Slashdot Log In
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:24 PM
from the separating-church-and-science dept.
from the separating-church-and-science dept.
An anonymous reader writes "MSNBC reports that a judge in Atlanta, GA has ruled that a sticker placed on all textbooks in Cobb County stating that 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact,' is unconstitutional, and ordered that all stickers be removed."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Thank God! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, all of these are pretty hard to refute, but if they're all true then evolution has to logically follow.
Re:Thank God! (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition, "monkeys turning into humans" is not evolution. For one, the theory is that humans evolved from apes. Apes aren't monkeys.
Second, the single theory that humans evolved from other primates is not the entirety of macroevolution, much less evolution. Throwing away tons of good science because you don't like the implication of a small portion is bad practice. Instead, try to excise that part in a reasonable fashion.
I've never read a biology textbook that didn't mention that the specific evolutionary paths mentioned therein were theoretical and subject to change. In the meantime, it's the job of the textbook authors to teach the prevailing scientific ideas.
By the way, macroevolution (speciation via evolution) has been observed in a number of cases. Those cases don't prove any other cases, but the process does occur.
Creationist? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Creationist? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that weren't enough, a look at the groups behind the disclaimers should remove all doubt of motive.
theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
For me this ruling depends on books contents (Score:5, Insightful)
If however the book glosses over all theories as fact then the sticker is innappropriate for singling out evolution and a more general sticker (or preferably a different text) would be appropriate.
If no such glossing over is done then the sticker is innappropriate.
Any science book however should teach that theories are there to be challenged by scientific means. Science's strength is that theories can be improved upon or replaced when a demonstrably better (not merely "alternate") theory eventuates.
Science should be proud of it's theories, proud that they represent accumulated knowledge and proud that science is honest enough to let them go if we get something better (not merely "alternate").
Dear Creationists (Score:5, Funny)
We'll put these stickers on our science textbooks when you put "God's existence is a theory, not a fact" on your bibles.
analogous != equivalent (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm doing no such thing. You're confusing analogy with equivalence.
My point is that Christianity (specifically, Creationistic Christianity) is going outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour by trying to intrude on other disciplines. If the converse were done to them and their bibles, hopefully they could see the error in their ways.
Unlikely, though. Christianity's biggest problem, as Joseph Campbell pointed out, was that for Christians it's more important to believe the existence of Jesus, Adam and Eve, Satan, etc. than it is to understand the meaningful significance behind them.
so, how is creationism taught anyways? (Score:5, Funny)
Student: Will this be on the test?
Teacher: Will what be on the test?
The Lemov Test (Score:5, Informative)
Since putting the sticker violated rules (2) and (3), it was deemed to be unconstitutional.
Re:The Lemov Test (Score:5, Insightful)
Removing the sticker also violates rule (2) and (3). How are you supposed to believe that the Great Pumpkin poofed the world into being atop the Giant Turtle with all the public schools forcing these scientific theories down your throat as absolute fact.
Only by stating the evolution (or creationism) is merely a strongly (weakly) supported scientific theory, are we Great Pumkin worshippers not inhibited in holding our silly beliefs, and thus entangling the schools into endorsing atheism or agnosticism.
PDF of complete decision (Score:5, Informative)
ICR - Institute for Creation Research (Score:5, Funny)
For those with brains and a spiritual center (Score:5, Interesting)
This was spot on for me, and since we're in the smart room right now with this article, I thought I'd share. It's a wonderful explanation of why critical thinkers can still have faith.
----------------
TOR NØRRETRANDERS
Science Writer; Consultant; Lecturer, Copenhagen; Author, The User Illusion
I believe in belief--or rather: I have faith in having faith. Yet, I am an atheist (or a "bright" as some would have it). How can that be?
It is important to have faith, but not necessarily in God. Faith is important far outside the realm of religion: having faith in other people, in oneself, in the world, in the existence of truth, justice and beauty. There is a continuum of faith, from the basic everyday trust in others to the grand devotion to divine entities.
Recent discoveries in behavioural sciences, such as experimental economics and game theory, shows that it is a common human attitude towards the world to have faith. It is vital in human interactions; and it is no coincidence that the importance of anchoring behaviour in riskful trust is stressed in worlds as far apart as Søren Kierkegaard's existentialist christianity and modern theories of bargaining behaviour in economic interactions. Both stress the importance of the inner, subjective conviction as the basis for actions, the feeling of an inner glow.
One could say that modern behavioral science is re-discovering the importance of faith that has been known to religions for a long time. And I would argue that this re-discovery shows us that the activity of having faith can be decoupled from the belief in divine entities.
So here is what I have faith in: We have a hand backing us, not as a divine foresight or control, but in the very simple and concrete sense that we are all survivors. We are all the result of a very long line of survivors who survived long enough to have offspring. Amoeba, rodents and mammals. We can therefore have confidence that we are experts in survival. We have a wisdom inside, inherited from millions of generations of animals and humans, a knowledge of how to go about life. That does not in any way imply foresight or planning ahead on our behalf. It only implies that we have a reason to trust out ability to deal with whatever challenges we meet. We have inherited such an ability.
Therefore, we can trust each other, ourselves and life itself. We have no guarantee or promises for eternal life, not at all. The enigma of death is still there, ineradicable.
But we a reason to have confidence in ourselves. The basic fact that we are still here--despite snakes, stupidity and nuclear weapons--gives us reason to have confidence in ourselves and each other, to trust others and to trust life. To have faith.
Because we are here, we have reason for having faith in having faith.
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Read it carefuly, actually it is -1 Creationism. They are ruling creationist's stickers unconstitutional, though wierdly enough part of me feels like it is also "-1 Free Speech".
-Em
Re: What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, when they put similar notices in Physics textbooks that gravity is a theory, not a proven fact, I'll stop complaining.
Re: What? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, science is a democracy now? I'm supposed to let the mouth-breathing, troglodytic masses who can't be bothered to learn what an allele is have a say in the science education in public schools? Why does the fact that a large portion of the world is too stupid / lazy / superstitious to learn about evolution matter to you?
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between evolution as a scientific theory and ID as a "We're a theory, too, really!" is that evolution derives from observation and application of the scientific method and will be changed as more data becomes available. ID, on the other hand, is derived from a book written with the advice of an invisible friend in the sky and will resist with all its might new data -- like observed evolution.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +
1 - 1 = 0, so logically it follows that:
(1 - 1) + (1 - 1) +
Removing the parentheses:
1 - 1 + 1 - 1 +
Adding new parentheses:
1 + ( -1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) +
Simplifying:
1 = 0
Thus, God can create the universe out of nothing.
QED
God could not be reached for comment.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Additionally (Score:5, Informative)
A quote I've seen attributed to Asimov:
'The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."'
Intelligent design/creationism are not falsifiable and do not belong in a science class. They belong in a class studying mythology and fairy tales.
2000 lawsuit-threatening parents (Score:5, Insightful)
They had a flaming bag of dogshit tossed on their doorstep, and they made a choice as to which foot to stomp with. If they'd decided to do nothing, they get sued. If they put the current sticker in, they get sued (albeit by a different group.) If they changed the wording to say something like "all religion is theory, as is evolution; decide for yourself" they'd get sued too. A better solution would have been to show the bitching parents the door, and remind them that they can always home-school the little hellions if the parents don't like the public school curriculum. At least then the school district could have stood up in the courtroom (for the inevitable lawsuit) and maintained that "we will not endorse religion; any of them." A lawsuit was pretty much inevitable. I don't think they chose the right one, though.
Re:"Creationist"? (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize "Electricity" is a theory right? The reason this was thrown out, was because it was a deliberate attempt to confuse school children by muddying the difference between the common usage of the word theory (aka. hunch) and the scientific: [reference.com]
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Is there a better way to teach scientific thinking to students than to emphasize "what you are learning is not final"?
In fact, no... but the basic tenant of science is to keep an open mind so why stress this about evolution? Also, as I stated, this was not designed to open students minds but merely to confuse them.
Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism (Score:5, Insightful)
Invisible magical blue-scaled lizard midgets. When anybody comes close to the edge, they will magically put them to sleep and run them to the opposite side of the disc in their secret network of extradimensional tunnels. once there, they reposition the person in exactly the same way they were, and wake them up.
Now, this is at least as convincing a theory as ID, with just as much evidence and falsifiability, and deserves all the same repsect and classroom time.