Georgia Anti-Evolution Group Surrenders

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,858
13,984
146
Georgia Anti-Evolution Group Surrenders
By DOUG GROSS, AP

ATLANTA (Dec. 19) - A suburban school board that put stickers in high school science books saying evolution is "a theory, not a fact" abandoned its legal battle to keep them Tuesday after four years.

The Cobb County board agreed in federal court never to use a similar sticker or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.

In return, the parents who sued over the stickers agreed to drop all legal action.

"We certainly think that it's a win not just for our clients but for all students in Cobb County and, really, all residents of Georgia," said Beth Littrell of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.

The school board placed the stickers inside the front cover of biology books in 2002 after a group of parents complained that evolution was being taught to the exclusion of other theories, including a literal reading of the biblical story of creation.

The stickers read: "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."

A federal judge ordered the stickers removed in 2005, saying they amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The school board appealed, but a federal appeals court sent the case back, saying it did not have enough information.

"We faced the distraction and expense of starting all over with more legal actions and another trial," said board chairwoman Teresa Plenge. "With this agreement, it is done and we now have a clean slate for the new year."

School board attorney Linwood Gunn said the agreement is not an admission that the stickers were unconstitutional. "The school board attempted to reach what they thought was a reasonable compromise," he said.

The board agreed to pay about one-third of the plaintiffs' court costs, Gunn said.

"The settlement brings to end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas," parent Jeffrey Selman said in a statement handed out by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the groups that represented the plaintiffs.

It was one of several recent battles over what role evolution should play in science education.

Last year, a federal judge barred the Dover, Pa., school district from teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution. Also last year, the Kansas state school board adopted standards critical of evolution, but several of the members who pushed that plan were ousted by voters this year.

In 2004, Georgia's state schools superintendent briefly proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word "evolution" in favor of "changes over time." That plan was scrapped amid protests by teachers.

 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
I would expect a good text book to explain within it's pages the nature of scientific knowledge, that it isn't absolute, but is more a consensus based on observation.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,858
13,984
146
As usual, the fanatical religious right loses. A great day for students and education in that district, to be sure.

I wonder when these people will give up?
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
Originally posted by: Tom
I would expect a good text book to explain within it's pages the nature of scientific knowledge, that it isn't absolute, but is more a consensus based on observation.

You'd hope so, right?

I don't agree with the board's motivation, but I don't see how anyone could object to this wording being applied to any material that is taught in school:
"This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

There really wasn't anything inaccurate on the sticker.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,501
136
Originally posted by: Tom
I would expect a good text book to explain within it's pages the nature of scientific knowledge, that it isn't absolute, but is more a consensus based on observation.

I agree with that :thumbsup: I hate when people, no matter who they are, state scientific evidence as absolute fact, especially when it's on the forefront of science. Science, by definition, is subject to change. One only needs to look at the history of failed/revised theories to see that.
 

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,294
148
106
hooray for education.
Last year, a federal judge barred the Dover, Pa., school district from teaching "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution. Also last year, the Kansas state school board adopted standards critical of evolution, but several of the members who pushed that plan were ousted by voters this year.

that just put a big smile on my face
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,152
12,324
136
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mugs


There really wasn't anything inaccurate on the sticker.

Except for the "theory not a fact" nonsense.

It depends on how you define "theory" and "fact".

Perhaps they should have stuck to the scientific usage of the word "theory." What with it being in a science book and all.
I'm guessing by your sig that you might be biased.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,501
136
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mugs


There really wasn't anything inaccurate on the sticker.

Except for the "theory not a fact" nonsense.

It depends on how you define "theory" and "fact".

Perhaps they should have stuck to the scientific usage of the word "theory." What with it being in a science book and all.
I'm guessing by your sig that you might be biased.

Everyone is biased in one way or another. What is the "scientific" definition of "theory"? I'm asking honestly, not sarcastically; I've seen so many definitions from different sides that I just don't know.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
I never understood the big deal with these stickers. The wording was accurate. Evolution IS a theory. So is gravity. And all education should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. We certainly don't want science to become the unquestioned dogma their religion is.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,858
13,984
146
Originally posted by: Vic
I never understood the big deal with these stickers. The wording was accurate. Evolution IS a theory. So is gravity. And all education should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. We certainly don't want science to become the unquestioned dogma their religion is.

That evolution and gravity exist is not theory, but fact. How they work exactly is where theory comes into play.

These stickers are intended to place doubt on the scientific process itself.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mugs


There really wasn't anything inaccurate on the sticker.

Except for the "theory not a fact" nonsense.

It depends on how you define "theory" and "fact".

Perhaps they should have stuck to the scientific usage of the word "theory." What with it being in a science book and all.
I'm guessing by your sig that you might be biased.

The scientific usage of the word theory is closer to fact than the common usage of the word is... so yeah, they did stick with the scientific usage of the word.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mugs


There really wasn't anything inaccurate on the sticker.

Except for the "theory not a fact" nonsense.

It depends on how you define "theory" and "fact".

Perhaps they should have stuck to the scientific usage of the word "theory." What with it being in a science book and all.
I'm guessing by your sig that you might be biased.

Everyone is biased in one way or another. What is the "scientific" definition of "theory"? I'm asking honestly, not sarcastically; I've seen so many definitions from different sides that I just don't know.

In context, it is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary:
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.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,501
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mugs


There really wasn't anything inaccurate on the sticker.

Except for the "theory not a fact" nonsense.

It depends on how you define "theory" and "fact".

Perhaps they should have stuck to the scientific usage of the word "theory." What with it being in a science book and all.
I'm guessing by your sig that you might be biased.

Everyone is biased in one way or another. What is the "scientific" definition of "theory"? I'm asking honestly, not sarcastically; I've seen so many definitions from different sides that I just don't know.

In context, it is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary:
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.

Thank you. Now watch someone else provide me a different definition, because, from what I (a poor, deluded, "evangelical" christian :p) can tell, evolution fits that definition. And I've had people from both "camps" (as it were) tell me that evolution is or isn't a theory. So please forgive me, and don't insult me, if I am a little :confused:
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,152
12,324
136
Originally posted by: mugs
The scientific usage of the word theory is closer to fact than the common usage of the word is... so yeah, they did stick with the scientific usage of the word.

I disagree...

Scientific usage:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Usage on the sticker:
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,591
3,425
136
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mugs


There really wasn't anything inaccurate on the sticker.

Except for the "theory not a fact" nonsense.

It depends on how you define "theory" and "fact".

Perhaps they should have stuck to the scientific usage of the word "theory." What with it being in a science book and all.
I'm guessing by your sig that you might be biased.

Everyone is biased in one way or another. What is the "scientific" definition of "theory"? I'm asking honestly, not sarcastically; I've seen so many definitions from different sides that I just don't know.

In context, it is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary:
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.

Thank you. Now watch someone else provide me a different definition, because, from what I (a poor, deluded, "evangelical" christian :p) can tell, evolution fits that definition. And I've had people from both "camps" (as it were) tell me that evolution is or isn't a theory. So please forgive me, and don't insult me, if I am a little :confused:

And "intelligent design" does not fit that definition. We certainly haven't heard a whole lot about that nonsense lately.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: mugs
The scientific usage of the word theory is closer to fact than the common usage of the word is... so yeah, they did stick with the scientific usage of the word.

I disagree...

Scientific usage:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Usage on the sticker:
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

You can assume that based on your bias against the people who put the sticker there, but it is not evident from the sticker. Since it isn't explicit and it is on a science textbook, and unbiased person can only assume that it refers to a scientific theory. There is not even any mention of the existence of another theory on the sticker!
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Vic
I never understood the big deal with these stickers. The wording was accurate. Evolution IS a theory. So is gravity. And all education should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. We certainly don't want science to become the unquestioned dogma their religion is.

That evolution and gravity exist is not theory, but fact. How they work exactly is where theory comes into play.

These stickers are intended to place doubt on the scientific process itself.

Doubt and questioning is exactly how the scientific process works. It's not an unquestioned faith-held dogma like religion.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,858
13,984
146
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Vic
I never understood the big deal with these stickers. The wording was accurate. Evolution IS a theory. So is gravity. And all education should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. We certainly don't want science to become the unquestioned dogma their religion is.

That evolution and gravity exist is not theory, but fact. How they work exactly is where theory comes into play.

These stickers are intended to place doubt on the scientific process itself.

Doubt and questioning is exactly how the scientific process works. It's not an unquestioned faith-held dogma like religion.

The process itself. Not it's theories or proofs, but the process itself.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mugs


There really wasn't anything inaccurate on the sticker.

Except for the "theory not a fact" nonsense.

It depends on how you define "theory" and "fact".

Perhaps they should have stuck to the scientific usage of the word "theory." What with it being in a science book and all.
I'm guessing by your sig that you might be biased.

Everyone is biased in one way or another. What is the "scientific" definition of "theory"? I'm asking honestly, not sarcastically; I've seen so many definitions from different sides that I just don't know.

In context, it is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary:
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.

Thank you. Now watch someone else provide me a different definition, because, from what I (a poor, deluded, "evangelical" christian :p) can tell, evolution fits that definition. And I've had people from both "camps" (as it were) tell me that evolution is or isn't a theory. So please forgive me, and don't insult me, if I am a little :confused:

I don't support your position. I just think that those Georgia evangelicals were inadvertently doing science a favor. They were trying to discredit science the same way they might otherwise try to discredit another religion. Their problem is that science is not another religion.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Vic
I never understood the big deal with these stickers. The wording was accurate. Evolution IS a theory. So is gravity. And all education should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. We certainly don't want science to become the unquestioned dogma their religion is.

That evolution and gravity exist is not theory, but fact. How they work exactly is where theory comes into play.

These stickers are intended to place doubt on the scientific process itself.


Calling evolution or gravity, facts, is a problem, because both words go beyond describing that which can be observed, to include explanations of why.

Take gravity.

Fact- It appears there is some kind of attraction between objects.
theory - there is some sort of attraction between objects.

The word gravity includes both parts, the fact, and the theory. So it shouldn't be considered a fact, imho.

For example, there are observable phenomena that don't follow the theory, like the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: mugs

You can assume that based on your bias against the people who put the sticker there, but it is not evident from the sticker. Since it isn't explicit and it is on a science textbook, and unbiased person can only assume that it refers to a scientific theory. There is not even any mention of the existence of another theory on the sticker!

the problem is that it points out evolution and evolution only. none of the other theories presented in the book are mentioned.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,501
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Vic
I never understood the big deal with these stickers. The wording was accurate. Evolution IS a theory. So is gravity. And all education should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. We certainly don't want science to become the unquestioned dogma their religion is.

That evolution and gravity exist is not theory, but fact. How they work exactly is where theory comes into play.

These stickers are intended to place doubt on the scientific process itself.

Doubt and questioning is exactly how the scientific process works
. It's not an unquestioned faith-held dogma like religion.

That's what I was always taught in science classes, as well as a general principle. Don't ever believe something blindly, but ask questions, test the hypothesis/statements made, and, if they hold true keep them. If not, discard or revise.

And btw, the Bible does not ask for unquestioned faith. It encourages those who read it to test and see if the Word is true, especially in terms of life application.