CNN.com – Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional – Jan 13, 2005 — There were stickers?? How lame.
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.
Constitutional or not, I think the stickers are just dumb… and I believe in creation!
There is a principle of Jesus: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” As I apply this to my life it’s: “Let science do science and let religion do religion.”
The two fields can actually be very helpful to each other. Science focuses on the facts and religion helps us with the meaning and moral implications of those facts. Science helps religion by grounding us in reality… for example they set us straight about tht flat earth thing!
Anyway, I don’t see a big contradiction between evolution and my faith.
I want to know how it’s unconstitutional. It doesn’t mention creationism on the sticker at all. It merely reinforces the notion — that it would seem is absent in the book — that evolution is a theory. And as well supported a theory as it might be, it is a theory. But for a judge to read so far into that as to say the sticker endorses religion? That’s pure judicial activism.
How is this sticker a violation of the separation of church and state? All it does is encourage studying, thinking, and analyzing. We can’t have THAT in schools these days, can we? How long have we heard that rote learning is bad? How long have we been told that students need to learn to question things, to think things through? That they shouldn’t accept anything whole cloth?
So what’s wrong with the sticker? I think this is another example of how those separationists are just going too far.
Of course, if the text books mentioned evolution as theory in any way, then it wouldn’t be necessary. Maybe it’s the text books that need to be better written. Or would those books then need to be banned by judges, too?
Wow. Way to go Judge from Atlanta Georia. Someone got it right.
Augie…Perhaps we should allow stickers that say “Gravity is a theory not a fact” or “Electricity is a theory not a fact”. The only purpose of the sticker was to create a foothold through which they could justify teaching creationism (oh, i’m sorry, “intelligent design”) as science.
It’s amazing to find someone (this judge) that doesn’t have his head firmly planted up his tookus. Doubly so, as N pointed out, that it is in Georgia.
Wow. What a waste of time from all sides. No wonder our educational and judicial systems are such a mess. The judge didn’t get it right- he never should have touched it.
I’m going to have to play Devil’s Advocate on this one and say that the judge is a moron for using the wrong definition of “theory” in his ruling.
A scientific theory isn’t a “hunch” or anything close to it… It’s any postulate that has not yet been proven to be true. Hence, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, etc.
Whether the sticker in question used the proper meaning of “theory” is a completely seperate issue, however. (In my opinion, it didn’t, but as I said, that’s irrelevant.)
the sticker was a STUPID idea, but, it is pathetic that a court had to decide that. It was a hysteria move…based on what? Some people who want to shout that they know it all, and banish all other thoughts?
Meanwhile the “proof” is a book of mythology dictated, written and translated repeatedly, a few hundreds of years ago….changed as needed to suit the moment, and altered by unknown parties……a loose “history” of sorts, that may-or-may-not have even existed when a “son of god” spoke. It’s a set of beliefs that worked for a set era, and was altered to work for the Crusades, an other interesting historical footnotes (like stealing land and murdering pagans)…..and, now it’s being interpreted to mean…what? And, why is it so “enlightened”, that it is to be followed blindly…no matter what, because some mortal men say so? These men want other men, women and children to discount other ideas……why? What is the insecurity all about? Shouldn’t it stand on it’s own merits…and not be shoved down our collective throats?
Creationism…intelligent or otherwise….what kind of THEORY is that?
Uh, Hank…put down the crack pipe. Any theory which includes the existence of one or more uber-beings is not science. Call it whatever you will, just don’t call it science. Thus having a sticker on a *science* book that says that “evolution is a theory not a fact” is
A: Ignoring the definition of a scientific theory. By that logic, there are no facts in science. Why study science at all if there are no facts?
B: Implying that there is actually a debate amongst scientists about *whether* evolution happened. There isn’t. The only debate *among scientists* is *how* it happened and *how quickly* it happened.
Hurrah….rah rah…for Thomas. I appreciate his posts!
I majored in Biology and Chemistry at the University of California. I consider myself agnostic. Don’t buy into the 7 day thing, don’t think animals appeared here instantly.
However, evolution is very much full of holes. So full of holes that I can see why people want it to be known that it is far from being declared a fact (as Carl Sagan had declared).
Evolution doesn’t explain how complicated, interdepent biological processes come about. Nowhere near…doesn’t come close. Blood clotting is a good example. Very delicate process. Very intricate and complex process. If it’s too sensitive your blood vessels risk plugging up and you die. If it’s not responsive, a tiny scratch can have you bleed to death.
Evolution speaks of slow, gradual changes. You can’t build a complicated, interelated, irreducibly complex system from slow gradual change.
Evolution can’t explain the Cambrian explosion of bio-diversity, where almost instantly (in evolutionary terms) 40 or so phyla are created. No way in hell. It can’t explain the origin of protein synthesis and–more importantly–DNA, and how with it you can store all of the genetic information of all present and past species of plant and animal, and all the recorded information man has produced and have it all fit in one teaspoon.
Evolution does explain gradual and micro changes, and I have no problem with it as far as it goes. You can use it to describe how modifications could come about from a basic design, but it does not explain how the basic design came about in the first place. And it absolutely does not explain how life came from soup.
Here’s a thought: take a few trillion or so single celled animals and run ’em through a Waring blender so they’re all dead and all you have is the guts. Now you have the ultimate primordial soup….chuck full of actual biological components, not precursors. Do anything you want with it for any length of time. Guess what? You don’t end up with life. You may get a couple of new protein chains, but that’s about it. Not a single goddamn amoeba. Evolution at it’s best can not explain life. Think about it.
So there is a lot that evolution falls short of. You don’t have to be a crack head to see that at the minimum it should have it’s major flaws also pointed out in our educatonal institutions. Flaws (which I’m willing to bet heavily on) that many pro-evolutonists here hadn’t really known about. I’ve had eight years of biology from 8th grade through college…and those egregious flaws were never emphasized nor pointed out.
Hence those “stupid” stickers.
Rhetorical question day!
Why do people complain about a judge making a decison, when it is other people who brought the case before the judge?
Why do people condemn or applaud a judge’s decision, without any reference to testimony and/or evidence in the case?
Why does a Science textbook need a sticker to remind students to evaluate any information presented in the book? Do the Math books have warning stickers about the theories presented? Do the Civics books have warning stickers with regard to economic or political theories?
Why do holes in a scientific theory cause some to consider magic (creator, maker, designer) as an alternative – rather than developing a scientific theory to fill the holes?
If they were allowed to keep the stickers on the books the Bible would need to carry a disclaimer.
“The events described in this book may be regarded as fiction”
This is the problem with the lobby groups of today, a minority of people can whip up a storm and push their agenda onto the majority.
Don, you are wrong my friend. Go to TalkOrigins.com. There they provide answers to all of your questions including your pre-Cambrian “problem”. Further, all of your arguments discuss *how* evolution happened and *how quickly* it might have happened. There are no real scientists that deny that it did happen.
Like I said, if a sticker that says that “Evolution is a theory not a fact” is ok, then why not allow stickers that say “Gravity is a theory not a fact” or “Electricity is a theory not a fact”?
I believe in evolution… but one doesn’t have to be on crack to see that some very smart, well educated people believe in creation.
If you mock the creationists, it is no wonder you don’t understand the phenomenon and why so many BILLIONS of people in the world believe it — and they aren’t all poorly educated crack heads. I’ll guess that creationists outnumber “godless” evolutionists by a wide margin.
The basic logic of creationism is primal and common sense:
If you park a Boeing 747 before me and ask… “evolved or created”?
Me and any logical person would answer “created.”
Why? Because it shows intelligence in it’s complexity.
Well — to many of us — the world shows obvious signs of intelligent design.
This not because we’re dumb or on drugs. It’s because we look at the eye of a human and the eye of an eagle and say… “Amazing! How could these have evolved so perfectly without any intelligent design.”
So, as for me, I’ve latched on to the hybrid theology that allows for a God but that evolution was the mechanism for creation.
You can mock me but it’s what I believe.
I’m not a scientist but I’ve gone to some good (secular) schools. I discussed it with some of my science professors who treated the theory of intelligent design with much less arrogance than you guys are.
One, I suspect, even believed it but it was too “un-PC” for him to come out publically as a creationist. This guy, a geologist, had the whole published PH.D. tenured professor thing goin’ on.
I remember my science teacher in high school grumbling that he had to fill out a report on any new textbook he wanted to order for next year’s class. One of the qualifications for the book was a blend of ethnicities of the people pictured in the book. Didn’t matter how good the book was — if there wasn’t a rainbow inside it, it was toast.
School textbooks have always been a tricky issue.
And you can argue until you’re blue in the face that the sticker is done by creationists looking for a foothold, but you’ve yet to explain to me how this is a violation of church and state. NOTHING on the sticker refers to another theory, to a religion, or to a deity. You can debate the merits of putting a sticker on the front of the book, if you like. But I’ve yet to be convinced that the sticker is unconstitutional.
No wonder people want school vouchers…
I mock creationists only when they think creationism is science. It isn’t. As long as they accept that creationism is a matter of faith, not science, and should not be taught as science, I’m ok. Remember, there were millions that believed that world was flat. There are millions that think we have been visited by space aliens. Science does not work on majority rule.
“The basic logic of creationism is primal and common sense: If you park a Boeing 747 before me and ask… “evolved or created”?
Ah, the failed complexity “logic.” Complexity, in and of itself is not evidence of a creator. Firstly, a Boeing 747, for example, was not created by one person (a common theme in theories about an intelligent designer). Thousands of people (perhaps millions) went into its development including the metallurgy of materials, the design of toilets, tissue paper, carpet not to mention the development of flight theory, wing design etc. Secondly, one could make an excellent case for the 747 evolving from simpler designs. In that case, it falls into a middle scenario not accounted for in your question. However, unlike creationism, we have extremely solid evidence to prove the existence of the designers. Lastly, no one has ever suggested that non-living material evolves. No one has ever suggested that rocks, for example, evolve.
“Amazing! How could these have evolved so perfectly without any intelligent design.”
What you are really showing is the failure of science education. It means you do not understand how science works and how it comes to conclusions. Your theory (that of the existence of an intelligent designer(s)), requires scientific evidence to be considered scientifically valid. It is this reason that intelligent design theories fail apart. Because of this, intelligent design is not treated as science and should not be taught as science.
Yes, we should thank the gods and goddesses that all had a hand in the creative design…..since, all societies…going back to the eons all had some sort of “superior beings”…the ancient Celts, the Egyptians, the Mayan, Native Americans, Greeks, Romans, etc., etc…….
Why should we attribute “intelligent design” to ONE GOD. Seems silly, HE came in so late…by comparison, I’ll be HE didn’t have much of a hand in it at all.
I think Bibles should have the sticker “one god is just a theory”
Well… thanks for turning down the mocking tone.
This was my original point a long time ago… that science and religion can co-habitat nicely because they are two different disciplines.
But mocking the creationists and visa versa is not helpful.
– Hank
PS to Thomas — have they changed the scientific method since I went to college?
My example DOES fit the scientific method: observe (in this case … look at 747); formulate a hypothesis (“It was probably created”); and then seek out to prove/test that hypothesis.
Oh, I wanted to ask you another question… it’s an honest one.
How does (godless) evolution theory explain the origins of energy (or matter)?
When I get into debates with my “science guy” friends I often ask this question. I’m waiting for a suitable answer that doesn’t take a leap of faith similar to mine about God’s preexistence.
Do you have a better answer than “It just always was” or “It just happened”?
I’ve been asking the question for 20 years or so.
I have this theory that — at their very roots — both evolutionists and creationists are faith-based.
(I’m in the testing phase of this theory, BTW)
Hank
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, “Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium”, 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 – 1955)
—
That’s what I’m talkin’ about folks.
– Hank
An alternative version: observe a 747, along with a host of preceding aircraft. Formulate a hypothesis (“The design and development of the aircraft have evolved over time”) and then seek to prove the hypothesis.
“This was my original point a long time ago… that science and religion can co-habitat nicely because they are two different disciplines.”
Cohabitate as entirely different course subjects: sure. Both taught as science? Absolutely not.
RE: Energy
Unlike the world of religion, science has a place for “unknown.” We don’t know yet, the origin of the energy in the universe. There are however some ideas. That doesn’t mean we should jump off the deep end and chalk it up to Santa Claus.
“I have this theory that – at their very roots – both evolutionists and creationists are faith-based.”
I have a competing theory. Religion was devised by man as a mechanism to deal with the unknown. Needless to say, there is substantial supporting material
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you’re taking away from God; you don’t need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven’t figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don’t believe the laws will explain, such as consiousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don’t think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.
— Richard P. Feynman
I don’t have a problem with people that acknowledge a deity(s) and science. There is absolutely no problem teaching religious ideas in addition to science. Just don’t teach them as science.