Appeals judges see errors in evolution sticker ruling

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 12-15-2005 | Bill Rankin

[JeffAtlanta]

Article is excerpted...

Looks like we might be taking a step backward in Georgia.

[JeffAtlanta]

Ping worthy?

[PatrickHenry]

Ping worthy?

Interesting, but this stuff isn't really news. Judges often rip into lawyers during oral argument, but that doesn't necessarily forecast how they'll rule. (It may in this case, but we just don't know.) I'd rather wait for the final opinion. This is just titillation. Besides, we had a thread on the sticker case yesterday: Georgia court to hear evolution disclaimer arguments.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Looks like a victory for the truth. Another out-of-control judge meddling in the legislature looks like he's setting up for a smack-down.

[puroresu]

I think you're right!

[CharlesWayneCT]

That is, unless you believe that part of the constitutional duty of judges in our system of government is to protect someone's idea of science from "meddling" by the people's legislature.

Whether you think the legislature should have put stickers in the books or not, you should reject the notion that evolution is a constitutionally protected teaching.

[trebb]

Looks like we might be taking a step backward in Georgia.

Allowing a fact to be added is a step backwards? The stickers never endorsed religion, creationism, or ID, they just pointed out that evolution is a theory.

[RoadTest]

Evolution is, indeed, a theory, and not a fact.

[Condor51]

***Looks like we might be taking a step backward in Georgia.***

Not necessarily.

What I get out of this is that another godless Clinton stooge, 'judge' Clarence Cooper, got spanked good for making stuff up, i.e. not following the facts, all in order to impose his personal views on society.

[puroresu]

#####Whether you think the legislature should have put stickers in the books or not, you should reject the notion that evolution is a constitutionally protected teaching.#####


Actually, they're claiming it's constitutionally mandated. The theory of evolution is constitutionally protected, it just isn't constitutionally required that we all believe it, no matter what the ACLU may think. Nor is it constitutionally guaranteed a protected status in which it's raised to the level of state decreed dogma.

[theBuckwheat]

backwards, or forwards?

Evolution is a theory. We have truth in advertising and fraud laws. The FDA will not allow vitamin or food supplement companies to make claims that are not substantiated, and so on. How can the theory of evolution be allowed to be stated as fact, when in fact it is just a theory?

Do the advocates of evolution try to have it both ways? Like light, which is manifest as a particle and a wave at the very same time, can evolution be both a theory and a fact simultaneously? I think not. Unlike light, it must either be theory or it is a fact; it cannot be both.

Supporters insist it is a fact. If you google "theory of evolution" you get 49 million hits. At what point of evidence was this theory established as a fact? I know of none. Laughingly, even the supporters themselves commonly refer to it as a theory.

So why all this fuss about just being honest about it in our dealings with young students? It is about denying that there just might be a Creator. The intensity with which evolutionary supporters deny that tells us far more about them then about their idea of fact or theory. Indeed, it seems they will move heaven and earth to avoid that possibility. Or maybe it would be better put that they are hell bent on it.

[inquest]

Congress could put a stop to all this idiocy by removing jurisdiction of the federal courts to review school science curricula. They have no business sticking their noses in any of this.

[mancogasuki]

The stickers never endorsed religion, creationism, or ID, they just pointed out that evolution is a theory.

That's fairly disingenuous, so...who asked to put the stickers there in the first place? lol

One novel version of Intelligent Design my wife showed me last night was the push to teach that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. ( http://www.venganza.org/ ) Quite humorous slant on the whole "debate" actually.

[vigilo]

"One novel version of Intelligent Design my wife showed me last night was the push to teach that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe."

How do you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe? If you know he didn't, then you must know who did? Where did you get this knowledge? How do you know what you know?

[mancogasuki]

"How do you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe? If you know he didn't, then you must know who did? Where did you get this knowledge? How do you know what you know?"

Exactly!

My take is that I have absolutely no clue about any of that stuff, let alone the capacity to prove it. ;-)

[Theo]

That's not really a good defense of ID or creationism. There are stronger ones.

[Oztrich Boy]

According to the Executive Derector of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the stickers were "Christian expression"

[jwalsh07]

No Jeff. We, Americans who believe in this constitutional republic, are taking a step forward.

This wasn't even close. No surprise here that this judge got smacked dwon hard.

[MRMEAN]

Evolution is, indeed, a theory, and not a fact.

Evolution is a fact, as evidenced by the overwhelming fossil record. The Theory of Evolution is a theory of how evolution happens.

Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould