It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Law, Evolution Science, and Junk Science
The test the Court used was set out by the Supreme Court in Lemon v Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602. In Lemon, the Court held that a government sponsored message such as the sticker in this case violates the establishment clause if it fails one of these three prongs:
1. It does not have a secular purpose.
2. It’s principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion.
3. It creates excessive entanglement with religion.[...]
The court did examine the social and historical background of the evolution creation conflicts routinely occurring in public schools. It also focused on the wording of the sticker itself “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.” This language taken directly from many religious creationist claims is essentially a “code phrase” routinely used by creationists opposed to evolution. Its use displays either a religious intent or a fundamental ignorance of science and the history surrounding the debate. The court did not find the school board members to be ignorant and noted the historically loaded connotation of the “evolution is a theory not a fact” phrase. As the court observed, The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief and this is exactly what the School Board appears to have done.
Although the governmental action is invalidated if any Lemon prong is violated, the court went on to hold that the school board had effectively entangled itself with religion by taking a position that agrees with and endorses fundamentalists and creationists but not necessarily all other religious beliefs.
the Court goes on to part 2: “[T]he effects prong asks whether the statement at issue in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion to an informed, reasonable observer.” (p. 31) The Court finds that the sticker violates this part because the history of religious hostility to evolution education, combined with the controversy that led up to the adoption of the sticker by the school board,
Originally posted by Johannmon
Originally posted by Nygdan
No, it is not protected. Religious Protection is ensured by seperation of church and state and the prevention of the establishment of religion, not by having a religious minority foist irrational beleifs on a scientific theory. This sticker soley exists to promote a religious agenda to denigrate evolutionary biology and is part of a larger well established plan to have creationism taught in public science classes. The judge presiding over the case did not need to ignore the context of the situation or the motives of the people presenting it.
You seem to understand only the establishment clause of the constitution but forget its partner the free exercise clause.
If you think there is to be a wall of separation I challenge you to find that verbage anywhere in the constitution or anywhere in the supporting documents of the constitution.
SO here you disagree with the judges decision when he stated that the text of the message was nuetral?
Show me where the sticker attacks science.
Maybe you feel it attacks science because you have made Evolution your God and hence to challenge the absolute validity of the theory offends your religious beliefs.
Well let me tell you something friend, there is not constitutional right to not be offended.
In addition the only singling out here is done by the textbook since it only presents the theory of evolution and not any of the other hypothesis that are available. You can't whine about being singled out if there are no other alternatives presented.
If other theories were presented then the verbage to be fair would have to include them as well but since no other alternatives are taught no other alternatives need be addressed by the sticker.
This is quite an ASSUMPTION, especially to make a legal ruling on.
Everyone understands what the sticker is about and why its only being applied to evolution texts.
Maybe we should have a sign hanging around your neck that says "I am a media consultant and NOT a journalist"
Can we hear a "thats what i was gonna say"?
It's plain that you haven't thought about anything I posted. You demonstrate no comprehension of it whatsoever. Your response is an emotional knee jerk reaction. That's OK. That's what dogmatic religionists do. It's your right!
Originally posted by dubiousone
This thread has gone on and on with no-one showing what the textbook itself says about evolution. Does it present evolution objectively or does it argue evolution as a theory of origins and, thus, as a substitute for the view that intelligent design better explains the origins of life on earth.
That's what the controversy is about.[q/uote]
The controversy is about religious groups putting political pressure on science.
So, what does the textbook itself say on the subject of evolution? Anyone have a copy handy?
That this has occurred and even that it can occur has never been demostrated experimentally.
Populations speciate and adapt to their environment. On the origin of life itself, there are theories, but nothing approaching consensus. Any bio text book that makes it seem like there is a concrete theory or even a good approximation, is fudging it.
This is not THEORY. It is BELIEF pure and simple.
Its not beleif, its theory. There is evidence to support the various abiogenesis theories. One doesn't need to 'beleive' any of them.
Those who BELIEVE in it harbor the HOPE that some day it will be proven experimentally,
People who accept well supported and unrefuted theories as probably being true aren't harbouring any 'hope'. Anyone that puts 'hope' in science has misunderstood it. Hell, they've probably been a victim of religious pressures that are put onto science. Better to teach the science, correctly, for what it is. Knowledge about the subject reveals that its no threat to faith.
But promoting the BELIEF that evolution as cosmology has been proven scientifically and who advocate that it be taught in schools are no different than those who promote religious education.
However those who advocate that science be taught in science classes are not promoting religion.
Both are a form of indoctrination
Actual rational scientific thought is the complete opposite of indoctrination. Teaching faith based beleifs like intelligent design or coddling the religious so that science is watered down into some namby pamby set of 'unproven beleifs' instead of well supported theories is where the indoctrination and irrational thinking comes in.
, i.e. teaching belief as fact to vulnerable members of society.
Teaching science as science overcomes the vulnerability that stickers like this promote.
In being taught evolution as THE "scientifically" endorsed explanation of the orgin of life, children are exposed to faulty logic and are conditioned to think irrationally.
How does evolution do this anymoreso than any other scientific theory? Why don't physics books have stickers proclaiming 'the big bang is just an idea, and one with a silly name'?
Why do advocates of "evolution" get so emotional when others point out the simple truth that the theory of evolution does not establish how life originated,
that the latter aspect of that very broad subject is a LEAP OF FAITH.
We on this thread don't know how the textbooks at issue present evolution.
Someone else on this thread complains that "The sticker advocates skepticism of evolution." So, what? In education a healthy skepticism is to be encouraged.
This is quite an ASSUMPTION, especially to make a legal ruling on.
OR explain how some 8th grader being handed this book WOULD be aware of what the sticker was about or that it was only on bio-textbooks....
Explain how a truthful statement can be denied because of historical backround involved with its being spoken
Originally posted by jupiter869
The sticker itself, in the first place was very badly written.