily Cohen, a Campbell High School sophomore, said Monday that most students she knows make fun of the disclaimers, which she finds "somewhat offensive."

"(They) kind of say, 'consider it critically,' as if we wouldn't have," Cohen said.

[Amelia]

Doubting Darwin

How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be? A controversial new theory called 'intelligent design' asserts a supernatural agent was at work.

By Jerry Adler

Newsweek

Feb. 7 issue - When Joshua Rowand, an 11th grader in Dover, Pa., looks out from his high school, he can see the United Church of Christ across the street and the hills beyond it, reminding him of what he's been taught from childhood: that God's perfect creation culminated on the sixth day with the making of man in his image. Inside the school, he is taught that Homo sapiens evolved over millions of years from a series of predecessor species in an unbroken line of descent stretching back to the origins of life. The apparent contradiction between that message and the one he hopes someday to spread as a Christian missionary doesn't trouble him. The entire subject of evolution by natural selection is covered in two lessons in high-school biology. What kind of Christian would he be if his faith couldn't survive 90 minutes of exposure to Darwin?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/

[Bravus]

Try these:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

[Bravus]

PS I used this issue as the focus for an in-class debate among my class of 26 future science teachers last week. It was a really enjoyable activity, and I know there are quite a few in the group with strong religious convictions - I think they're getting an introduction to science education that caters to the full range of beliefs in the room, and that is also intended to allow them to do the same for their students in future. One of my grad students who has a particular interest in this area is going to do a guest presentation for us on religion, belief and science too.

[Amelia]

ROFLMHO, Bravus, I always thought gravity was a law! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/oops.gif" alt="" />

[Bravus]

Hehe - I've said all along, if they removed 'evolution' from the sticker and replaced it with 'everything in this book, with the possible exception of the table of data values', not many scientists would have a problem with it. We're *all* in favour of open minds, careful study and critical consideration!

[Bravus]

I should note that by posting that page of alternative stickers I'm not endorsing them - some go as bitter and unbalanced in the other direction as the thread-starting story did in its direction. But I thought some of them were funny and witty, and I think playing with the definition of 'theory' is a useful and important piece of education.