evolution sticker in textbook ruled unconstitutional

amazing...


Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers
Disclaimer questioning theory ruled unconstitutional

NBC News
The Cobb County Board of Education required these stickers to be pasted into biology textbooks, saying that evolution "is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:12 p.m. ET Jan. 13, 2005ATLANTA - A federal judge on Thursday ordered the removal of stickers placed in high school biology textbooks that call evolution “a theory, not a fact,” saying they were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

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

“Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders,” U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said in his 44-page ruling.

“This is a great day for Cobb County students,” said attorney Michael Manely, who represented parents who brought the suit. “They’re going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma.”

Doug Goodwin, a spokesman for Cobb County schools, said officials did not have an immediate response but were preparing a statement.

Tolerance or religious activism?
Six 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, where 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,” Manely had argued during the trial. “They are promoting religious dogma to all students.”

Lawyers for Cobb County disagreed, saying 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. “This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science.”

2,000 complaints from parents
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.

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 case is one of several battles waged in recent years in the Bible Belt over what role evolution should play in science books. Last year, Georgia’s education chief proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word “evolution” in favor of “changes over time.” That plan was soon dropped amid protests by teachers.

source

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

these judges...

Paranoid for good reason although I find nothing wrong with the stickers.

Religious views are also being presented in science classes ffs. :blink:

The judge I guess saw the writing on the wall or the tablet. :shifty:

ok,
I'll bite...

do you think that it is possible to argue creationism on a purely "scientific" basis?

I use the term scientific loosely, because, science is the study of something observed; macro-evolution and the big-bang theory, of course, cannot be observed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

ok,
I'll bite...

do you think that it is possible to argue creationism on a purely "scientific" basis?

I use the term scientific loosely, because, science is the study of something observed; macro-evolution and the big-bang theory, of course, cannot be observed.

---

It's possible as long as their is some study besides "God said so" to support those aspects of the Bible.

Mind you the term creationism is pushed from a Christian point of view....another fault.

Ok you'll bite?
I think I bit since you are the thread starter. :huh:

It really depends on what you mean by Creationism. The Big Bang could have been created. Even if there is a multi-verse that neither begins nor ends it does not preclude design.

The issue is not so much the science of evolution, which has a lot of geological and palaeontological support, but more a concern that if (frankly fairly minor) details are questioned regarding the veracity of scriptures then more fundamental issues of faith might also be questioned. This goes not just for Christianity but for all religions with creation myths. My own view is that this dilemma is caused through over-literal interpretation of text which the intent of was originally both artistic and impressionistic.

For example Manny, if on the same day, both evolution and the resurrection were proved beyond doubt would evolution matter one jot to you?

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?.

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?.

---

There was another page... they found it recently in the Dead Sea Scrolls..

They cant make it all out, just the end...


"..any similarity between persons living or dead, are purely coincidental."

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?.

---

very good point, never thought of it that way.

can kids not work it out anyway in america?

Since a theory is defined as "an unproven assumption" the sticker appears a bit redundant.

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.

Quote:

---

“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."

---

Being a theory does not exempt something from being factual. As ilw pointed out, Quantum Theory is still regarded as a theory, and yet many of the things we take for granted today would not be here if it weren't for Quantum Mechanics, including the computers we are all using.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Could you explain this please, thank you.

---

All semiconductor transistors work according to the principles of quantum mechanics. Without quantum mechanics it isn't possible to understand how a transistor works, and one certainly couldn't have been made. This in turn led to transistor radios, televisions, computers etc.

The laser beam is also a product of quantum mechanics, giving us CDs and DVDs among other things.

In the future we will see quantum computers that make what we see today seem positively archaic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKResident

All semiconductor transistors work according to the principles of quantum mechanics. Without quantum mechanics it isn't possible to understand how a transistor works, and one certainly couldn't have been made. This in turn led to transistor radios, televisions, computers etc.

The laser beam is also a product of quantum mechanics, giving us CDs and DVDs among other things.

In the future we will see quantum computers that make what we see today seem positively archaic.

---

Most computers today make my one seem positively archaic :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbarossa

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:

---

Do you remember manny's old sig about open minds?

It went something along the lines of..."sometimes peoples minds are so open their brains fall out"
;)

wait, all scientific discoveries were made after we understood them? :blink:


note to self: try and keep up dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

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
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.

---

I find it ironic that macro-evolution is being compared to a religion; because that's what it is; more then any scientific groundwork.

The "big bang theory" has misused the term "theory". it cannot be computed and hypothasized (sp?) like quantum mechanics can. I actually did not come across this until recently; being that state school has jackhammered the opposite in my head all the way from kindergarten books.

but; to the question.

Anyone can put any sticker they choose on any book. It is the fact that a Federal Judge has ruled the opposite that brings my attention. If a state school is teaching a world religion course and they want a sticker on a bible reminding readers to contemplate independently on the contents; then go ahead. A court should not have say on such matters.

of course many here favor an overstepping court system as long as it councides with their beliefs.

I have recently run into a professor who taught creationism. As a Bio major; I have always bought into the Gap Age theory (for a rough summery: Where there is a time gap in the bible where macro-evolution could have taken place.) This professor, though, came to debate a bio professor from my school, and I'll be damned, if he did not only hold his own, but, revamped some minds about the validity of creationism.

call me stupid, jaded, or just wrong; but before you do; look into what some creationists have to say.

(as barbarossa said; all material should be carefully considered.) :)

it is from this standpoint; that there is (in my mind) another valid theory in a pure scientific sense, that, keeps me from evolution only taught. If they teach something as enthreal as the big bang theory; then the same standard would show that creationism is at least as valid.

if I don't post for awhile, it doesn't mean I'm not reading; I just means time constraints.

Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss this so called 'science' of creationism.

We could discuss the five great creation myths ..

• Evolution has never been observed.
• Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
• There are no transitional fossils.
• The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
• Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Anyone game? :rolleyes:

evolution has been observed. people are taller than they used to be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

evolution has been observed. people are taller than they used to be

---

meh... you can't discount diet from that argument, peoples diets are so much better than they were, hence they grow more..

However, evolution HAS been observed, in moths during the industrial revolution around Manchester :

source: http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounde.../EVpage07.html

its been observed anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbarossa

meh... you can't discount diet from that argument, peoples diets are so much better than they were, hence they grow more..

However, evolution HAS been observed, in moths during the industrial revolution around Manchester :

source: http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounde.../EVpage07.html

---

Why didnt you just point at Dog or Horse Breeding?

We have been "Selecting" for centuries... exactly the same as Evolution, just us choosing the characteristics we want from a "Breed" rather than nature..

Manny.

Now i have your view on the stickers, and you're not objecting to stickers on the bible as well i will go onto the judges ruling.

The state IS seperate from the church and and rightly so. The sticker was deemed as being unconstitutional because it pointed at a specific item and therefore the religious backing was implied. It is very Naive to think that just because the word religion wasn't on the sticker that it wasn't the backing behind it.
If parents wish their children to take just this item as being "questionable" because it counters theories in their faith then they have sole responsibility to raise the issue with their children...it is NOT the states job to do this.
You rightly agreed with the point that all material should be viewed objectively, but do you think it's the job of government to label everything so that we do?.

If parents wish to have religious theory taught to their children in school, there are plenty of religious schools to choose from.


I have seen the arguement that the constitution uses "freedom of religion" and not "freedom from religion"..... well if you wish one you have to accept the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manny

Anyone can put any sticker they choose on any book. It is the fact that a Federal Judge has ruled the opposite that brings my attention. If a state school is teaching a world religion course and they want a sticker on a bible reminding readers to contemplate independently on the contents; then go ahead. A court should not have say on such matters.

---

Here is the point....If a state school did teach religious subjects and put the sticker on those text books then the judge would have to make the same ruling he made in this particular case and have them removed. He is not making a ruling on beliefs or personal views.

Quote:

---

The "big bang theory" has misused the term "theory". it cannot be computed and hypothasized (sp?) like quantum mechanics can. I actually did not come across this until recently; being that state school has jackhammered the opposite in my head all the way from kindergarten books.

---

I don't understand this, why can't the big bang theory be hypothesised? Someone speculated that, because all large bodies of matter are known to be moving away at a rate related to their distance from us, (or at least redshift of distant quasars etc would make us believe so), this corresponds rather nicely to an expanding universe and in particular one which expanded from a single point/region. The bang hypothesis is backed up by, for example, the existence of constant background radiation, the detection of which won a couple of very flukey physics students the nobel prize a few decades ago. There are still discrepancies in the big bang theory, and indeed it's not the only theory for how the universe was formed, it is just the most likely ie the one that best fits the evidence.
Why (according to creationism) is the universe expanding? Surely god would create a steady state universe?

Basically:
What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong.

Can you honestly say that creationists will ever see any evidence that will make them admit that they are wrong? No, because its a belief thing, science is tacked on to make it look respectable.

Theres some more info on why creationism can't actually claim to be science (not disproving actual theories, but generally rubbishing the entire idea of basing science on a book and not on data we actually find in the real world)
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...scientific.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbarossa

meh... you can't discount diet from that argument, peoples diets are so much better than they were, hence they grow more..

However, evolution HAS been observed, in moths during the industrial revolution around Manchester :

source: http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounde.../EVpage07.html

---

That is micro-evolution, NOT macro-evolution. Moths that have different colored wings are still moths.

Any proven examples of macro-evolution you know of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I used to be a fish.

---

And you still drink like one!

Take me drunk, I'm home again.

/Hobbes escorts JP back to the lounge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

And you still drink like one!

---

it would need to be a salt water fish then, Unless the liquid is partaken in an osmosis fashion ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

it would need to be a salt water fish then, Unless the liquid is partaken in an osmosis fashion ;)

---

The "liquid" should be taken "shaken, not stirred".

http://www.thegoldenyears.org/roger_moore.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Thank you kindly, young Lady.

I lost me place for a moment their, back to the hoi poloi for me. Cant be talking with t'big nobs and showing meself up.

---

"Their" ? Their what?

"Hoi poloi" I'm sorry you have polio, Jonas Salk has let you down.

"Cant" Is this another attack on cats? You know, like a cat that can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Basically:
What distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory is that a scientific theory must be refutable in principle; a set of circumstances must potentially exist such that if observed it would logically prove the theory wrong.

Can you honestly say that creationists will ever see any evidence that will make them admit that they are wrong? No, because its a belief thing, science is tacked on to make it look respectable.

Theres some more info on why creationism can't actually claim to be science (not disproving actual theories, but generally rubbishing the entire idea of basing science on a book and not on data we actually find in the real world)
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...scientific.htm

---

well, as creationism can't be a science; evolution cannot either. The difference is, is that creationism is affrontly religious (due to some things you just have to believe happened) and macro evolution, or stellar evolution, (well all of them besides microevolution) is religion (for the same reason as creationism) masqurading as science and taking our public tax dollars to be taught.

though I surely don't care for every textbook to have a sticker, a Judge cannot rule against any such sticker; whether it be in a bible or textbook.

Here's the reason behind the hostility toward debasing macro evolution as fact. (which believe me, they are teaching it as such.)

honestly; There is no other theory to take it's place. The only other one is creationism.

but wait; that would mean that there's a God. uh oh, problem.

because if there's a god, then this is his earth, and he owns it, and then we might have to follow his rules.

No one likes following rules. So, the evolution religion stands to give people the freedom to live like they choose.

I must admit, this is loosely plagerized. I Just discovered the doctor that came to my college's website today, and his streaming debates there are pretty amazing; especially the 3 on 1 one.

debate downloads

Manny,

I am not sure that I really follow the idea that evolution (as a general concept rather than just simply "natural selection") is a mock religion. However, I do not doubt that there are those that simply disimiss religion by saying that science has got rid of all that - without knowing a thing about the science or the religion.

Having said that, I do not think the jump from intelligent design to one specific religious understanding is logical - which appears (at face value) to be what you are saying.

Most, if not all, religions have Creation myths, some have several :) ). There are also a lot of these myths, from the ancient Mayans to Hinduism. They all work on the same theme of intelligent (or sometimes not so intelligent) design. However, there the similarities end. Should all these Creation myths be taught? What specific right has one myth over another as a replacement to evolution - should we decide evolution fails to meet the criteria for a working scientific paradigm? To argue that, for example, the US falls into the Christian tradition and therefore should teach the Christian version is hardly scientific.

Nevertheless, the idea of intelligent design is worthy of inclusion in any discussion regarding origins.

As far as I am aware, a number of biologists who adhere to religious beliefs are quite comfortable with evolution as a means of Creation. Goo or Dust, is there really such a difference?