evolution sticker in textbook ruled unconstitutional

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manny

Are they really this paranoid? "endorsement of religion"? did someone else read anything about religion in that sticker?

these judges...

---

The word religion isn't on the sticker but the implication is. Clearly Darwin's work is construed by many as a direct challenge to the Bible. Whether it actually is or not is irrelevant, the fact that it is widely perceived to be contradictory is pertinant here.

Do books containing other theories also have similar stickers warning that the information contained within is unproven. Is there a sticker on Kepler's work warning that there may well be a better way to put spheres in a box. Of course not, it's left to the discernment of the reader to make up his or her own mind.

In any case Darwin himself admitted that it is a work in progress, that there are undoubted flaws and unexplained evolutionary jumps which he cannot fit to his model. He's applied his own 'sticker' - but with rather more class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Manny , firstly welcome back..

Please tell me if you would object to a sticker placed in the bible that states that it is theory and not fact?.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: Very good one!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

:lol: :lol: :lol: Very good one!!!

---

I actually contructed the same post but did not submit.

The flaw is that no one is required to read the Bible and no one has a grade that depends on one's understanding, as such.

The literal religious think that the requirement, as determined by academia, instills credence into a notion that the literalist interprets as offensive, and therfore taints the youth.


The religious want the student to remember that this is not proven, but merely conjecture.

Science attempts to figure things out, as logically as possible. This is the best answer to date and the rules are proven in experimental examples.

The problem is that religious interpretations are not open to scrutiny, it is believe it, or not. This approach is the anti-thesis of what science classes are intended to teach.

I think I defeer about the ¨believe it or not¨,
for example, I ¨believe it¨, but just because of the ¨facts¨. It also depends much in what you are made to believe, then of curse it is believe it or not, but then, should you believe it?.
Sadly many of us might base our believings on miss-interpretations of the Bible, so there is when we get to believe it or not. But what about the facts?, there is no true without fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

I actually contructed the same post but did not submit.

---

Uh yeah...um...like..ok but like, you didn't.

I'll give you a quarter of a point for almost an effort or something. :dry:

Quote:

---

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.”

---

Surely all material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered??? :blink:


Otherwise how would we ever expand our knowledge and understanding of the world around us?

Maybe we're not supposed to... :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

can kids not work it out anyway in america?

---

Well, their parents don't seem to be able to.

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.312.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

The flaw is that no one is required to read the Bible

---

ah, but if i were one who supports both the principles of the holy bible and the stickering of biology textbooks, i imagine the golden rule would compel me to condone stickering the holy bible in religious schools and sunday schools. it would only be the fair thing to do.

I wanted to get Manny's answer before I continued, however that may take some time so l shall elaborate on the direction l am heading in.

I asked the question purely because of this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

Are they really this paranoid? "endorsement of religion"? did someone else read anything about religion in that sticker?

these judges...

---

I just wanted to see if it would make sense to him if it were the bible and the judge ruled against a sticker.
However in the points that where raised by the question..

In thinking before l asked the question about if Manny would object to a sticker in the bible I didn't ignore the fact that evolution is taught in school and the Bible isn't. I just wanted to find out if Manny thinks it's ok to have such worded disclaimers for science but not for religious teachings.
Hobbes made the point that one isn't graded on ones knowledge or understanding of the bible, yet one is on the subject of evolution. But what of Sunday school or private religious schools?
The disclaimer sticker is on books used by minors and how many children actually have the choice to "not" attend Sunday school or a religious school if their parents wish them to do so?

State schools teach what is acceptably proven, however nobody in the scientific community (as far as l am aware) has said they know everything. At what stage do we say that we have enough evidence ? and will there ever be enough to say this is how it happened and have it accepted by those of faith ?

Disclaimer:
The content of this post is purely a summation and doesn't cover every eventuality. This does in no way mean that the author has ignored any other possibility or is unaware of them.

Quote:

---

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

---

Creationism cannot be argued scientifically and remains at best a hypothesis (and a poor one at that, as its not particuarly rational).
Evolution as a concept is actually a fact, but whether it was actually the way in which the life we see around us today came into existence is still a theory.