Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional

[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.

[Nyril]

Is evolution a "theory" in the scientific sense or not?

Yes.

If it is, then what's wrong with telling students that it is?

Because they weren't using the word in that way.

[bernee51]

[
Because they weren't using the word in that way.

As I understand it the stickers said...

"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 key words being "origin of living things". Evolutionart theory does not concern itsel wih abiogenesis, the origin of living things.

The stickers were inaccurate and misleading.

[hannahjoy]

So what would you prefer the stickers to say? Just leave off "regarding the origin of living things"?

[Nyril]

So what would you prefer the stickers to say? Just leave off "regarding the origin of living things"?

As far as I can tell, the stickers serve no useful function and should not be included on the textbook. Unless you're looking for something along the lines of:

"Evolution is not compatable with many religious beliefs. If your beliefs fall into this category, there's not much we can do about that."

[perfessor]

So what would you prefer the stickers to say? Just leave off "regarding the origin of living things"?

How about this:

"This textbook contains material on science. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

[Corvus]

So what would you prefer the stickers to say? Just leave off "regarding the origin of living things"?

I think the sticker stating that evolution is "just a theory, not a fact" is fallacious, as it suggests that evolution is "just a guess as to how things work and not proven". This, of course, isn't true, despite the amount of posts that are in this forum questioning the point. Evolution is as well established, and fundamental, as the theory of relativity or theory of gravity. As has been stated, a theory is what happens when a hypothesis becomes almost irrefutable. Laws, I understand, are short statements describing how things function.

I quite like perfessor's response, but I would say that the sticker should be placed on every science textbook in existence.

[hannahjoy]

If the textbook by itself gives the impression that evolution has been proven to be true, or that evolution is not questioned, then that is just as misleading as the disclaimer. Some kind of disclaimer is necessary.
Why not, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory which is generally accepted by scientists, but has not been proven to be fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Hannah Joy

[perfessor]

Why not, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory which is generally accepted by scientists, but has not been proven to be fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Hannah Joy

HannahJoy, you have hit upon a worthy compromise, and I feel that it would be a bit mean-sprited of me not to say, "It's a deal". It still leaves me feeling a little uneasy; maybe because I can't think of any important theory that has been "proven to be fact".

Think, for example, of gravity. Newton really nailed that one - his solutions were absolutely brilliant. And yet - not "fact". It seems that every time we reach a conclusion, it still leads to more questions. This is the value of learning science - Jose has pointed this out several times. It's not about fact, but about learning how to ask questions, hypothesize, and test rigorously.

If your version leads in that direction - well then, [whisper]it's a deal.[/whisper]

[gluadys]

If the textbook by itself gives the impression that evolution has been proven to be true, or that evolution is not questioned, then that is just as misleading as the disclaimer. Some kind of disclaimer is necessary.

Well, no science text book should suggest that about any science at all. Part of teaching science should be teaching the scientific method, which involves questioning everything, testing every hypothesis.

One of the problems with many science classes and textbooks is that they teach what scientists have concluded, but don't teach much on how scientists came to that conclusion. What is the evidence and reasoning behind the conclusion?

So students learn facts of chemistry, physics, biology, etc. but don't learn about how those facts were discovered. Sometimes even the teachers are hazy on the background!!! So the real need is for better teaching of all science, including biology.

And that is the major problem with the sticker. It singles out evolution as if the science of evolution were somehow different from the science of gravity or chemistry or meteorology. It is not. It uses the same sort of evidence, follows the same methods of examining evidence and forming hypotheses and testing their reliability. All scientific material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. Even more all material pertaining to history, politics, economics, sociology, etc. should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. Because these disciplines have far fewer means of testing and screening for error than science does.

The whole business of a school in all courses should be to teach students how to think critically, how to evaluate evidence, how to spot logical fallacies in arguments, how to use their senses and their minds. The subject matter is far less important than teaching these basic skills over and over again.

So why have a sticker on one textbook about one topic in that textbook saying this topic in particular is one where these skills should be applied?

Why not, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory which is generally accepted by scientists, but has not been proven to be fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Hannah Joy

Terrible! This implies that other theories have been proven to be fact. But no scientific theory has been proven to be fact. Theories are never facts. They are explanations of facts based on evidence. Theories are never 100% proven. Because we never know what evidence will turn up tomorrow to correct a misperception of today.

Singling out evolution in this way asserts a falsehood both about evolution (it's not as good a theory as others) and about other theories (they are fact, but evolution is not). Evolution is a very well supported theory. Scientifically, it stands on firmer ground than many other theories about which there is no controversy.

And I have already commented on the final sentence.

[otseng]

The key words being "origin of living things". Evolutionart theory does not concern itsel wih abiogenesis, the origin of living things.

Perhaps not to all, but some (evolutionists) do consider abiogenesis as part of the evolutionary theory. And I would dare say that almost all public high school biology textbooks use abiogenesis as the explanation for life origins.

Evolution is as well established, and fundamental, as the theory of relativity or theory of gravity.

Many parts of it can be considered to be true, but not all. Common descent has yet to demonstrate that it is on the level of the theory of gravity.

The whole business of a school in all courses should be to teach students how to think critically, how to evaluate evidence, how to spot logical fallacies in arguments, how to use their senses and their minds. The subject matter is far less important than teaching these basic skills over and over again.

I totally agree.

So why have a sticker on one textbook about one topic in that textbook saying this topic in particular is one where these skills should be applied?

I think putting stickers on textbooks is like ... putting a band-aid on the problem (not that I'm saying textbooks are a problem). The issues run deeper than what a sticker can address.