Georgia Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed

[5stringJeff]

Can there be any doubt that the Left wants to impose evolution as their state-endorsed theory, and squash all debate on the issue? The government is doing America's youth a disservice by not even allowing the mention of alternate theories of our origin.


-------------------
Ga. Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed
By DOUG GROSS, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

"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.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20050113/ap_on_re_us/evolution_stickers

 

[dmp]

Can there be any doubt that the Left wants to impose evolution as their state-endorsed theory, and squash all debate on the issue? The government is doing America's youth a disservice by not even allowing the mention of alternate theories of our origin.


-------------------
Ga. Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed
By DOUG GROSS, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

"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.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20050113/ap_on_re_us/evolution_stickers

That judge can suck a big fat one...gosh...how such blatantly STUPID ppl can attain such a position is beyond me.

 

[Hobbit]

How did this happen in GEORGIA? I'm writing my state representatives.

 

[Merlin]

On a related note, a school in Tn. allowed Muslim head scarves in their school. How did that happen?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...,0,3688861.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

 

[chagan]

On a related note, a school in Tn. allowed Muslim head scarves in their school. How did that happen?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...,0,3688861.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

Is that really a problem in you eyes? Do you not know that there are other religions other than your own? The article says that in this girls' religion she is supposed to wear a headscarf. What if your relgion told you to do that, wouldn't you take it up with the civil rights group?

 

[Hobbit]

Is that really a problem in you eyes? Do you not know that there are other religions other than your own? The article says that in this girls' religion she is supposed to wear a headscarf. What if your relgion told you to do that, wouldn't you take it up with the civil rights group?

You have a point. I'm with you on this one.

 

[Merlin]

Is that really a problem in you eyes? Do you not know that there are other religions other than your own? The article says that in this girls' religion she is supposed to wear a headscarf. What if your relgion told you to do that, wouldn't you take it up with the civil rights group?

Well, right now in this particular time in my life, it is the biggest problem that I have. I'm not really sure how many religions there are in this world, but it really gets to me when they let one religion in our schools and not another. Letting children wear Muslim head scarves promotes religion a lot more than a short Prayer at the start of the school day. Most religions has a "REQUIREMENT" to pray, but ask a civil rights group to take on that issue and see what kind of anti American response you get.

 

[Gem]

chagan,

I think that the problem many are having is that we are allowing young muslim girls to wear headscarves (which i feel they should be allowed to do), we allow them private space to pray, some schools require that the children take on Muslim names and learn to pray to Allah as a required course in Understanding Islam...and yet...

Teacher's and Teacher's Aides are fired for wearing crosses around their necks to school. Teacher's are threatened with suspension because they have a Bible on their desk for their own private reading. Catholic teachers are told they can't teach with ashes on their foreheads. Etc. Etc. etc.

Why is it ok for one religion to outwardly demonstrate their faith...and not another? If we are a secular society, and our public schools should be devoid of advertising or condoning religion in anyway...then shouldn't the headscarves, which are CERTAINLY as overt (if not more so) and blatant a religious item be removed within public buildings. They could be a distraction to the children! The head scarves could cause students to question their own religion! They could cause children to want to become Muslim just so they can wear head coverings! The head scarves could cause students to feel uncomfortable and intimidate thus creating a negative environment for their learning and self-esteem!!! (All of these and more have been used in similar forms as reasons to persecute Christianity in public)

I think that the problem is not headscarves in school, but rather headscarves in school, yarmulkes in school, prayer allowed in school, religious education in school, EXCEPT if that religion happens to be Christian.


P.S. To the original topic: There are many scientists, reputable, non-kook scientists, who will go to bat for the fact that Evolution is a theory with many holes. Evolution is a theory with lots of un-answered questions. Evolution is a theory that you do not have to believe completely, that you are permitted to be skeptical about in part or in full...and that we really just don't know yet...

How is it endorsing a religion to let children know that? To let children know that, "Hey! Some people, many, infact, disagree with this idea, at least to some extent..."

Seems to me that NOT teaching our children that Evolution is not a "sacred" (pun certaininly intended) idea is the bigger crime here. In this nation we are raising generations of automatons, swallowing all ideas because it is unpopular to believe otherwise...even when a wave of evidence suggests that we still have a lot to learn about these "well-known ideas." (Evolution, Global Warming, Second-Hand Smoke, Recycling, etc.)

 

[menewa]

I find it bizarre that a sticker is needed to "warn" students that evolution is a theory. Of course it is a theory. When one comes across evolution in any textbook it is described as the theory of evolution, just like Einstein's theory of relativity. There is a difference between a theory and and a law, such as the laws of thermodynamics. This is all laid out in introductory science textbooks. While theories are not 100 percent, bonafied facts, they are very powerful pieces of scientifc research that have ample support and have not yet been proven untrue.

Having a disclaimer sticker like this simply undermines a science teacher's duty to teach students the difference between theories and law.

However, creationism deserves no place in science textbooks because it is based on no scientific evidence or research. It is tradition, not science.

 

[Gem]

menewa,

you just hit upon EXACTLY why the sticker was placed on the book.

However, creationism deservce no place in science textbooks because it is based on no scientific evidence or research. It is tradition, not science.

A bit of research on your part will dig up numerous scientists who have written papers and studies on why creationism, in one form or another, has just as much scientific "proof" as evolutionism.

You state that one "theory" has merit...and then instantaneously state that another "theory" does not. It might show that you, like so many people, have not read any of the non-Christian studies on the evidence supporting the concept of creationism...

My public high school taught evolution and non-Christian biased creationism theories side by side...it was fascinating, and very eye opening.

To not teach our children that there are numerous scientists who disagree from what is commonly accepted is a travesty of education. Education should be about examining every side that has merit...both evolution and creationism have merit and should be studied to have a firm grasp on what we know and what is still unknown.

 

[menewa]

Gem,

Maybe there are some scientific studies on creationism I've not seen that are very convincing.

However, some of the few I've seen are completely unbelievable. For example, one stated that the Grand Canyon was created by the Biblical flood in a mere 40 days. Ideas like this don't deserve much merit when countered with geological data.

But, like I said, I'm probably ignorant to some of the creationism studies you spoke of. Can you supply a link?

 

[Gem]

Menewa,

I'll look for some links for you. I haven't looked into the idea since highschool...so I have no idea about the names of the studies we read or the scientists who offerred them....just that they are out there...and when you read them they certainly make you go, "hmm....." and they have nothing to do with the Grand Canyon being created by Biblical floods.

As I said, creationism can be taught as a theory without tying it to a specific religion, alongside evolution...isn't it better to have a point-counterpoint style of education...rather than a..."Heres Evolution...its just a theory...but its the only idea you are going to get and the only idea that we're really going to give you any sort of education in....but keep an open mind to the other ideas we aren't telling you about...cause its just a theory...that is widely accepted as fact."

 

[MissileMan]

Menewa,

I'll look for some links for you. I haven't looked into the idea since highschool...so I have no idea about the names of the studies we read or the scientists who offerred them....just that they are out there...and when you read them they certainly make you go, "hmm....." and they have nothing to do with the Grand Canyon being created by Biblical floods.

As I said, creationism can be taught as a theory without tying it to a specific religion, alongside evolution...isn't it better to have a point-counterpoint style of education...rather than a..."Heres Evolution...its just a theory...but its the only idea you are going to get and the only idea that we're really going to give you any sort of education in....but keep an open mind to the other ideas we aren't telling you about...cause its just a theory...that is widely accepted as fact."

I'm not going to allege that there's no possibility that we owe our existence to creationism or ID. Noone knows for sure, and we may never know. But, there is a significant difference between a scientific theory that has a mountain of verifiable evidence to support it, and a religious theory that has absolutely no verifiable evidence. And since different religions have their own versions of creationism, how would you propose we teach it?

 

[Gem]

Missile,

Sigh, I will never understand why teaching both sides of this debate would be good for students rather than bad is such a hard concept for people. Is it just that you have such a strong connection with Creationism and Christianity, or any religion for that matter, that you can't seperate it?

Evolution is a theory with a myriad of problems. It is heavily debated, and much is unknown about it...reputable scientists have done their lifes work on how Evolution as it is taught in todays public schools just doesn't make sense given the information we have today.

So do we give the youth of today this one version only...say, "hey...this is flawed and controversial and might not be the truth...but its the best we have and we certainly aren't going to give you anything else"...or do we say..."here..some people believe this...and here's their reasoning on why Evolution might not make sense (and likewise heres an Evolutionists opinion on why Creationism might not make sense)...and once we've gone over all of that you can pick which THEORY you think makes the most sense to you..."

Creationism can be taught outside the context of religion, its very simple..."Creationism is the idea that something created it...rather than it evolving from something else"...so whats the big problem with giving students both sides of this debate...rather than just one lop-sided view?

*As I said to Menewa, I will try to look for links...but its an errand day and I am in and out, so it might take me a bit...you could look too if you are committed to this conversation *

oh, and as a sidenote: I've seen where these conversations can go...so let me stave off any religious insults, demeaning comments (this isn't directed at menewa or missileman...but rather just any anonymous poster) by stating that I believe in the theory of evolution...and that while, born and raised Catholic, I haven't been to church in over 4 years (with the exception of weddings)...so anyone who thinks I am talking from some Christian Fundamentalist standpoint is mistaken.

 

[MissileMan]

Creationism can be taught outside the context of religion, its very simple..."Creationism is the idea that something created it...rather than it evolving from something else"...so whats the big problem with giving students both sides of this debate...rather than just one lop-sided view?

To my mind, creationism implies the presence of a creator (deity) and therefore, I don't see how it would be possible to teach it in a non-religious context. ID can be used as an argument for either the presence of a deity or the outside influence of an alien civilization. Are you advocating the addition of a disclaimer, much like the stickers, be added to the lesson plans that simply acknowledges the existence of the alternate theories of creationism and ID, or do you want actual class time allotted for the study of their principles? If it's the latter, what are you going to use for your source material?

 

[Merlin]

A lot of people, including myself, just teach our children and now grandchildren that the gov. lies about a lot of things and that evolution is an impossibility. The so called evidence of evolution that they have found is just the type of animal that was here at that particular time and died out naturally. Humans came about when God decided to make us. After all, a large percentage of the history books is a blatant lie, so why can't the theory of evolution be also?

 

[MissileMan]

A lot of people, including myself, just teach our children and now grandchildren that the gov. lies about a lot of things and that evolution is an impossibility. The so called evidence of evolution that they have found is just the type of animal that was here at that particular time and died out naturally. Humans came about when God decided to make us. After all, a large percentage of the history books is a blatant lie, so why can't the theory of evolution be also?

That's right! The amount of resource material, investigative techniques, and the scrutiny given to conjecture and anectdotal evidence is totally inferior to what they had a couple thousand years ago.

 

[onedomino]

Are there stickers on high school physics texts stating that Einstein's Relativity is a theory? Relativity explains scientific observations. Even though nuclear weapons and power plants are a reality, Relativity is only a theory that approximates the observed physical processes of the universe. In the future, there will be theories that better explain these processes. Analogously, bio-chemical Evolution explains certain scientific observations (e.g., the fossil record) without the need to interject a deity. Does this make the existence of God less likely? Clearly, it does not. There is no need for stickers. Does the theory of bio-chemical evolution threaten the literal interpretation of the Bible? Yes. However, if one feels compelled to take every word of the Bible as the literal truth, then discard the theory of bio-chemical evolution. But please consider this: your literal interpretation of the Bible, does not involve the right to place stickers on everyone’s text books.
-

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Are there stickers on high school physics texts stating that Einstein's Relativity is a theory? Relativity explains scientific observations. Even though nuclear weapons and power plants are a reality, Relativity is only a theory that approximates the observed physical processes of the universe. In the future, there will be theories that better explain these processes. Analogously, bio-chemical Evolution explains certain scientific observations (e.g., the fossil record) without the need to interject a deity. Does this make the existence of God less likely? Clearly, it does not. There is no need for stickers. Does the theory of bio-chemical evolution threaten the literal interpretation of the Bible? Yes. However, if one feels compelled to take every word of the Bible as the literal truth, then discard the theory of bio-chemical evolution. But please consider this: your literal interpretation of the Bible, does not involve the right to place stickers on everyone’s text books.
-

It is interesting to note that even Einstein (originally an agnostic) finally became a believer in God.

In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

 

[Gem]

MissileMan,

Why do you have to endorse a specific religion to say that some scientists believe that there is more evidence that something started life, rather than all lifeforms emerging from the primordial soup?

I think that perhaps your opinions on creationism are too heavily tied with Christianity, or other religions...and you are having trouble with the idea that it can be taught and studied and debated, without a relgion ever having to be mentioned at all.

If it is agreed upon that evolution is a theory...then to be intellectually honest with your students, other theories should be examined. People need to understand that they SHOULD be looking for all of the information, they SHOULD be questioning, debating, studying...otherwise we end up with a situation in which we find ourselves in often today...

examples?

- try telling an environmentalist that numerous reputable scientists believe that they have evidence that shows there is no conclusive evidence to support the theory of global warming as a grave threat to the world.

- try telling people who feel that Dr. Kinsey was a brilliant sex researcher who opened the eyes of the US that he was a sexual deviant who encouraged child molestation who frequently falsified his data to procure the results that he wanted to see and that most of his research had been proven to be demonstrably false.

- try telling someone who is profoundly secure in the knowledge that all life sprung from the big bang or the primordial soup that there are a myriad of problems with that idea, gaps and holes that have not been adequately explained by the theory of evolution.

Does questioning mean that we have to change our minds? No, not at all...but by not presenting all sides of a discussion, we are depriving our students of the valuable knowledge that it is ok to question, ok to disagree...and that often, there are two sides to a theory...both with merit and problems.