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.

[hannahjoy]

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.

What solution do you suggest then?

[bernee51]

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.

What solution do you suggest then?

Leave science (theories such as evolution, gravity, quantam mechanics et al) to the science teachers.

Leave religion (creationism) to priests and pastors.

[otseng]

Leave religion (creationism) to priests and pastors.

First you need to demonstrate that creationism is a religion.

[bernee51]

Leave religion (creationism) to priests and pastors.

First you need to demonstrate that creationism is a religion.

A very good point my friend.

You are correct, perhaps creationism in and of itself is not a religion but it is certainly a doctrine (as per dictionary.com definition) that is part and parcel of True Christianity (TM)

What is the original (only?) source of the christian creation theory?
What is the supposed word of god?
What is the basis of the christian religion?

Yep - the bible.

The remaining question - is it a religious or scientific text?

Seems to me to be pretty well religious, but YMMV.

[hannahjoy]

bernee51 wrote:

otseng wrote:
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.

hannahjoy wrote:
What solution do you suggest then?

Leave science (theories such as evolution, gravity, quantam mechanics et al) to the science teachers.

Leave religion (creationism) to priests and pastors.

I was actually addressing otseng, since he's the one who said the stickers didn't solve the problem.

Hannah Joy

[otseng]

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.

What solution do you suggest then?

Simply allow creationism to be taught in public schools and to allow a full discussion on creationism vs evolutionism in a classroom setting.

The remaining question - is it a religious or scientific text?

Seems to me to be pretty well religious, but YMMV.

I've created a thread to discuss this further - Teaching of creationism and its religous overtones.

[hannahjoy]

Simply allow creationism to be taught in public schools and to allow a full discussion on creationism vs evolutionism in a classroom setting.

Do you have any expectation of that happening?

[otseng]

Do you have any expectation of that happening?

Actually, I am hopeful. If it doesn't happen, at least I have tried to bring up the issue here in a public setting (this forum) and allowed discussions on it.

[Jose]

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.

What solution do you suggest then?

Simply allow creationism to be taught in public schools and to allow a full discussion on creationism vs evolutionism in a classroom setting.

Now that I think of it, I know several teachers who do bring up creation in their classrooms. There is no Official Law against it. What happens, though, is that it becomes clear that the origin of the creation hypothesis is the bible, and that there is no scientific way to test it. That is, it is a religious explanation, which, whether valid or not, cannot be addressed by the methods of science. Thus, we are somewhat forced to deal with issues that can be addressed by the methods of science--so, let's look at the data that the world gives to us, and see what explanations can be offered.

Indeed, the issues are deeper than stickers can address. Partly, this is because the stickers are wrong. They usually say that evolution is "just a theory" and that "not everyone accepts it." This is misleading, because the word "theory" indicates that evolution is so well tested and so robust that it has earned the highest status available in science--"theory." In conversational English, "theory" is often used to mean "guess," but that's not how it is used in science. This is somewhat akin to putting a sticker in the bible saying that "Jesus Christ" is just an expletive, because that's how the term is used in common speech.

Similarly, we could say that "not everyone accepts" the bible. Would this invalidate it? Would this make us teach alternate religions in church? Again, the stickers are misleading and inappropriate.

It makes the most sense to do as many teachers do, and on the first day of class, lay out the characteristics of different kinds of explanations. Then, sort the existing explanations into categories, based on the nature of the evidence and reasoning used to develop those explanations, and then--since it is science class--talk about the science.

Of course, we need to do a better job of teaching the science, and we need to teach evolution differently so that it makes sense...but that's another issue.

[otseng]

What happens, though, is that it becomes clear that the origin of the creation hypothesis is the bible, and that there is no scientific way to test it.

Yet, there is no way to test the Big Bang theory either. We have evidence for a Big Bang, but how can we test it? Anyways, I'll leave discussions on that in the Big Bang thread.

That is, it is a religious explanation, which, whether valid or not, cannot be addressed by the methods of science.

However, I would not classify my discussions on C vs E as "religious explanations". I would agree that my views correlate with a literal reading of the Bible. However, if I have never used the Bible as a source and have only used scientific principles, would my explanations be considered religious?

Thus, we are somewhat forced to deal with issues that can be addressed by the methods of science--so, let's look at the data that the world gives to us, and see what explanations can be offered.

I certainly agree.

Of course, we need to do a better job of teaching the science, and we need to teach evolution differently so that it makes sense...but that's another issue.

That's an interesting statement, "we need to teach evolution differently so that it makes sense". Are you implying that current methods of teaching evolution does not make sense? If so, what changes should occur to have it make sense?