It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Then tell us spacemunkey, from reading the text of the sticker, how someones rights were violated?

How can you assume some religious intent (even if it exisits behind the true statement)
How does the text say this in any way?

How can you ASSUME this?
more importantly how can the impartial judge?

Do you think kids reading this would have ANY knowlege of the behind the scenes issues here?
Could they even GUESS at them with a hope of getting it right by reading the sticker?

This is about a bad judgment, not creationism vs science
or
religion vs state mingling...

Its about an open minded and open ended sentance that implies NONE of the things your trying to stick onto it,
AND
one where indeed the local people have spoken democratically and culturally to ask for INCLUSIVNESS of thought
not
Repression of ideas based on which criteria today?

You claim that society is open and free where public schools expouse things that are inclusive
yet
by segregating a true statement expousing nothing more than open minded thinking,
You repress both the message, the truth, and others rights to be included while NOT infringing too far upon others.

Bigotry, and tolorance, know no bounds.




posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
A few blog entries from knowledgable and involved persons on the matter of the Cobb County Stickers.


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.


Interesting case to say the least.

The Pandas Thumb Entry on it is also worth considering.


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,


Apparently the author of the entry wrote an amicus juris that was part of the case and that, at the very least, was helpful in establishing the context. The context one should keep in mind was critical to the decision. The amicus is apparently available here in pdf format. Haven't read it myself.

I have to admit that it certainly seems reasonable enough. Everyone understands what the sticker is about and why its only being applied to evolution texts.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

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.

How so?


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.

I am well aware that the constitution doesn't have the phrase 'seperation of church and state' in it.





SO here you disagree with the judges decision when he stated that the text of the message was nuetral?

The judge recognizes that the sticker is not neutral.


Show me where the sticker attacks science.

I have explained why its an attack on rational science. It focuses irrationally on biology, conflates the fact and theory of evolution for poltical purposes, and suggests that religious opinions are acceptable in science class rooms.

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.

Of course it does not. In fact I don't know anyone who has made 'evolution their god'. Anyone who did certainly would have to be basically ignorant of what evolutionary theory is all about.


Well let me tell you something friend, there is not constitutional right to not be offended.

And yet, the Cobb County school board has not previously taught evolution because people were offended by it.


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.

The sticker advocates skepticism of evolution for no particular reason and doesn't adovcate similar skepticism for other sciences. Also, what alternative theories do you think are available to be 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.

They'd have somethign of a better case if it wasn't put on a biology text, and instead put on all science texts. The reason the biology texts only discuss 'evolution' is because there are no reasonable alternatives to put in there, and this is especially true on the high school level.



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The sticker itself, in the first place was very badly written. The authors obviously didn't even know what a theory was or else they wouldn't have written it that way. OF COURSE evolution is only a theory. Everyone knows that, they didn't have to state the obvious.

A theory is an unproven hypothesis that is based on tangable facts.

So evolution is indeed a theory, nothing more.

Intellegent design, or creationsim is NOT a theory. It is an idea---a belief. Nothing more.
People should NOT be calling it a theory because it is NOT based on irrefutable and tangable facts.

[edit on 19-1-2005 by jupiter869]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
This thread certainly exposes the posters' biases. 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. So, what does the textbook itself say on the subject of evolution? Anyone have a copy handy?

There is indeed a history of religious hostility toward evolution education. But, the hostility is focused on that portion of evolution theory which asserts that evolution explains the origin of life and diversity of species as starting from a stew of chemical compounds --> rudimentary pre-life molecules --> virus and bacteria type life --> single celled life --> multi-celled --> ever more complex life forms --> humans. That this has occurred and even that it can occur has never been demostrated experimentally.

This is not THEORY. It is BELIEF pure and simple. Those who BELIEVE in it harbor the HOPE that some day it will be proven experimentally, just like those whoe believe in God hope that someday God will reveal it/her/himself to them personally. 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. Both are a form of indoctrination, i.e. teaching belief as fact to vulnerable members of society. 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.

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. Until we know that, we are not in a good position to intelligently evaluate either the School Board's or the Judge's actions and reasoning in this case. I believe the proper outcome here is intimately linked to the textbook's presentation of evolution as established FACT or THEORY or BELIEF.

Before you all jump on me, remember that evolution theory covers a lot of ground, most of which is not subject to serious argument. It is when evolution is argued as a theory of origins and a substitute cosmology that those advocating it lose their status as presenters of a scienctific theory based on irrefutable observable fact.

Someone on this thread said, "Intelligent design, or creationism, is NOT a theory. It is an idea. Nothing more." True. And evolution as a theory of origins and as a substitute cosmology is also merely an IDEA. So what! Don't get so worked up about that. Accept it. It is true.

Someone else on this thread complains that "The sticker advocates skepticism of evolution." So, what? In education a healthy skepticism is to be encouraged.




[edit on 1/19/2005 by dubiousone]

[edit on 1/19/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 19 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Nygdan,
Thank you for supplying additional information about the case itself, and not continuing to only emotivly spew with no valid ideas backing your opinions. Ill be mulling this info over,
BUT
you say,


Everyone understands what the sticker is about and why its only being applied to evolution texts.
This is quite an ASSUMPTION, especially to make a legal ruling on.
NO one on this thread has been able to credibly deny the statements truth 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....
STILL noone can explain to me in any reasonable fashion, how someone reading the sticker can infer, guess, assume, or otherwise divinate ANY kind of religious ideology whatsoever.

Even IF the reader of this message IS informed about the controversy, which we here discussing it appear to be at least aware of,
Explain how a truthful statement can be denied because of historical backround involved with its being spoken...does the term PRIOR RESTRAINT mean anything to you?
Your arguing that knowing why someone speaks the truth is enough to be able to ban speaking a true statement....
How can this be done? Why would you want to ban speaking the truth reguardless of where it comes from?
I dont care if the group in question expouses hate and destruction, if they speak the truth or wish for their true statement to be as included as other peoples statements are, then they should be heard.
Knowing they want to kill me does not negate the truth of their words.

The 1rst amendment protects speech that is not popular, weather it is truthful or not. (except for slander/lible)
The statement in this case does NOT convey any religious ideology despite its origin.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
.
Maybe dubiousone, someday I will prove my truck runs on an internal combustion engine by taking the whole thing apart, but OVERWHELMING circumstantial evidence leads me to believe it.

All the parts are there for Evolution to have taken place. In case you were unaware its called genetics, sexual reproduction, fossil records, geological records, Ice cores, etc.

CazMedia I can only assume you are a media 'consultant' because you lack all objectivity and adherence to the facts, you can not possibly be a journalist. You must be one of those people who are their to spin things regardless of the facts. Maybe we should have a sign hanging around your neck that says "I am a media consultant and NOT a journalist"

Scott Peterson was given the death penalty on a fraction of the circumstantial evidence that has been presented supporting Evolution. Do you think Scott Peterson was unfairly convicted?
.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Slank,

I don't have to take my car's engine apart to know it's an internal combustion one. I just have to open the hood and look and see what's there. How does that support your belief in evolution as the creator of all good things? All I'm suggesting is the exercise of some intellectual honesty. Don't claim more for you cherished beliefs than their subject claims for itself.

I accept your emotional attachment to believing in the theory of evolution as THE explanation of human origins. You have the right to practice the religion of your choice as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. I hope it brings you comfort and lasting peace.

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!

There are books, tapes, community college, and university courses on both deductive and inductive logic. They are available to you. Go read, listen, or attend. It's a blast. It will open your mind and enable you to think more clearly. Your brain will hurt and ache at first. That's just a sign that your neuronal connections are reorganizing in a beneficial way. You will benefit so long as you stay with it until the aching subsides. I'm serious. Go do it.

[edit on 1/20/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
.
No dubiousone,

You haven't proved it. You are accepting the circumstantial evidence that it looks like other purported internal combustion engines.

Until you take it apart and examine it, maybe with internal micro cameras to watch it work you haven't proved it. It could be bogus. Maybe it is actually a hydrogen engine made to look like an internal combusion engine. Maybe there are little Jesus squirrels running in wheels inside there.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and in all ways acts like a duck it is probably a duck. But for someone who wants to argue about it you can debate it. This is the attempt to argue, against ALL the evidence, that Evolution is not essentially a fact.

Why are people so blind to the fact that they treat evolution with different standards then they do everything else?

Do we see 'selective standards' here? I think we do.

I have a most of computer science degree, dubious one. Let me just say that all my grades were more than above average. I studied State machines, logic, discrete math, calculus, digital logic, etc.
If either of us needs to divorce themselves from emotion and reach for logic I believe that is you, my dear.


[edit on 20-1-2005 by slank]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Slank slings barbs, (attacking the messenger not the points),


Maybe we should have a sign hanging around your neck that says "I am a media consultant and NOT a journalist"

OMG! If that were only true, Id be making ALOT more money and news would be a lot less fluffy and more investigative!
I pray that i get to be a consultant one day but KNOW that the greedy money making machine of TV news isnt going to allow a REAL journalist like me to ever advise them because id tell them straight up how soo off base they are in the ever loving pursuit of ratings (= $$$) over real reporting!
Thats a different and soon to be thread however.

Also on a side note (wich is throwing a red herring into this to distract us from the REAL debate, which your having a hard time comming up with real non emotive logical answers for)
Scott Peterson got what he deserved, and that case has NOTHING to do with this one.

Dubiousone harshly critiques,


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!
Can we hear a "thats what i was gonna say"?

Ohh ive said it to Slank and others many times,
and somehow i still expect that logic will somehow magically begin to formulate ideas,

sort of like how they magically formulate ideas from a true neutral statement where none can be logically implied.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   
.
And we will require little signs around CazMedia and dubiousone's neck that say,

Does NOT believe in evolution.

Sounds like a fair trade to me.


As a logic note because everything we do is based on perception of our neurological systems nothing is absolutely 'provable'.

We think about things such as tables, we do not have actual tables in our brains. That is why thinking is always to some degree an interpretive process. [Light input, interpretation of shape, structure, depth by brain -> table]
If you don't have an articulate enough mind you may not grasp that.

We start all logic systems by taking certain axiomatic assumptions that we consider basic and unprovable. ie. If i hold a rock then let it go, I assume it will fall towards the center of the Earth. We take that as fact, but infact the next time i do it, it might not happen. I see evolution essentially as basic as that. I don't vainly think the Earth, Sun, Universe was created specially for me or mankind. I don't believe there is some magic spirit guiding us into becoming the currently dominant species on the planet. It is possible just like the rock may float or go up or sideways the next time i let it go. The probability in my mind is so low as to be essentially zero.

You may wish to cast yourself in the role of a special/selected person, group or species that some All-powerful being has chosen. It may satisfy some emotional need people have. Do you have an emotional need to be special in some God's eyes? Needs like those would explain why religion is so pervasive.

It doesn't stand muster for people who chose to look critically at the facts. That is what science does. Looks at the facts of the huge numbers of various fossils, The variety of similar species, the fact that genes confer varied traits to each subsequent generation of a species. It looks at the tiny species of horses that have developed in isolated valleys in South America. It looks through Darwin's eyes at the distinct variety of finches on each of the Galapagos islands.

I guess I should ask myself why i care what other people think. That is a different sort of vanity i suppose. But that is the vainty i choose to indulge in. While i enjoy it i suppose i will do it. It is a sort of mental exercise.
.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Ok Slank, maybe I'm not getting what you are trying to say. I have said I accept the theory of evolution to the point where it crosses over into the leap of faith, belief, fantasy, and delusion that it is a scientific proof of the origin of life on earth and of the development of the higher mammals and humans across every species boundary from the first protein molecule to humans of the year 2005.

Tell you what, go to a dictionary, encyclopedia, or your internet sources and bring us an exposition what the scientific method is and how its application to the evidence underlying evolution theory amounts to a scientific proof of the truth of your assertions. Let me warn you, this will take more than an hour and probably a good day or more to do.

I can save you the time by letting you know in advance that it cannot be done. Maybe a better challenge would be for you to find and report back any references where it is shown by one or more experts in this field that what you say is true. You won't find one. Why? Because all the experts know better. In fact, they will be first to tell you that the more we learn the more we realize how little we know about this subject and everything else. They have a good sense of where the limits of what we can claim as knowledge lie. You have shown that you don't. I'm right. You're wrong. If you disagree, prove it!

I suggested that you study logic. You said you have studied advanced math. I studied two years of college level calculus and analytic geometry and some numbers theory with outstanding grades. I had a second major in philosophy with some emphasis in logic. The fields of logic and mathematics overlap but are not coextensive. The study of math teaches you mathematical logic. Though math is somewhat helpful, you do not learn true deductive and inductive logic or common sense by studying math, as you have amply demonstrated through the content of your posts on this thread.

No offense intended. Try to differentiate between emotional attachment and facts. There is a difference.

Your automobile analogy does not work. Why? Because we know how an automobile works. We know who created it. The automobile is a product of intelligent design! It has its origin in the creative activity of itelligent beings. Your automobile analogy is more appropriate as support for the theory of intelligent design. BTW, I know it's an internal comubustion engine because I used to take them apart and rebuild them back in my high school and Jr. high days. With that experience behind me, I've learned what an internal combustion engine looks like internally and externally, what it sounds, feels, smells, and even tastes like, and what it runs on. Its evolution from carburation to fuel injection has not made it unrecognizable as the product of intelligent design!

Are you suggesting that autmobiles evolved from slime mold? Ha! Ha! Ha! You had me going you scoundrel!

Anyway, don't be misled by my rambling. There is no scientific proof of creation or evolution. You don't have to convince me. I'm not arguing that creationism can be proved via the scientific method! Those who try to do that are wasting their time as much as you are wasting yours. Either position is a pure product of faith and personal choice.

Your statements show that your faith in evolution theory is very tenuous. If it were otherwise you wouldn't need to convince us to believe in it along with you. You wouldn't need my or anyone else's validation of it. Your need for validation betrays your doubt.

[edit on 1/20/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   
And i too believe in evolution as THEORY.
I dont go to church, and my spiritual beliefs are guides for me, not all mighty rules that dictate my actions.

But i also believe in Logic and the laws...(legal structure)
Which is why i refused to go off on a tangent about evolution vs creationism...
It has little to do with looking at a court case, the judgment, and how flawed the LOGIC behind it was.

Thats why im challenging this issue NOT on if science or creationism is provable or not,
or
on the merits/pitfalls of mixing religion and politics (which im generally against and in this case just didnt cross that line),

But on the statement made and how the 3 ASSUMPTIONS i posted earlier about it could be used to make a legal ruling.
How ANYONE could even say using an assumption, let alone 3 is proper for a legal proceeding, or even logical to start with.

And yes i am special in gods eyes, my wifes, moms, and certantly my own.


[edit on 20-1-2005 by CazMedia]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Slank, Can I have that on a T-Shirt? I'll wear it proudly. Well, not withy pride (a deadly sin) but happily. When will you send it to me? Hope and pray to Evolution (with a capital "E"!) that you and your kind don't get naturally selected out of existence, at least not before I get my T-shirt!

Caz, I agree with your position on this. But you must recognize that there wouldn't have been a controversy at all if the "evolutionists" weren't so hell bent on cramming their beliefs about the origins of everything down everyone else's throat. Their intellectual frailty is the cause of the whole unseemly disagreement.

Before anyone starts complaining that it's those who believe in God or Allah who are intellectually frail, save your energy. We should be able to expect sound logic from those who make claims with reference to science. We aren't seeing it here.


[edit on 1/20/2005 by dubiousone]

[edit on 1/20/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

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.

Why not assume that its a regular high school biology text book, which would, amoung other things, not talk about the non alternative 'intelligent design'?


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,

Who knows, its a perfectly correct statement, even ignoring that 'evolution' has nothign to do with abiogenesis, which is a different set of theories altogether.


that the latter aspect of that very broad subject is a LEAP OF FAITH.

Anyone who claims to know how life originated in detail is at best, making a leap of faith, yes.



We on this thread don't know how the textbooks at issue present evolution.

Its irrelevant. This sticker is a type that has been attempted in various other districts. The complaint isn't that the textbooks distort the science or make baseless claims. If they did then the movement would be to replace them with more accurate and scientific textbooks.


[qutoe] I believe the proper outcome here is intimately linked to the textbook's presentation of evolution as established FACT or THEORY or BELIEF.
If the textbook presented natural selection as an observed fact then there shouldn't be a sticker, there should be a refund and a new purchase of textbooks. If it states that evolution, as changes in populations, are observed, then its correct. And even better if it presented the papers that demonstrate this, or at least 'case studies'.



Someone on this thread said, "Intelligent design, or creationism, is NOT a theory. It is an idea. Nothing more." True. And evolution as a theory of origins and as a substitute cosmology is also merely an IDEA.
No, they are theories. Creationism and Intelligent Design are irrefutable, at least internally, ie they are beleifs, not theories. No evidence can refute them, not even potentially can any evidence refute them.Whereas the biological and chemical ideas about the origin of life are potentially refutable, and infact many of those ideas have been refuted. As such, there is no 'Abiogenetic Theory'.




Someone else on this thread complains that "The sticker advocates skepticism of evolution." So, what? In education a healthy skepticism is to be encouraged.

Irrational skepticism is not healthy nor, well, rational. These are science classes, science should be done in them. Science would, for example, attempt to refute a theory of evolution, rather than remain skeptical about it, especially when that theory has been tested and passed. Its fundamentally poor thinking that should not be encouraged.


caz
This is quite an ASSUMPTION, especially to make a legal ruling on.

Hardly. The sticker is promoted by creationists in various districts across the country and is part and parcel of the attempts of intelligent design advocates to wedge creationism into the classroom. Its an assumption, agreed, the people advocating the sticker haven't stated it as such, but its a very reasonable one. To pretend that its not is to unnesecearily ignore the context.


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....

Cobb county in particular has not permited evolution to be taught, because of pressure from the families of these students. These kids aren't idiots, they know whats going on and why.


Explain how a truthful statement can be denied because of historical backround involved with its being spoken

Its not the veracity, its the implication and the usage. Saying 'jews are muslims' is true, and innoculous given a certain context. But an iman in a refugee camp in palestine being the person who said it gives it an entirely different context. One would say its inflammatory, and possibly even meant to incite violence. Similiarly, the sticker is meant to wedge creationism into public schools. And also, strictly speaking, its not scientifically accurate to say 'evolution is just a theory'. The amicus I noted above did much to set this context and explain just why the sticker is not infact truthful.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   
.
A sticker or label is used to draw or focus attention to something. It can be done to support [sell] something like "New and improved" or "50% less fat". Jaded to advertising Americans are usually dubious about these.

Those labels required by law usually for litigation [avoidance] reasons such as "The surgeon general has determined . . . smoking is bad for your health" or "Should not be used by pregnant women" draw negative inferences on these products.

What it literally means is "The people incharge of your education have decided this is Not to be taken too seriously". Frankly that is a lot of baggage.

I guess you and your children [IF they eventually believe you] will be like all those other species that are so afraid of fire that they run from it instead of dealing with it intelligently as mankind does.

As far as Im concerned you can keep your kids out of science altogether. Why should my tax dollars be used to promote ignorance instead of enlightenment.

Save it for a select group of children who have a genuine interest in it and will benefit from it. Maybe some people just don't have a mind for science.

Dogs can't talk. Pigs can't sing. Don't waste time energy or money trying to get them too.
.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
.
A theory BTW means you don't know absolutely for certain or not whether or not it is a fact.

The sticker states "Evolution is NOT a fact"

This is an assertion of someone's opinion stated as a FACT. Evolution may be a fact that has not yet been proven.

If it were neutral it would have said "Evolution has not been completely proven to be a fact" or "not yet proven" or something to that effect.

This is a religious assertion put on the front of a textbook.
A direct violation of church and state.

[edit on 20-1-2005 by slank]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
The sticker itself, in the first place was very badly written.


Of course it was badly written. You had a school board with a religious agenda that have little or no science background to know the difference.

And Caz, I still am perplexed as to why you persist in claiming that there was not bias or intent. Its pretty clear to almost everybody that that was the intent of the board there.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
At this jucture I would like to raise a new argument to augment the discussion. We have seen posters on this thread with 3 basic perspectives whose lines tend to blur where they intermingle with each other. The three perspectives as I see them are: Those who support the idea that intelligent design should be included in the discussion of the state of the biosphere; Those who purport that science should be taught purely as a pursuit of knowlegde and that it should be completely isolated from a persons ideology; And those who claim that evolution is the established method of record which explains the state of the biosphere.

The arguments on this thread which come from the middle perspective tend to be the most reasonable sounding because they seek to distance themselves from the belief systems that cloud the argument with statements of belief. This case is predicated on the accusation that one group of people is trying to foist their beliefs on another group. The Court has decided that this action is unconstitutional because the people deciding to post the offending sticker have done so in an effort to get school kids to consider their belief system. The language of the sticker itself is innocuous enough but by singling out evolution it is obvious to the court, at least, that this is an attempt to plant the seeds of creationism in children's minds.

One of the problems with this decision is that it assumes that there is no counter anti-religious effort that this sticker is an attempt to balance. The sticker would be perfectly acceptable if it could be shown that it was an attempt by religous people to balance an overt attempt to belittle or minimalize their beliefs. If the material being taught in the classroom either by the teacher or by the text itself belittles a religious system by presenting another religious system as the only reasonable alternative then the sticker is a constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.

Here then is the rub. If science textbooks stuck to the science of evolution and how it creates diversity with a variety of species and promotes specialized subspecies and even suggests that it is possible that this apparatus may apply to creating a new species that is just fine because it is purely science. The problem is that evolution is almost never presented that way. The reason for this is that the human being is infused with a deep seated desire to understand where it came from and how. We want to understand what we are and who we are. The well disciplined mind can step outside of that desire and view things from a neutral perspective but it takes effort, insight, and honesty about your own bias to do so. How many high school kids or even high school teacher do you know have master the above skill? The answer is, very few. Hence in any discussion of how we came to be where we are and how the biosphere came to be what it is there will be implications imprinted on the minds of the listeners.

In the teaching of the theory of evolution, invariably the topic of its application to abiogenesis will come up, whether correctly or not. It will be suggested that evolution is a theory of how we as humans evolved from the primordial ooze through a series of random mutations beginning with bacteria and ending up with the current global supreme species man. Those who have been intellectually honest on this thread recognize that this is pure speculation backed by only tenuous evidence to suggest its validity. That is the evolution that I was taught back in the 80's when I was in High school and that is the evolution that my nieces and nephews tell me about learning today. To be fair there is an effort made to focus on that portion of evolution that is good science ie the evolution of subspecies within a species and the interrelations between species but not one High Schooler that I know who has been in a class studying evolution has not heard communicated to them that evolution is the best explanation of our origins currently available.

I all of that to come to this. Those of us in the middle perspective, and I try to stay there as much as possible, need to remember that there is a religious war taking place in our society today between the humanist who do not believe in God and the theists who do believe in God. The humanist are just as fanatical about their beliefs as many of the theists are. Our current education system is by and large run by humanists who would like to remove all reference and suggestion of a divine entity from public life. Thus for the judge to deny the theists elected to the school board the right to put a semantically neutral but balancing sticker on the textbook that the humanists are using to promote their ideology of "no god" is an unconstitutional establishment of the humanist religion. To allow one religion equal access to governmentally supported institutions is fundamental to what the founders of the constitution intended in the clauses dealing with religion. Make no mistake about it, humanism is as much a religion as Islam and Christianity except that it proclaims that each person is their own highest power.

In an ideal world evolutionary science could be taught without implication to religion but in the real world any theory that addresses the issue of origins will have religious implications that will need to be addressed. Unless and until science has some definitive answers to the question of origins, equality needs to be maintained in the teaching of the theories and ideas about it. I think that the sticker was a good neutral way to address the need for this balance. Those who do not see its usefulness in this arena are likely to be either euphorians who live in an idealistic world or fanatics of either the humanist or theistic bent.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
.
The sticker is NOT NEUTRAL. PERIOD.

It asserts that "Evolution is NOT a fact.

They should have said 'not yet a proven fact'.

They made a blanket statement.

What they said in the sticker says that Evolution has been proven false.

The sticker says Evolution is NOT a fact, so logically something else must be the fact.

This is complete BIAS.

If something is "Not x" it must be a - w, or y or z, but NOT x.
.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join