Originally Posted by midwinter
But we're not talking about singling some random thing out. This is a science textbook with lots of theories in it. Why is evolution singled out?
The only thing we can use the intent to determine is the hoped for final outcome. Since we have the final outcome, the sticker, the claimed intention relating to the wording on it cannot be in contradiction to the final outcome and be used.
You can have a bunch of dirty gardening tool in your truck. You can claim your intent was to work on your garden. I can claim the intent was to bury your wife after you murder her. When either some veggies grow or your wife turns up missing we can know which intention was correct. However after the fact I can't say, "See I knew you intended to build an airplane." That wouldn't make any sense. The intention can help affirm the final outcome, but it cannot contradict it and be a valid claimed intention.
The court in this instance, and yourself as well are pointing at these folks and making claims about their intent. You could be right or wrong. However the point is we already have the sticker with the language on it by which to judge the claims relating to intent. It does not support a claim of substituting evolution with creationism. There is nothing in the language of the sticker to even suggest that conclusion.
I've looked up some of the older articles now and it points out that some parents were not aware that the book called evolution a theory. Pointing this information out, taking any action to inform for any reason, as long as you are informing with the right information has no negative connotation. Perhaps it was simply a reaction against ignorant parents and an attempt to inform them so that the district didn't have to listen to their infernal carping. It doesn't mean the district is endorsing religion anymore than your university putting up a sign helping everyone find the administration building means they are damning the English and Psychology Departments.
Informing never equals endorsing. If you took that sticker and blew it up to billboard size and stuck it on every road in the nation it is still not a religious endorsement. It still does nothing more than make a true statement about evolution.
The reality is that the judge with his bias, did not like the thoughts certain parents and children would have related to those words and that is how he misapplied the Lemon test. His reasoning was that I would read that sticker and feel like a political/religious insider. You would read it and feel like an outsider and that you had to have a religious affiliation. The Lemon test requires that this be true of "reasonable" people.
Do you, as hopefully a reasonable person, read that sticker and feel like you had better get you some religion? Is the sticker, even if it singles out evolution contradicting anything the textbook would have said about evoltion?
Hey, I did some searching and now we can have some REAL fun. (Well my defintion of fun which is torture to most people. Getting into this discussion again made me do some reading on the case. It turns out it was appealed, and the appeals court vacated and sent back the decision. The PDF
is right here. I guess that wasn't reported on as widely.
Let the fun begin.