It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Evolution Is A Theory Not A Fact Stickers Must Be Removed From Georgia Textbooks

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:33 AM
Yes, but how are we to interpet the good book. It seems the religous pundits vassalate as to literal versus loose when it suits thier needs. Remember that even the devil can manipulate scriture to his own end.

As far as a literal interpretation I can see why you would want to distance yourself as the bible is so full of inconsitencies and erros that i cannot blame you.

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:38 AM
When a given planet passes into a zone of higher energy density, the underlying spiral waves become more complex, and the DNA structures thereby become more highly evolved. One of the discoverers of the DNA molecule has published a remarkable study that suggests that most of the visible dust in the galaxy has all the same qualities that we would expect from bacteria, showing this energetic DNA formation in effect throughout the Galaxy.

- Dangerously high amounts of this energy, far more than what is used for healing work, can be sent through one organism and transfer the DNA qualities of that creature to another organism, causing a physical transformation / mutation. Dr. Yu. V. Tszyan Kanchzen was able to use this process to cause a hen to begin mutating into a duck, which included the appearance of webbing between the hen’s normally naked toes.

- Dr. Kanchzen’s discovery provides effective proof that the spiraling torsion waves are the true hidden architects of the DNA molecule, and that these templates can be energetically altered within a single lifetime. Despite ethical objections, these experiments could be repeated relatively easily, if desired.

- Species evolution, both physically and in terms of consciousness, automatically results when we pass from one level of aetheric density to another. We already have a great historical record that shows when and how this has happened before, where in a remarkably short time the indigenous creatures of Earth disappear and more highly-evolved forms take their place –

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 01:24 AM
Science is based on evidence and testable theories.

Evolution is based generational propogation of life. [flies do not come spontaneously from rotting meat, they come from eggs laid by adult flies, etc.] Each sexually reproduced generation varies some from the previous generation.

The genes from one species can be transplanted in another species to create a previously unknown trait in a species. In fact the search for this inheritance mechanism is how DNA/RNA was discovered, and now we actively use it.

Given a sufficient amount of time this seems like a very plausible explanation for the development of the variety of species we now see and the variety of the past [fossil records].

This is VERY strong circumstantial evidence supporting evolution.

Abracadabra, and playing with God's magic wand doesn't cut it.

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:38 AM
Slank, I could not have put it any better. Simply put, and to the point. However, I have a question to the creationists out there. How do you explain the factual errors and inconsistencies in Creation? As slank put it, this is not some Harry Potter book where a kid testing out a new wand said abrakadabra and poof the world was created.

How do you explain away the fossil record?
How do you explain the appendix
How do you explain carbon dating?

etc etc etc

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:31 AM
FredT says:

The bottom line is this: Evolution can be tested by science.

What? How? Everyone I've known has died before they reached 100 years of age, let alone the 100,000,000 or more years needed to verify evolutionary theory.

Taken literally, the book stickers state the truth. Evolution is a theory which is impossible for man to test scientifically.

By its very nature the theory of evolution is forever consigned to remain theory . . . forever! The THEORY of evolution helps us "explain" and make sense of some of what we observe in nature.

Does it establish how all things came into being? No. Does it prove there is no creator, no God, Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, Jesus, Satan, Angel Moroni, Ramtha? No! If you insist that it does, then you're a hopeless romantic, totally delusional, or schizophrenic. I suppose hopeless romantic and totally delusional are the same things.

Anyone who asserts that evolution is fact rather than theory is simply nuts and no more sane than those who hear voices emanating from power outlets and toasters.

[edit on 1/14/2005 by dubiousone]

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:35 AM
Really now, the voices comming from the socket tell me..... never mind.

Then explain to me the fossiled records showing species evolution?

How come there are fossils of dinosaurs but no adam and eve from the same period.

If the world and heaven was created by god in seven days and seven nights (or whatever term modern creationists quote) howcome carbon dating shows that the earth is much much older.

How about if I put a sticker in theology books saying that God is a conceptual theory and no proof exists that he/she/it is real? No, this was a political agenda put forth by a school board that no doubt was the concerted target of a religous takeover.

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:47 AM
FredT says:

How about if I put a sticker in theology books saying that God is a conceptual theory and no proof exists

OK with me. Spirituality is a personal experience. Your points have been posed ever since man achieved the ability to carbon date and began taking notice of the fossil record. Those points don't elevate evolution from theory to established fact any more than they disprove creationism. They are all currently unanswered and unanswerable questions. Whatever position you take on them is a matter of faith not science.

We all choose where to invest our faith. At some level within ouselves we know the truth. It has been distorted and contorted so much that it is hard to recognize. Yet it is there. You just have to quiet the noise in your head enough to take notice of what remains in the silence.

[edit on 1/14/2005 by dubiousone]

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:01 AM
There is plenty of evidence that evolution exists, but there is NO evidence of any gods existing.

There are some species of lizard that have evolved to become snake like, with only tiny remanants of legs left.

When two humans mate, a mix of their DNA is created. This is the evolution of humans, that is how it works in nature.

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:12 AM
We don't even have to look at lizards:

We have a vestigial tail. Some kids are born with it and out tailbone (get it) is what is left of it.

The appendix once served some purpose but is slowly being evolved out.

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:28 AM
Again the church and religion steps in and tries to repress the masses!!

thank god for Henry VIII!!!!


[edit on 14-1-2005 by spacemunkey]

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:46 AM
This thread is not about weather or not creationism or evolution is provable and if so how,

its about a court interpretating that a sticker on a book, which says that evolution is a theory, here it is

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

lets look it up,

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
1. 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.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

How exactly can the courts, let alone a kid that may be unaware of creationism, infer that this comes from ANY source?
How does this basic (and true) statement infer god, a religious backing for the sticker, or anything OTHER than what is stated?
Do you really think kids will stop and debate this sticker like we are here?
or that they are even aware of its origins?

The courts have lost their perspective...While THEY might be hearing both sides of this case, how can a reasonable person, reading this sticker, infer that it

conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders
this according to Judge Cooper who also says,

, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,"
I think this judge has to let his brain continue to evolve.

Also lets note an attack against the general cultural values of the majority by the minority here,

The stickers were added after more than 2,000 parents complained that the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life, such as the biblical story of creation.

YET all these people were put down by,

Six parents and the American Civil Liberties Union then sued, contending the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state and unfairly singled out evolution from thousands of other scientific theories as suspect.
Arent ALL theories suspect as potentially being proved incorrect, or even correct for that matter? DUH!!!
This also makes the message, which i find VERY neutral in its verbage and untainted by any implications of "church", suddenly saying something it doesnt (textually) just because of where the idea came from!?! So because the messenger says something that is both truthful and without bias, it is now to be magically infered by a reader some unstated intent or linkage to religion?
This is the most incredibly STUPID thing ive heard in a while, that a reader of a text can somehow infer something not stated is akin to mind reading.

Lets keep it real people,
theory isnt fact, weather its generally accepted in science or not,
some theories have been proven false before, some true...
the ideal that there are other theories about the orgins of life should NOT be hidden for any theory for any reason...doing so doesnt deny ignorance
it promotes it.

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:50 AM
Come off it Caz, the entent of the sticker was to push creation science period. There were no other lofty goals other than pushing their religious agenda period. Of course they could not have come out and say it outright. If they or anybody else want to teach thier children mythical creation stories that is thier right and that is what Sunday school is for. Otherwise keep the stuff out of public schools

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:56 AM
So your telling me that the 2000 parents only protested out of a 'balanced' perspective. And that they had no creationism agenda at all??

If they could have got away with it they would have mentioned creationism on the sticker.

Ohh how I hate hypocrytical, bible spouting, 'force it down your throat' religious types!!


posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:56 AM
I also want to remind you Caz and the others in this thread that the Cobb Country School district aslo tried to get Intelligent Design creationism taught in its science classes.

A July, 2002, editorial in Scientific American magazine spotlights Cobb County's school board, not because of the excellence of our science programs but because it decided to import the mistakes of Alabama. It wrote stickers for science textbooks and now proposes that we teach Intelligent Design creationism in our science classes out of "fairness."
The board twists our natural sense of fairness upside down, while reducing our school's credibility.
Language is the primary tool of an educator. By choosing imprecise and antiscientific language, our school board has abandoned clarity and embraced confusion. Intelligent Design creationism teaches that evolution of species never occurred, and that scientific evidence proves that God performed a special creation for each species. But that cant be called science, because science can provide no information about God.

Hmmm no intent eh? :shk:

[edit on 1/14/05 by FredT]

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:04 AM

Originally posted by CazMedia
This thread is not about weather or not creationism or evolution is provable and if so how,its about a court interpretating that a sticker on a book, which says that evolution is a theory, here it is

Ah so easy to twist words now eh? Theory can mean different things to different people:

The problem with this is that the word “theory” means something very different to a scientist than to a layperson. Calling a scientific explanation a theory expresses the highest possible confidence that it is a correct explanation of a set of facts and laws. To be awarded the title of theory, a scientific explanation must have undergone decades of rigorous experimentation and must not be in conflict with independent observations from other areas of science. A theory must be based on natural, not supernatural phenomena (one reason why creationism and intelligent design theory are not considered scientific theories). A scientific theory is thus quite different from a hunch about which lottery numbers will come up or which horse will win at the track.

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:03 AM
Please, tell me honestly that by reading the sticker, ANYONE can infer a motive behind it, or whom it came from...
If so, what motive can be infered from reading the stickers text?
Whom could have written such a thing?
lets assume ANY motive we want...but that cant be supported by the text.
lets dream up ANY group we think could have penned this, yet the text would offer NO clues to the authors.

While indeed the citizens that origonally got the sticker put on the books have a motive,
others with a motive oppose it,
the fact is that this is a true statement, as well as one that is vauge enough to not imply motive or church in any way!!!

now for the judge to say the text in question implied what i quoted the judge as saying seems insane.

Yes there is the behind the scenes issues involved in who is trying to say/teach what...
but again, how does pointing out that there is a theory that martians planted humans here, or god, or that we evolved from apes, or any other ideas of how this came into being, let alone NOT STATE ANY OTHER IDEA is a problem...certantly closing the door to other theories absolutly negates even discussing them as being more or less credible than others. It denies the truth that other theories exist, as well as hides them for review.
How does this censorship of information that other theories are out there (not teaching the other theories in depth but the basic idea of them) contribute to denial of ignorance.

Why would an apparent majority of citizens not be able to demand their community standards include other information than a smaller group desires to let be known?

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:15 AM
But the story is'nt about just reading the sticker is it?? It's about the motive's behind it and the people who want to place the stickers in the book.

How is creationism a theory?? does it have any hard scientific fact to back it up other than what someone wrote in the bible, that heard it from a friend of an uncle, who's mum knew a man, that once knew a soldier, that maybe lived near a man who knew........

Why would an apparent majority of citizens not be able to demand their community standards include other information than a smaller group desires to let be known?

...because this is a science book, based on scientific principles and facts, not hearsay.


posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:16 AM

Intent is enough. How would it be anydifferent if the enlightened posse in Cobb County decided to put in a sticker that the Hoalucaust was just a theory about what happened to the Jews in WWII. Its endless.

Yes yes the words wer vague, however, it was enough to cast doubt on evolution and Intent is everythink. If you want to resort to the 18th and 19th century to educate your kids that is you perogative, but it does not belong in public schools period.

Nor is this anything new. Thank god the courts at least have a barest understanding of the separation of church and state and have shot down the attemopts by religous groups to subscribe to their untested crackpot diatribe on creation science. :shk:

Some relevant cases:

In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution.

In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion.

In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science.

. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act". This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science".

In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum.

In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes.

In 1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking".

In 2000, District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]). High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution. The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution.
Not a Science

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Come on! Get real! If man evolved from Monkeys or apes to be exact as "evolution" would have us believe, then, WHY ARE THERE STILL APES AROUND?


Why are there still fish around? Why are there still single cell organisms? Why isn't every living cell only a cell? Evolution is not metamorphosis.

Originally posted by Johannmon

Originally posted by Damned

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.

The mechanism of micro-evolution has never been shown to apply to macro-evolution even when significant effort and intelligence is applied to attempt to make it happen. Science has been attempting through a variety of methods to create new species from the DNA of other species but has yet to succeed in creating even a single new species. Now any number of subspecies can be created from an original sample, this is micro-evolution. Even it has its limitations since it has yet to be observed where new genetic material has ever been added to the species evolved. Instead what happens in Micro-evolution is that there is a reshuffling of the genetic material present and its order causing abnormalities to appear in the code. At no time however has that code been shown to have taken on greater complexity than the orginal copy. That increase in complexity is what is necessary to prove that a lizard can become an alligator. There needs to be demostrated a mechanism by which the genetic code can become more complex and not just reshuffled.

Until such a mechanism is discovered and tested the theory of Evolution, which relies on macro-evolution, is just that, a THEORY, and an unsubstantiated one at that.

That's because it takes millions of years. We'll never be able to witness it. However, there are fossils that would suggest it is true. No, they're not proof positive, but why wouldn't all life on Earth be related? It had to start somewhere. We definitely know that all known species were not always here. Where did they come from? We also know that some species no longer exist. If you don't believe in the big invisible friend in the sky (which is merely a null hypothesis), there is no other scientific theory to explain this.

There is proof of actual changes in DNA, due to climate/condition changes.

Whale fossils also show evidence.

There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution.

But, I really don't see why believers of creationism have such a problem with evolution. They don't seem to have any problem attributing everything else to "god," so why not evolution? They even go as far as to say that 7 days doesn't really mean 7 days.
Couldn't they just as easily convince themselves that "god" is behind evolution? I guess that just doesn't fit the "Presto - you've been created!" magical fairy tale. How one can believe it's more plausible to be created from nothing, by some entity that never needed a creator, is beyond me.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Please, tell me honestly that by reading the sticker, ANYONE can infer a motive behind it, or whom it came from...
If so, what motive can be infered from reading the stickers text?
Whom could have written such a thing?
lets assume ANY motive we want...but that cant be supported by the text.
lets dream up ANY group we think could have penned this, yet the text would offer NO clues to the authors.

It was immediately obvious to me who would have done such a thing, and what their agenda is. It's obviously an attempt to discredit evolution science, in defense of the bible. It's well known that religious fundamentalists will go through great lengths to discredit evolution, especially in the bible belt. Anyone who has lived in the south knows this. You'd have to be pretty ignorant not to see the intent. The message is practically the same as those jesus fish eating the Darwin fish car emblems.
If I saw a bumper sticker that said, "Evolution is only a theory," I'd immediately know that the driver of the car is a believer in creationism, and is anti-evolution. Do a google search on evolution, and you will find many religious anti-evolution websites. In fact, any article that says anything against evolution is most commonly written by these religious fundamentalists.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Damned]

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:11 AM
This isnt about weather or not church and state are being mingled
its about speaking the truth.

Look at what the sticker says,

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Now tell us, is this a true or false statement?

If you can try to explain how this is a false statement.
if this statement, reguardless of who said it or why, is true,
What is the problem with who is speaking this truth or why they say it?

Isnt speaking the truth, the truth, reguardless of the messengers intent or reasons for saying it? The truth doesnt change because of the reason for uttering it, or the method of delivery of said message.

Ever hear the old saying "the truth hurts."? I personally find this as true...why lie when the truth will serve your purposes FAR more than something someone can brush aside as "oh thats false".

If NO other information is provided on the sticker about intent of the message, or the sender of the message, how is it reasonable or logical for a reasonable person to GUESS at them?

How can a judge impose this assumption onto the citizens, basically assuming the citizens assumptions when they read this sticker?
Its ridiculous to assume anothers assumption and the law is no place for such ambiguities, which is why i think the ruling is way off base, and it shows political/religious BIAS by the ruling judge involved.

FredT says,

Yes yes the words were vague, however, it was enough to cast doubt on evolution and Intent is everything.
I laugh at how you miss the point that your own words speak!!

it was enough to cast doubt on evolution
As evolution is a THEORY, there is already doubt cast upon it or it would be called FACT!!!
Do you understand the differance between FACTS and THEORY?
As to intent, without superimposing the reasons the sticker was made or the opposition to it,
How do you determine intent from the truthful statement as it was stated?
Arent you really assuming to grasp at putting some kind of intent on the statement?

Isnt there a saying about assumptions too? I dont think i can speak it here because it uses "bad words" and id get a warn for doing so. (which is entirely another speech matter :wow

i asked,

Why would an apparent majority of citizens not be able to demand their community standards include other information than a smaller group desires to let be known?
To which Spacemunkey responds,

because this is a science book, based on scientific principles and facts, not hearsay.
The FACT is, despite scientific THEORY, millions of people believe, for whatever and varied reasons(different gods), that some form of creationism is the origin of life.
How is hiding this fact supposed to enlighten anyone?
Im not saying teach creationism, but i cant see why saying, as part of a science curriculum, that other theories exist on the subject.

This also doesnt adress the question i posed about a community holding its elected officials (school board members) accountable to the citizens they serve. Yes this means that some minority, somewhere is going to be on the "out" of the accepted cultural values, but whats new there.
study SOCIAL SCIENCES or the science of ANTHROPOLOGY, to understand why a community forms ideas like creationism, why they are important to a community, and why a community has a right to use democratic principals to define itself in such ways.
Had enough science yet?

There is no doubt that an agenda exists on both sides of this issue, but based on what the sticker actually says, trying to hide it/ban this statement, smacks of censorship both of word, thought and truth.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in