Posted on 01/15/2005 7:43:42 AM PST by SeasideSparrow
Separation of sticker and state Posted: January 15, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By David N. Bass © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Suggesting that evolution is a theory rather than fact endorses religion and causes anguish among impressionable school children in an Atlanta suburb, at least in the opinion of U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper.
On Thursday, the Clinton-appointed district judge dove head first into the evolution versus intelligent design debate by ordering the Cobb County Board of Education to remove a sticker from science textbooks stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Added by the school board in 2002 to be more inclusive of differing beliefs regarding human origins, the sticker concludes by suggesting that evolutionary instruction "be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Not surprisingly, it wasn't long before atheists began experiencing concern (perhaps we should call it theophobia) that school children might actually seek alternatives to evolution to account for origins of the human species. Michael Newdow wannabe Jeffrey Selman, accompanied by four other plaintiffs and the ever-present American Civil Liberties Union, sued the school district under the contention that the sticker violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Georgia Constitution.
Their rationale for the lawsuit raises some interesting questions. Can a sticker that never mentions the words Creator or creationism be construed to endorse intelligent design? Can stating a fact (namely, that evolution is only theory, a reality conceded by many evolutionists themselves) be somehow tied to religious extremism? Can merely implying that there might be other theories to account for mankind's origins establish a state-sponsored religion?
Apparently, Judge Cooper thinks so.
The Judge declares in his ruling that an "informed, reasonable observer would understand the school board to be endorsing the viewpoint of Christian fundamentalists and creationists that evolution is a problematic theory lacking an adequate foundation." How can a sticker that comes nowhere near to specifically backing creationism or debunking evolution accomplish this, one might ask? According to Judge Cooper, it does this by somehow conveying "an impermissible message of endorsement" and by telling "some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others that they are political insiders."
That's a central theme of Judge Cooper's rationale. To avoid offending the small number of atheistic children in public schools, every possible vestige of God or religion must be wiped away, including any insinuation that there just might be legitimate theories on origin aside from evolution. Forget about the vast majority of Jewish, Christian and Islamic students who believe in alternative origin theories – the all-important goal is to appease atheists.
There's only one problem with such judicial logic: The Georgia Constitution itself creates "an impermissible message of endorsement" in its preamble by entreating the people to rely "upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God." That sounds pretty close to a theistic, creationist view to me. Is Judge Cooper now planning to declare the constitution of his own state unconstitutional for public schools?
If evolutionary theory is sound as a whistle, why is Judge Cooper so terrified at the prospect of school children pursuing alternate theories? Alternate lifestyles are a boon to civilization, but not alternate theories on origin? How does offering creation science alongside evolution dilute and denigrate the viewpoint, unless the theory already has holes in it? Liberalism is advertised as the political philosophy of diversity. Why not be inclusive of all views?
The reason is simple. The prevailing judicial philosophy in America is that some views are acceptable within our modern society, while others are not. An evolutionary perspective that declares life meaningless and establishes man as the final moral arbiter is considered objective and scientifically based. As a result, nothing else should be taught in public schools. On the other side of the coin, creationism is based on emotion and ignorance and therefore should be shielded from impressionable young minds.
Sound familiar? It should. It's the same standard used by communist tyrants to discredit Christians or others who believe in an Authority above government as "second-class citizens," which is always a precursor to outright persecution. Cooper is quick to condemn the Cobb County School District for using stickers that create a class of "political outsiders," but he conveniently ignores the inferiority experienced by theists when they read the hundreds of pages devoted to evolution in the textbook, all of which denigrate their core philosophy.
That trend is the symptom of a growing problem. Theists are continually being relegated to second-class citizenship in favor of a minority of atheists and humanists in society today. While Judge Cooper's decision might seem insignificant, it raises an interesting question: When will government-sponsored discrimination against theists end, and, more importantly, who will stop it before it leads to outright persecution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David N. Bass is a 19-year-old Christian homeschool graduate who writes for World Newspaper Publishing and is a regular columnist at AmericanDaily.com, IntellectualConservative.com and RenewAmerica.us. While attending college, he interns at a pro-family public-policy organization. Bass is currently working on his first novel.
Kudos to Mr. Bass - he gets it. The liberal Clintoon appointee doesn't. No children would be forced to pray by the presence of the sticker.
This is merely the latest and most clear example of the new State religion of the USA: Secular Humanism.
These people refuse to tolerate any thought that even questions the official creed. So by their logic, even doubting their dogma is a violation of the seperation of church and state - meaning a violation of secula control of the state at every level of every branch, twig and leaf.
I can only hope it gets over-turned.
America does not need Clintonista judges or anyone else telling them what to believe about anything.
Beautifully put.
I have been thinking lately that the way to combat all this is to have the courts declare Secular Humanism to be a religion. This would end immediately the court driven assault on the schools. Then the schools could go back to the business of educating the children and not indoctrinating them.
Parents need to discuss schoolwork with their children beginning in kindergarten.
It's our obligation after all.
The really dumb thing about this decision is that Evolution really is just a theory. I don't think alerting the kids to this fact is such a bad idea.
This judge appears to be elevating evolution to the status of holy writ. Isn't THAT pretty much a violation of the establishment clause?
1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations
4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.
Raymond G. Bohlin is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology)
---------
I don't think the judge understand the definition of "theory" as used by scientists.
Clinton appointee or not, we need more judges like him. Out with the old myths of man being some 'special' creation, made by something you can't see. Evolution is a fact, how it occurred and occurs is the theory part. The warning labels belong on the religious books.
Can you see radio waves?
Can you see a Black Hole?
Can you see dark matter?
Can you see a quark?
I can see that you havent given your statement much thought.
Evolution is a fact, how it occurred and occurs is the theory part.
No, evolution, though I believe it to be true, is not fact, hence the name 'Theory of Evolution'. Untill scientists can replicate the evolutionary process and directly observe it it can only be considered a theory.
When the majority of scientists regard it as fact, then they will stop calling it a theory.
The Theory of Gravity is still a theory because we dont know yet *how* it does what it does, and so we simply use the term 'gravity' to label an unknown process that causes mass to be drawn to another mass. When we know how it works and can directly observe it, then we will know that a specific mechanism for gravity is a fact as well.
The warning labels belong on the religious books.
No, the warning label belongs on the cartoon network shows you appear to be addicted to.
I'm a Christian. I believe God created us in His own image. I also would like my children to learn about evolution, and any scientific challenges to evolution. I trust God enough to know that pure, non-policiticized science will eventually point to His truth. Meanwhile, it may not exactly line up with my interpretation of the Bible. That may mean that either science is still evolving, that my Biblical interpretation is flawed, or both.
I remember that in years past, the Catholic Church insisted that the Bible taught the earth was the center of the universe. Actually, the Bible has no direct, definitive teachings on this subject. Rather, the church relied on what I would call "penumbras" of geocentricity. However, during that time, the Catholic Church allowed its Biblical interpretation to be swayed by the prevailing scientific dogma- the "scientific" Grecian Aristotelian geocentric view.
I'm for following science wherever it may lead us. Unfortunately, science today is far from pure. Scientists from both sides of the evolution debate quit seeking the truth long ago. They both come to their studies with the mindset of a lawyer. First they decide which side they represent, then they seek "evidence" to support their side.
I have a warning label that should be acceptable, I think:
As for man's ancestry, one must admit that all science has is a huge question mark. Nothing has been found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man.
What do you think? Does it pass muster? Do you agree or disagree with it? Do you think it is a religion based statement? If so, why?
The Federal Judiciary is entitled to no respect. The judges should be considered outlaws, outside the protection of the law, held in contempt by all of society.
That would be fine with us, but you have forgotten one thing. There are no religious textbooks in the schools, are there? And none that raise critical questions about evolution, are there?
So what books are you talking about labeling? The books in my home office? Are you a Stalinist, or what?
From the viewpoint of an evolutionist:
HYPOTHESIS:
God doesn't exist.
EXPERIMENT:
Look at creation and try to find a way it could have come into existence by itself.
RESULTS:
I said it,
I believe it,
That settles it,
I am god.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.