Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional

Post #1

Post by Nyril »

From CNN

Here's some highlights if you don't care to read the entire thing.
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.
"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.
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."
There you have it folks. As this was a specific question posed to the the forum, we now have a specific answer.

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #2

Post by juliod »

That's a remarkably cogent analysis by a judge. I'm truely suprised. I wonder how long before he is strung up.

DanZ

User avatar
hannahjoy
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Post #3

Post by hannahjoy »

There you have it folks. As this was a specific question posed to the the forum, we now have a specific answer.
To what question are you referring?
"Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"
- Philip P. Bliss, 1838-1876

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #4

Post by Nyril »

To what question are you referring?
We were specifically asked about the evolution disclaimer stickers.

User avatar
hannahjoy
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Post #5

Post by hannahjoy »

What about them? Where is this question posted? I can't find it, and therefore I can't understand your answer.
"Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"
- Philip P. Bliss, 1838-1876

nikolayevich
Scholar
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:51 pm
Location: Vancouver

Post #6

Post by nikolayevich »

Nyril wrote:
To what question are you referring?
We were specifically asked about the evolution disclaimer stickers.
When starting a new thread, even if the question has been asked of you elsewhere, please restate the question for debate. If it is simply a point you wish to make, please add it to the random ramblings section.

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #7

Post by Nyril »

Shoot. I thought I'd posted my response to this, I vaguely remember typing it. Perchance my browser goofed.

We were asked how we felt about the evolution disclaimer stickers in textbooks here.

According to that specific post, the last comment was Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 1:08 am. As it is presently January 18th, 2005, the age of the issue contributed to my choice to start a new thread.

Since that other thread was both several months old and turning into a flame war, I thought I'd move the discussion over here.

For debate: Do you agree with the judges choice?

User avatar
hannahjoy
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Post #8

Post by hannahjoy »

I don't get the judge's point - it's okay to call evolution a theory, but not to say it's a theory?
"Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"
- Philip P. Bliss, 1838-1876

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #9

Post by Nyril »

I don't get the judge's point - it's okay to call evolution a theory, but not to say it's a theory?
Because they were using theory in the common usage form. The type that means, "I've got a crazy guess which is possibly wrong", and not in the scientific sense. In the scientific sense we're using theory as in, "Theory of Gravity, Cell Theory, Theory of Relativity". In science, a theory is the highest state of recognition a hypothesis can attain short of "law" and laws are only issued in extremely general situations in which the variables are clearly defined. Such as in the ideal gas law, which treats the gas as an ideal gas (a gas that does not exist in this Universe).

Now, before we go charging off and ask how theory could possibly mean more then one thing, consider the word "charge". I've just used it in the previous sentence to mean speeding off, it can also be used to indicate electrical potential, or even in the context of spending money (charge it on a credit card). If I'm in charge, I'm the boss of things. I can also bring you up on charges for murder.

They were using the word wrong.

User avatar
hannahjoy
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:19 pm
Location: Greenville, SC

Post #10

Post by hannahjoy »

Of course I realize a word can have more than one meaning! Dictionaries are my old friends!
Is evolution a "theory" in the scientific sense or not?
If it is, then what's wrong with telling students that it is?
If it's not, then what is it, scientifically?
"Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!"
- Philip P. Bliss, 1838-1876

Post Reply