Judge rules evolution theory stickers unconstitutional

[Chris Cuilla]

Unsurprisingly a federal judge rules that suggesting kids think critically about the theory of evolution is unconsitutional:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/ev...ing/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144267,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6822028/

Oh well.

[BRussell]

I used to live in Cobb County. It was part of Newt Gingrich's district.

I thought this was funny:

[hardeeharhar]

yay swarthmore!

(that is all I got)

Edit: Oh wait, its just collin -- as far as I know he is a douche. More aptly: He failed to give students his advice in a timely or useful manner thus eroding their preparation for the Honors exams at Swarthmore. Granted said students took said crap until after the fact, but still...

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Unsurprisingly a federal judge rules that suggesting kids think critically about the theory of evolution is unconsitutional:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/ev...ing/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144267,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6822028/

Oh well.

The entire purpose of the ruling was that the legal system went out of its way to appease Christians on this issue. That is unconstitutional.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The entire purpose of the ruling was that the legal system went out of its way to appease Christians on this issue. That is unconstitutional.

So it is the reason the stickers were put on...not the content of them?

So much the better.

[groverat]

You contribute logic and insight with every one of these threads. They add a great deal.

Also, is there any particular reason you post in AO instead of the Politics forum?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The entire purpose of the ruling was that the legal system went out of its way to appease Christians on this issue. That is unconstitutional.

What sort of odd reasoning is this? The right no longer matters because of who might take advantage of it?

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
You contribute logic and insight with every one of these threads. They add a great deal.

Also, is there any particular reason you post in AO instead of the Politics forum?

Sorry...if it should be in PO maybe someone can move it. Didn't mean to violate any rules of posting.

[Aquatic]

BRussell that's not real. Right?

[groverat]

No, that is not real. At least I sincerely hope it is not.

It is not the sticker that was ruled un-Constitutional, it was the decision to put them in the book. The sticker places an extra-scientific burden on the theory of evolution and the motivation for this extra-scientific added burden is promotion of religious viewpoints, which the government is rightly forbidden from establishing.

That's why the Georgia judge ruled the way he did. And he was perfectly correct in doing so.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Aquatic
BRussell that's not real. Right?

The first one is the actual sticker in question. The rest are parodies of it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
It is not the sticker that was ruled un-Constitutional, it was the decision to put them in the book.

[ snip ]

That's why the Georgia judge ruled the way he did.

I'm not sure this is true. Here are a couple of statements from the Judge:

But the judge disagreed: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community."

And...

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.

These seem to be statements about the content of the stickers.

[groverat]

Yes, the content, which tells of the intent. The sticker promotes religious ideas. These things are tied together, but those who pretend that this is an outrage try to ignore the religious purpose of the sticker.

[Scott]

Of course I think the sticker is stupid but at the same time the judges ruling was rather flimsy.

"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."

"The school board has effectively improperly entangled itself with religion by appearing to take a position," Cooper wrote. "Therefore, the sticker must be removed from all of the textbooks into which it has been placed."

The sticker at face value does not mention religion and therefor cannot establish a religion. So there's not violation.

Evolution has broad applications. Some have been proven to be fact and others have yet to be proven. Often in teaching science you take something as a fact and reprove it to be true. It's a great way to learn the scientific principal.

I don't think we need judges rewriting text books. All of these issue should be settled in the body of governments closest to the people.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
No, that is not real. At least I sincerely hope it is not.

It is not the sticker that was ruled un-Constitutional, it was the decision to put them in the book. The sticker places an extra-scientific burden on the theory of evolution and the motivation for this extra-scientific added burden is promotion of religious viewpoints, which the government is rightly forbidden from establishing.

That's why the Georgia judge ruled the way he did. And he was perfectly correct in doing so.

Would you care to show how stating Evolution is a theory somehow "burdens" it?

If I put a sticker on you that said "Groverat-man" are you now burdened to prove what the sticker states?!?

Originally posted by groverat
Yes, the content, which tells of the intent. The sticker promotes religious ideas. These things are tied together, but those who pretend that this is an outrage try to ignore the religious purpose of the sticker.

How does the sticker promote a religious ideal? Nothing religious is mentioned. The purpose of the sticker is to remind students that people state evolution as fact when we don't even have a fully working theory of how it works.

Nick

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Scott

The sticker at face value does not mention religion and therefor cannot establish a religion. So there's not violation.

Evolution has broad applications. Some have been proven to be fact and others have yet to be proven. Often in teaching science you take something as a fact and reprove it to be true. It's a great way to learn the scientific principal.

I don't think we need judges rewriting text books. All of these issue should be settled in the body of governments closest to the people.

So judges should only care about 'face value' rather than actual impact and intent?

"Proven to be fact", "yet to be proven [as fact]", "take a fact and reprove it to be true"???? If it's such a "great way to learn the scientific principal" then why don't you (a man of science) appear to have any grasp of it at all.

Note: generally nitpicking about 'fact' and 'theory' and 'prove' is just that 'nitpicking' but since this entire debate revolves around the deliberate use of precise, esoteric terms in order to capitalise on their ambigous common meaning I don't feel it's out of place.

Which Judge rewrote which textbook? That's a soundbite in search of a reality that it matches.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
So judges should only care about 'face value' rather than actual impact and intent?

Now, this is where my problem starts. To an extent here we are discussing a freedom of expression/speech issue...and no where in the 1st amendment does it qualify this freedom based on the person's motives, intent or even the impact of the speech.

Now clearly freedom of speech is not absolute. There are restrictions (libel, slander, no shouting "fire!" in the crowded theater, etc.) However it seems that this wouldn't fit into those categories.

Mind you, I am not being naive or obtuse about the case...I understand the issues related to how the stickers came to be placed. But I am questions whether those issues are truly relevant here.

I suspect we haven't heard the last of this. There are (possibly) two more court levels to go...so we could get some different (judicial) opinions on it.

Oh, and finally...the theory vs. fact thing isn't just about semantics. Evolution, simply put, is NOT fact. There are certainly a collection of facts that may support the theory. But the idea itself is certainly not fact. Furthermore comparing the "theory" of evolution to, say, the "law" of gravity (as some have done) is patently unfair and incorrect. The law of gravity is a specific, narrow and testable proposition. The theory of evolution is a much broader "theory" that attempts to encompass some facts. There are certainly elements within the overall theory that are facts and could be considered laws...but the overall "theory" is a widely scoped one and unproven. And depending on what you mean by "evolution" it is arguably not falsifiable.

[dmz]

It is interesting that the judge basically said two things:

“By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,” U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.

1. evolution is the state-sanctioned "neutral" theory

2. the state will not tolerate any questioning of state-sanctioned views, or more importantly, will not tolerate even the appearance of "denigrating" the state-sanctioned view.

And we now have the same government stating:

assistant district attorney Charles Erlich characterized the Christians’ preaching and signs bearing biblical quotes as “hateful, disgusting, despicable words,” and as “fighting words."

what's not to like?

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
Would you care to show how stating Evolution is a theory somehow "burdens" it?

Look at joke stickers that BRussel posted. There's a damn good point there.

Despite the fact the 18th and 19th century scientists were fond of calling this and that the Law of This and the Law of That, it was, and is, all theory. Some of those so-called "Laws", such as Newton's "Law of Gravity" were less complete and accurate than the science that followed, such as Einstein's "Theory" of gravitation.

Where's the clamor to put stickers on physics text books saying that gravity is "just a theory"? That's an utterly true statement, so, by your convenient logic, there's no harm done, right? I'm sure somewhere you can find someone who doesn't even believe in gravity, so you might as well extend the sticker to mention that gravity is "controversial", so students should "keep an open mind". Telling student to "keep an open mind" is always a good thing, right?

Try this on for size: All of your students make mistakes from time to time, right? No one is perfect. An utterly true statement. So, how well do you think it would go over to pick on one or two students out of the whole classroom and make them wear signs around their necks that read:

"This student has been known to provide erroneous information and faulty analysis. Not everyone believes what he/she says. Anything he/she says should be considered carefully."

The "truth" of the stickers isn't the issue here. The value of telling students to think critically and keep an open mind isn't the issue here -- and you know it. It's the selective application of such warnings, clearly meant to single out and discredit evolution, not meant as good general advice. The clear intention of these stickers is to turn evolution into the kid with a stupid, embarrassing sign around his neck. You don't call that a "burden"?

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Furthermore comparing the "theory" of evolution to, say, the "law" of gravity (as some have done) is patently unfair and incorrect. The law of gravity is a specific, narrow and testable proposition.

Sigh.

You are aware, of course, that the "law" of gravity has been proved wrong, has been known to be incomplete for years (centuries?) and has been superceeded by more general "theories"?

Once again it comes down to the *fact* that you guys do not have a scooby doo about science. Furthermore, you are utterly ignorant about your state of ignorance and adamantly opposed to even considering the possibility that you are wrong.

[groverat]

trumptman:

Would you care to show how stating Evolution is a theory somehow "burdens" it?

The sticker is outside of the book's actual content, which removes its use of the word “theory” from the proper scientific context and moves it into the colloquial use of the word, which is different.

In a book full of theories (which is what a science book is), putting a sticker on the front associating a specific theory with the colloquial use places on it an extra-scientific burden in the student's mind.

How does the sticker promote a religious ideal? Nothing religious is mentioned. The purpose of the sticker is to remind students that people state evolution as fact when we don't even have a fully working theory of how it works.

I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid.

The only reason the sticker exists is to denigrate the theory of evolution in favor of a religious view. Since when do statements have to be explicit to have a message?
Further, do you honestly think these parents are all evolutionary science scholars who feel that the book misrepresents evolution? Honestly answer that please.

Here is the problem, and I would love for someone to tell me this statement is wrong in some way:
Parents are using either ignorance of science or religious evangelism as motivation to influence what is taught in science classrooms.

Do not be angry with this judge for seeing right through a transparent attempt at religious evangelism.


Chris Cuilla:

But I am questions whether those issues are truly relevant here.

Absolutely. We are talking about public schools, so this is of great importance.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Sigh.

You are aware, of course, that the "law" of gravity has been proved wrong, has been known to be incomplete for years (centuries?) and has been superceeded by more general "theories"?

I was using that as an example that has been offered to help bolster the argument for the "fact" of evolution. Wasn't really making a point about gravity itself. And...BTW...gravity, properly qualified, so far is not false.

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Once again it comes down to the *fact* that you guys do not have a scooby doo about science.

"You guys"?

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Furthermore, you are utterly ignorant about your state of ignorance and adamantly opposed to even considering the possibility that you are wrong.

I find it so humorous that this statement applies equally to those who espouse the evolutionary viewpoint as "fact"...as "proven"...as "unquestionable"...the lack of humility and intellectual (scientific?) skepticism in that position is astounding.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Now, this is where my problem starts. To an extent here we are discussing a freedom of expression/speech issue...and no where in the 1st amendment does it qualify this freedom based on the person's motives, intent or even the impact of the speech.

Now clearly freedom of speech is not absolute. There are restrictions (libel, slander, no shouting "fire!" in the crowded theater, etc.) However it seems that this wouldn't fit into those categories.

I've noticed that this is the way conservatives have decided to frame these issues. "Judge Roy has a free speech right to put the 10 commandments in the courthouse." Or "we have a First Amendment right to put x, y, z religious symbols in our schools." That is exactly the opposite of what is really going on. This sticker was a gov't action. The gov't does not have a "free speech right" to do anything - they are the ones who are prohibited from restricting it. The point of the establishment clause is to stop the gov't from endorsing religion so that citizens will be free to practice it in their own lives.

I admit the sticker is a closer call, on constitutional grounds anyway, than some of the others. Read the judge's ruling; this school board has a long history of outrageous attempts to teach creationism and keep evolution out. This is just another in their long line of fallback positions, and they're getting further and further away from their real goal as it gets slapped down. This sticker isn't as blatant and extreme as some of their other actions.

It reminds me of the "moment of silence" issue. That was the fallback position of those who wanted prayer in schools. It sounds innocuous enough - "what could be wrong with kids being quiet in school?" But the record showed that the intent was clearly to encourage organized prayer in school, and so the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional. I think this is similar - it sounds innocuous - "all we're doing is encouraging critical thinking" - but it's crystal clear that the gov't is singling out evolution as a theory non grata, and they're doing so because of religious pressure.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I was using that as an example that has been offered to help bolster the argument for the "fact" of evolution. Wasn't really making a point about gravity itself. And...BTW...gravity, properly qualified, so far is not false.

No. Gravity is a theory, just like evolution.

You are wrong.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
I've noticed that this is the way conservatives have decided to frame these issues. "Judge Roy has a free speech right to put the 10 commandments in the courthouse." Or "we have a First Amendment right to put x, y, z religious symbols in our schools."

I think this situation is less clear cut than the 10 commandments issue.

Originally posted by BRussell
That is exactly the opposite of what is really going on. This sticker was a gov't action. The gov't does not have a "free speech right" to do anything - they are the ones who are prohibited from restricting it. The point of the establishment clause is to stop the gov't from endorsing religion so that citizens will be free to practice it in their own lives.

This is a good point.

Originally posted by BRussell
I admit the sticker is a closer call, on constitutional grounds anyway, than some of the others. Read the judge's ruling;

Thanks for the link...I was trying to find that.

[dmz]

Originally posted by groverat
The only reason the sticker exists is to denigrate the theory of evolution in favor of a religious view. Since when do statements have to be explicit to have a message?

The government is now in the business of sanctioning official scientific positions. The judge ruled that since the intent was wrong, the exercise of an otherwise legal act, is illegal. The government has told those 2000 petition signers what they may or may not think before they will be allowed to participate on the school board. Decisions based on "correct" motivations will be permitted, but if your motivations are not "correct" you have no business in the school board's process.

The government, like Medieval Rome, is binding people's consciences.

And that is pure bullshit.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by trumptman
What sort of odd reasoning is this? The right no longer matters because of who might take advantage of it?

Nick

It gives political advantage to a religious group.

Secondly, political corruption is by definition giving advatages to individuals/groups through the political process. So yes, if the Right begins to give advantages to people who support it selectively then that is corruption and it is wrong. Politics is supposed to be for the good of all people, not just for those who support you.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Secondly, political corruption is by definition giving advatages to individuals/groups through the political process.

Isn't that what just happned to the evolution theorists?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dmz
The government is now in the business of sanctioning official scientific positions.

The way I see it, the government wanted to officially criticize a particular scientific position - with a warning sticker! - and this court said they couldn't. I can't believe you really want the government putting stickers on books it doesn't like.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
The way I see it, the government wanted to officially criticize a particular scientific position - with a warning sticker! - and this court said they couldn't. I can't believe you really want the government putting stickers on books it doesn't like.

Earlier groverat said: "I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid."

I think this statement should also apply to those who would suggest that the theory of evolution is really no different than the theory of gravity (for example). First the theory of evolution is a highly controversial idea. Second (and more importantly), it is reported as "fact" and as having been "proven". Perhaps this is why it is being singled out? Because it is being singled out among scientific theories as "fact" and "proven".

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Earlier groverat said: "I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid."

I think this statement should also apply to those who would suggest that the theory of evolution is really no different than the theory of gravity (for example). First the theory of evolution is a highly controversial idea. Second (and more importantly), it is reported as "fact" and as having been "proven". Perhaps this is why it is being singled out? Because it is being singled out among scientific theories as "fact" and "proven".

In my view, in order to take your position, you have to believe that there is a conspiracy among scientists, kind of like a faked moon landing but on an even greater scale, and that they are all pretending that biological evolution is valid when they secretly know it isn't. So therefore the Cobb County school board has to step in and assert the truth against this vast conspiracy.

It seems much more plausible to me that it simply is what it appears to be, but some religious people believe that it threatens their religious beliefs. The great irony in all this is that even the official positions of all of the Christian denominations that I've seen say it doesn't threaten them! These anti-evolution folks are not only up against science, but their own religions. Weird.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Isn't that what just happned to the evolution theorists?

Nope. For one the Judicial System should remain free from democratic (in this case the concept and not the party) politics (this is in accordance with the views of Reinquist etc on this issue). In most cases they are not elected so the judges have no direct (or even indirect) ties to the population. The group of elected school board members are responsible to the public in a direct sense and they gave political advantage to the christians who wanted this modification.

Secondly, I don't know why evolution theorist are being brought up. They weren't the ones who complained about the actions of the board. The parents of children complained that this action by the school board represented selected advantage to christians. The reason this was is unconstitutional is that it was a religious group that got the advantage. There is no religion that has evolution as a fundamental tenant.

[dmz]

Originally posted by BRussell
The way I see it, the government wanted to officially criticize a particular scientific position - with a warning sticker! - and this court said they couldn't. I can't believe you really want the government putting stickers on books it doesn't like.

This isn't the government, it is the descion of some 2000 people to direct (very minor directing) their children's education through participation in a local school board. This is not their governance acting, it is people coming together in a peaceful democratic process to make changes in the government. Their decsion was invalidated by the government at the final, Federal, level ONLY because their motivations were judged to be invalid --- motivations that are now officially forbidden to be used in the future. They are now second-class citizens, who may not paritcipate in Democracy at the school-board level.


They have bound the consciences of these people, and that is very disturbing.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
In my view, in order to take your position, you have to believe that there is a conspiracy among scientists, kind of like a faked moon landing but on an even greater scale, and that they are all pretending that biological evolution is valid when they secretly know it isn't. So therefore the Cobb County school board has to step in and assert the truth against this vast conspiracy.

It seems much more plausible to me that it simply is what it appears to be, but some religious people believe that it threatens their religious beliefs. The great irony in all this is that even the official positions of all of the Christian denominations that I've seen say it doesn't threaten them! These anti-evolution folks are not only up against science, but their own religions. Weird.

Well, I certainly don't the belief of some vast scientific "conspiracy"...but my point is really that evolution is commonly (and often virulently) spoken about as "fact" and with the assumption that it has been "proven"...much more so than other theories (at least from what I have seen).

It seems to be considered stupid to inject any skepticism (let alone humility) into the debate.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Earlier groverat said: "I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid."

I think this statement should also apply to those who would suggest that the theory of evolution is really no different than the theory of gravity (for example). First the theory of evolution is a highly controversial idea. Second (and more importantly), it is reported as "fact" and as having been "proven". Perhaps this is why it is being singled out? Because it is being singled out among scientific theories as "fact" and "proven".

Who presents evolution as fact/been proven?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Who presents evolution as fact/been proven?

Well, I am not currently in any science classes (long since out of school)...but I'ev seen it in these forums...and here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...&tid=103&tid=1

My assumption from the vast majority of postings I see is that someone is teaching these folks that there is really no reason to question evolution. It is fact. It has been proven. It's all over but the shouting.

Perhaps I am eroneously jumping to a conclusion there...but there are a LOT of people walking around that seem to be thinking this. Why is that? Are they stupid? Perhaps. Have they had this hammered into their heads without any critical skepticism encouraged/allowed? Possibly.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
This isn't the government, it is the descion of some 2000 people to direct (very minor directing) their children's education through participation in a local school board. This is not their governance acting, it is people coming together in a peaceful democratic process to make changes in the government. Their decsion was invalidated by the government at the final, Federal, level ONLY because their motivations were judged to be invalid --- motivations that are now officially forbidden to be used in the future. They are now second-class citizens, who may not paritcipate in Democracy at the school-board level.


They have bound the consciences of these people, and that is very disturbing.

No one said that they cannot participate in democracy. Their actions as a group through the school board counts as government.

Look at it this way: if the city council in Podunk, Alabama decided to put lables in all of the city-library copies of religious texts that stated that none of the information contained in this book has conclusive factual basis because some atheists propositioned the council -- your panties would be in a knot...

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, I am not currently in any science classes (long since out of school)...but I'ev seen it in these forums...and here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...&tid=103&tid=1

My assumption from the vast majority of postings I see is that someone is teaching these folks that there is really no reason to question evolution. It is fact. It has been proven. It's all over but the shouting.

Perhaps I am eroneously jumping to a conclusion there...but there are a LOT of people walking around that seem to be thinking this. Why is that? Are they stupid? Perhaps. Have they had this hammered into their heads without any critical skepticism encouraged/allowed? Possibly.

If we want to teach critical thinking, putting evolution up against creationism is hardly the way to do it (no where is it claimed in evolution that the truth is contained in a single text etc etc). Critical analysis of evolution would involve taking the theory as it was in say the 1920's and figuring out what it did not explain and show how that was fixed with added concepts etc.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think this statement should also apply to those who would suggest that the theory of evolution is really no different than the theory of gravity (for example). First the theory of evolution is a highly controversial idea.

No. It isn't 'controversial'. It makes perfect sense. It's the best explanation there is. The only people who claim it to be 'controversial' appear to be conservative Christians.

Tum te tum.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Look at it this way: if the city council in Podunk, Alabama decided to put lables in all of the city-library copies of religious texts that stated that none of the information contained in this book has conclusive factual basis

Well, if that were a true statement, it would be fine. But it isn't entirely true. I can only speak (a bit) about the Bible...not other religious documents/texts/books. But there are growing archeological discoveries that validate certain statements in the Bible. Clearly this doesn't "prove the Bible". I don't claim that. But it does challenge the statement "none of the information contained in this book has conclusive factual basis"

So if the sticker was worded differently...say something like:

"This is religious text and not a scientific book. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

That might be okay.

The problem, as I see it, is that science seems to have become the "final word" on all truth and is not to be questioned. This seems like a decidedly non-intellectual and non-scientific attitude.