Evolution, Science And Education

[Traveler]

Let me begin by saying that I am and engineer and scientist. My education is in Mathematics and Physics. Currently I work in the Automation and Robotics industry. I believe that G-d is the creator and that the best and most accurate description of creation in layman terms is evolution. I know for a fact that evolution exist and is the method from which a zygote eventually becomes a human child at birth. Evolution is the process by which a child grows and becomes an adult and evolution is the process at work in that we call ageing.

Every person that was conceived by fertilization, developed in a womb and born of woman is created through evolution. I do not believe that G-d has changed his method of creation and I do not believe the scriptures support any such notion that G-d has modified his methods or ceased to be the creator. I believe the doctrine of creationism that excludes evolution is both junk science and junk religion. I believe that evolution should be taught in school as a fact of life.

As vehement as I am about evolution it is my opinion that the federal court judgment in Georgia is unconstitutional, dictatorial and totalitarian. It is proof that the United States is not a free country and that our republic democracy has failed and is being replaced by a government that caters to the desire of a totalitarian power hungry minority rather than a government based on democratic principles and the rule of law. Article X (ten) declares that powers that are not specifically granted to the federal government belong to the States. Education is a power not granted to the federal government under our national constitution and therefore is a power of the State. By the rule of law, what is to be taught in public schools is to be determined by the state that is empowered and authorized by that public – regardless of how stupid or brilliant the curriculum is, it is determined by the state and is under the jurisdiction of the state, state courts and elected state officials not ever by federal courts or federal bureaucrats exercising unconstitutional powers.

I will add one last observation. The method used by radical insurgents in overthrowing the inspired and enlightened government of the Nephits in the Book of Mormon was by corrupted judges issuing verdicts catering to a powerful minority contrary to the established rule of law. We are now observing and experiencing the beginnings of the same scourge of radical insurgent judges and others in the legal profession of law, destroying our freedoms by deliberate calculation. For people that would be free, the end never justifies the means because it is by the means of freedom (not by forcing any end) that the will of the people (their freedom) is respected and preserved. Can the will of the majority bring about ill effects in society? Without question it has in the past will again in the future - but not anywhere near the degree that government by the will of any minority, which always bring about the ills of totalitarianism.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Please give the legal citation for the case you are refering to.

[Amillia]

Traveler :

. We are now observing and experiencing the beginnings of the same scourge of radical insurgent judges and others in the legal profession of law, destroying our freedoms by deliberate calculation.

Me: We get all up in arms and war because of the physical insugence over in Iraq, but the real dangerous insurgence is as you have described here. These are silent, mostly unnoticed, and always accepted as it comes from authority.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 14 2005, 06:20 PM

Please give the legal citation for the case you are refering to.

In Georgia the state added to text books used in public school a sticker that said evolution is a theory. This last week a federal judge said the stickers must be removed.

I see this as a direct assult on freedom and rule by democracy. The stickers were placed by elected officials. They were removed by federal judges that are appointed. I do not think the federal judges should rule against the will of the people or when states have president (Article X). BTW the ruling by the judge compaired the sticker to "Hate speach".

The Traveler

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Traveler+Jan 15 2005, 10:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Jan 15 2005, 10:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 14 2005, 06:20 PM

Please give the legal citation for the case you are refering to.

In Georgia the state added to text books used in public school a sticker that said evolution is a theory. This last week a federal judge said the stickers must be removed.

I see this as a direct assult on freedom and rule by democracy. The stickers were placed by elected officials. They were removed by federal judges that are appointed. I do not think the federal judges should rule against the will of the people or when states have president (Article X). BTW the ruling by the judge compaired the sticker to "Hate speach".

The Traveler

How scary our public systems are becoming. So out of the people's control. I totally agree that little by little, behind the scenes, the wicked are ruling.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler+Jan 15 2005, 09:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Jan 15 2005, 09:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 14 2005, 06:20 PM

Please give the legal citation for the case you are refering to.

In Georgia the state added to text books used in public school a sticker that said evolution is a theory. This last week a federal judge said the stickers must be removed.

I see this as a direct assult on freedom and rule by democracy. The stickers were placed by elected officials. They were removed by federal judges that are appointed. I do not think the federal judges should rule against the will of the people or when states have president (Article X). BTW the ruling by the judge compaired the sticker to "Hate speach".

The Traveler

Do you know what a legal citation is? It is not what you gave me. It gives the title of the case and hopefully the publisher of the case, volume and page(s). Can you at least give me the title of the case eg. Smith v. Board of Education.

[Guest curvette]

If states could have complete autonomy over all public school related issues, we'd still have segregated schools in the deep south. Being the Republican that I am, I hate seeing the feds stick their noses into local issues, but sometimes it is necessary. To combat racism, and profound ignorance are two such instances.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 16 2005, 12:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 16 2005, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Traveler@Jan 15 2005, 09:30 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 14 2005, 06:20 PM

Please give the legal citation for the case you are refering to.

In Georgia the state added to text books used in public school a sticker that said evolution is a theory. This last week a federal judge said the stickers must be removed.

I see this as a direct assult on freedom and rule by democracy. The stickers were placed by elected officials. They were removed by federal judges that are appointed. I do not think the federal judges should rule against the will of the people or when states have president (Article X). BTW the ruling by the judge compaired the sticker to "Hate speach".

The Traveler

Do you know what a legal citation is? It is not what you gave me. It gives the title of the case and hopefully the publisher of the case, volume and page(s). Can you at least give me the title of the case eg. Smith v. Board of Education.

I've been looking for the citation for you, but none of the articles I've read mentioning the court case has given the citation.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Found the citation. Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District. The court's order is at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/documents/02cv2325ord.pdf

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette@Jan 17 2005, 09:20 PM

If states could have complete autonomy over all public school related issues, we'd still have segregated schools in the deep south. Being the Republican that I am, I hate seeing the feds stick their noses into local issues, but sometimes it is necessary. To combat racism, and profound ignorance are two such instances.

Jan 18 #4

I think you are right. I have just wondered why blacks don't leave the south and come up north where they are treated better.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by curvette@Jan 17 2005, 08:20 PM

If states could have complete autonomy over all public school related issues, we'd still have segregated schools in the deep south. Being the Republican that I am, I hate seeing the feds stick their noses into local issues, but sometimes it is necessary. To combat racism, and profound ignorance are two such instances.

I agree that these are important issues and that the federal government can very quickly right a wrong. But I am not sure that using the force of the federal government is the only way (or even the best way) to combat racism, and profound ignorance among a free and democratic people.

Although the federal government can act swiftly and can appear to create massive social change I am still opposed to the exercise of excessive and unnecessary power. For two reasons. First I have confidence in democracy and government for and of the people. Second I do not have confidence in other forms or methods of government.

There are many issues to which I feel impassioned. You and I have disagreed on one that I can think of but there is no single issue that I feel is more important that the will and voice of the majority – even when and if it is wrong. It is possible to educate the public and bring about change but once a minority is entrenched in power – even when they came by it justly – only a bloody revolution and the loss of many good and needed lives can right a ship listing or sinking with totalitarianism

The Traveler

[pushka]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 18 2005, 11:30 AM

Found the citation. Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District. The court's order is at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/documents/02cv2325ord.pdf

I read through this quite lengthy document and so can see now why the stickers were removed. I thought pages from 32 onward were most helpful in explaining the Court's decision.

I know this case wasn't as important as those concerning Blacks being allowed into previously segregated schools, however I agree that it was important. The stickers were placed onto the science books because of the feelings of the Christian parents, and Christian members of the School governing board. I am pleased that the school at least started to teach about evolution as it would be sad if many teenagers were denied this opportunity because of the narrow minded views of their parents.

As pointed out, no other school text books had stickers placed upon them, encouraging students to read the 'theories' contained in them with an 'open mind', it would be interesting to see religious text books containing the same message regarding it's 'theory' of how God created the earth...

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I thought the school's proposed alternative sticker was better worded (and I suspect the school board will go back and adopt it.) However, I disagree that the sticker comes anywhere close to the level of establishment of religion the Founders intended to prohibit.

The whole Lemon test is far too subjective and gives courts -- the least democratically-accountable branch of government -- far too much discretion in determining what counts as impermissible "establishment." It's essentially a Potter Stewart-style "I know it when I see it" standard, and needs to be replaced with something more concrete.

[pushka]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 18 2005, 03:43 PM

I thought the school's proposed alternative sticker was better worded (and I suspect the school board will go back and adopt it.) However, I disagree that the sticker comes anywhere close to the level of establishment of religion the Founders intended to prohibit.

The whole Lemon test is far too subjective and gives courts -- the least democratically-accountable branch of government -- far too much discretion in determining what counts as impermissible "establishment." It's essentially a Potter Stewart-style "I know it when I see it" standard, and needs to be replaced with something more concrete.

I agree that the alternative sticker wording was better...and if any sticker was to be used it should have been that one.

Can you explain 'Comes anywhere close to the level of establishment of religion that the Founders intended to prohibit.' for me please...I'm probably being a bit 'slow' but my understanding of why the sticker was banned was not because it was aiding the establishment of any religion/religious thought, but that the impression it would give to any 'informed, reasonable person' would be that it was supporting the views of the religious people that evolution was just a theory, and not a fact, and so was seen to be biased towards religion instead of remaining neutral, and making those who believe in evolution the 'outsiders' and those who believed in the Creationist theories...and other religious theories of where we came from, the 'insiders'. Hope I have remembered that correctly, I haven't got the link open at the moment.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 18 2005, 08:24 PM

Can you explain 'Comes anywhere close to the level of establishment of religion that the Founders intended to prohibit.' for me please...I'm probably being a bit 'slow' but my understanding of why the sticker was banned was not because it was aiding the establishment of any religion/religious thought, but that the impression it would give to any 'informed, reasonable person' would be that it was supporting the views of the religious people that evolution was just a theory, and not a fact, and so was seen to be biased towards religion instead of remaining neutral, and making those who believe in evolution the 'outsiders' and those who believed in the Creationist theories...and other religious theories of where we came from, the 'insiders'. Hope I have remembered that correctly, I haven't got the link open at the moment.

Sure. Courts aren't authorized to strike down laws or government acts just because they disagree with them. They can only do so if the law or act in question conflicts with a law with higher authority, usually the Constitution. The only authority the court had to mandate the removal of the sticker was that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The court's discussion of "insiders" and "outsiders" and what meaning a reasonable person would derive from the sticker is an application of a 1971 Supreme Court decision called Lemon v. W...can't remember the other name, which established a test for determining whether a government action is an impermissible establishment of religion. The test, as presently constituted, asks (1) whether the act has a primarily secular purpose, and (2) whether its primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion. That is, even if a law has a secular purpose, if in practice its main effect is to promote religion, it's still not kosher. (There used to be a third prong to the test -- whether the act promotes "excessive entanglement" between the government and religion -- but that prong was folded into the second "effect" prong by later decisions.

I believe the first Lemon prong should be the only one. There's just way too much wiggle room in the "primary effect" prong to allow a secular-minded judge (and aren't they all?) to classify laws based on his personal preferences. If a law has as its main reason for being a legitimate secular purpose, it is by definition not an establishment of religion. It certainly is nothing like the "establishment" the majority of the framers of the Constitution (the only possible exception being James Madison, Thomas Jefferson not being part of the Constitutional Convention) had in mind to prohibit when they drafted the First Amendment, namely, an established church on the model of the Church of England, with clergy appointed and supported by the state. I don't believe that any fair reading of the relevant legislative history can possibly support the present standard, which basically makes the public sphere a God-free zone.

If a democratic citizenry wanted to create such a public sphere scrubbed clean of reference to deity, that would be its business. I'd be annoyed, but would accept the decision of the majority. (A lesson the "counter-inaugural" protestors ought to take to heart, but that's another matter.) But for judges to impose a public secularism beyond that which the First Amendment requries goes beyond their authority.

[pushka]

Thank you PD...I must admit I do get confused by all the legal jargon/terminology...

I suppose when I first saw the original post, I thought, well, evolution is a theory...though I wondered whether the definition of it had been altered since to define it now as fact, based on scientific evidence.

I'm wondering, did the school board of Governors think of sending out a questionnaire to all parents of children at the school, asking them what their views would be if such a sticker was placed on science books teaching about evolution...and explaining its wording and the full reasons they were thinking of placing it on them? Perhaps if they had have done this, they would have got the views of the majority and could have followed those and avoided any legal problems?

I do think that it is sad that schools must tread over egg shells about what they teach regarding aspects of science, sex education etc. ( I went to a Catholic school and our sex.ed. teacher was carefully instructed regarding what she was allowed to say about the use of contraception, and was informed not to encourage the use of it due to our religious beliefs...however that was a Church School not a State school) in order not to offend any church goers in their community.

I think students should be taught a full programme of education, including those areas that are uncomfortable for people who belong to certainl faiths...however, as this school was attempting to do, should be taught in a way that is neutral.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Push -- Part of the problem with the sticker is that most people think the word "theory" has the same meaning as the word "hypothesis" -- which they think means "wild guess." A theory is more than that. Gravity is a "theory" -- a scientific explanation of why things are the way they are, supported by observations.

A good scientist is always open-minded that even long-established theories which are sufficient to explain most occurrences may be wrong in some of their details, with the inaccuracies only becoming apparent as our ability to measure things improves. (The classic example is the correction of Newtonian mechanics by the theory of relativity.) When someone says something is a "fact," he's essentially announcing that the debate is over -- which, according to the true scientific method, it never truly is. Theories may be generally accepted, and used in practical applications (i.e., if a theory is accurate or mostly so, you can use it to predict the behavior of matter or energy and use the theory to blow things up or create medicines), but they're always open to revision.

[pushka]

Thanks Pd...I see what you are getting at...what are your personal views regarding the labels being attached to the text books? Do you think that they should have been attached or not, considering that the school was supposed to be neutral as far as religious beliefs was concerned?

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 18 2005, 11:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 18 2005, 11:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 16 2005, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by -Traveler@Jan 15 2005, 09:30 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 14 2005, 06:20 PM

Please give the legal citation for the case you are refering to.

In Georgia the state added to text books used in public school a sticker that said evolution is a theory. This last week a federal judge said the stickers must be removed.

I see this as a direct assult on freedom and rule by democracy. The stickers were placed by elected officials. They were removed by federal judges that are appointed. I do not think the federal judges should rule against the will of the people or when states have president (Article X). BTW the ruling by the judge compaired the sticker to "Hate speach".

The Traveler

Do you know what a legal citation is? It is not what you gave me. It gives the title of the case and hopefully the publisher of the case, volume and page(s). Can you at least give me the title of the case eg. Smith v. Board of Education.

I've been looking for the citation for you, but none of the articles I've read mentioning the court case has given the citation.

PD--I just realized that it must be such a recent ruling that it has not been published yet.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 18 2005, 11:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 18 2005, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Jan 17 2005, 09:20 PM

If states could have complete autonomy over all public school related issues, we'd still have segregated schools in the deep south.  Being the Republican that I am, I hate seeing the feds stick their noses into local issues, but sometimes it is necessary.  To combat racism, and profound ignorance are two such instances.

Jan 18 #4

I think you are right. I have just wondered why blacks don't leave the south and come up north where they are treated better.

Economics and family ties probably play a big part.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal,

In an above post, I noted I'd found a link to the court's statement of decision (not yet published as an opinion). The cite is Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District. http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/documents/02cv2325ord.pdf

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 18 2005, 03:43 PM

I thought the school's proposed alternative sticker was better worded (and I suspect the school board will go back and adopt it.) However, I disagree that the sticker comes anywhere close to the level of establishment of religion the Founders intended to prohibit.

The whole Lemon test is far too subjective and gives courts -- the least democratically-accountable branch of government -- far too much discretion in determining what counts as impermissible "establishment." It's essentially a Potter Stewart-style "I know it when I see it" standard, and needs to be replaced with something more concrete.

The problem with "concrete" is that it tends to then become a narrow and restrictive definition to a problem that can take a myriad of forms. If you try to narrow the scope of what is "establishment" or O'Connor's "endorsement" test by making a specific or concrete set of parameters, a set of facts outside those parameters (like a sticker on a book) might prohibit the kind of finding the court made in this case.

At some point you have to chose between rules that limit the Court to the point of impotence, or you have to trust that the particular people picking and approving the Judges have justified confidence in their competence. No system is going to guarantee perfect results for an imperfect world.

In my opinion, on the issue of the teaching evolution vs creationism in science classes, the courts usually come down on the right side of the issue. Creationism is religion, and has no place in a science book. Evolution is science--has nothing to do with whether it is 100% correct, but it IS science.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 19 2005, 06:51 PM

Thanks Pd...I see what you are getting at...what are your personal views regarding the labels being attached to the text books? Do you think that they should have been attached or not, considering that the school was supposed to be neutral as far as religious beliefs was concerned?

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory."

I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists.

The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history.

I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[pushka]

Thanks PD...I would have voted against using the stickers too. I think the school should have just trusted in the intelligence of its students, and realised that those with opposing religious views would have had ample opportunity to discuss/debate these issues either with their families, at church or within Religious lessons...

[Guest curvette]

I almost always agree with everything Duck says, but I do disagree on one point. I think the stickers are very blatently creationist. They were specifically pointed at evolution, and didn't include other scientific "theories" such as: electricity, relativity, and thermodynamics. Since these things are theories, perhaps Georgia schools should put stickers on the light switches reminding them that, even though the lights turn on when the switch is flipped, it's still only a theory. The same with school lunch. It's "only" a theory that the food will cool off enough to become edible, so it's not safe to depend on it. The whole thing is so silly.