Judge orders removal of "evolution disclaimer" stickers in Georgia, USA

by seattleniceguy 72 Replies latest social current

• 

  AlanF

  Euphemism said:

  : Most of your posts have been aiming to prove that a) this sticker is a bad thing, b) its inclusion is basically a concession to the creationists, and c) it should therefore be illegal. I agree with you on the first two points.

  Thank you. I wonder why certain other posters refuse to see this.

  : I disagree with you on the second, but it's far too subjective a question to allow for the kind of detailed debate you favor.

  It's subjective and prone to detailed debate alright, but then, so are many other questions of law.

  : I'll just point out that we live in a democracy, and so school curricula are determined by public vote, not by scientific consensus.

  In some cases yes, in some cases no. But one of my points is not about the fact that in some cases a public vote determines curricula, but whether it's proper for such a vote to determine curricula when the desired material flies in the face of good science, or even common sense. In a reply to czarofmischief on page 3 of this thread (16-Jan-05 14:37), I gave examples about the teaching of snake-handling and creationism in public schools, to illustrate why such democratic ideals might result in ridiculous or harmful curricula. Czar was too intellectually dishonest to tackle my argument, labeling it "bunk, repetition, and prejudice", but I think you ought to give it a try. I'll repeat my illustrations here, for your perusal and answers.

  There's a small group of Bible-thumpers in Tennessee who handle poisonous snakes as part of their wierd interpretation of the Bible. Suppose this group came to constitute the majority of a small town, and a school board dominated by them decided to require that all high school students learn snake handling. Explain to me why you think that these taxpayers should or should not be allowed to have such a requirement.

  Suppose that a group of young-earth creationists came to constitute the majority of a state, and they instituted a requirement that all students be indoctrinated with the idea that the universe was created 6000 years ago, according to Genesis. Explain to me why you think that this would violate the Constitution or not. Relate it to the concept of state's rights.

  I have little doubt that you'll agree that such curricula would be ridiculous and therefore should not be taught in public schools, nor that you'd want some sort of court action to prevent such teaching. How would you propose that courts take proper action?

  : A more objective question, which I would be happy to debate, is whether the sticker is a violation of the Establishment Clause either by sound constitutional interpretation or current case law. But since you wrote that:

  :: Well, dealing with "Establishment Clause jurisprudence" is a rather subjective enterprise. And that's what the courts are there for -- to sort it out.

  : and

  :: I know nothing of such court cases

  : It doesn't seem that you're particularly up for a legal argument, so I'll desist unless you wish to engage.

  That's fine, since my arguments are not based on legal precedent, but on common sense.

  Take note that, until about 1860, courts held that blacks and native Americans were 2nd class citizens or animals, and had few or no rights. Such interpretations were argued not to be violations of the Constitution. Today, people -- including and especially judges -- tend to be more enlightened. The same sort of common sense that resulted in what we'll both agree is a better interpretation of the Constitution also ought to result in disallowing the teaching of nonsense in public schools, do you not agree?

  You said to TD:

  : So the key is in the subtext... the sticker's choice of non-religious language that is often used and proposed by religious groups. That's essentially seattleniceguy's argument, too: subtext.

  : First off, let me emphasize that I entirely agree with you guys that there are pro-creationist subtexts in the message.

  I again wonder why certain posters refuse to see this.

  : 1) Rejection of evolution does not equal creationism.

  Objectively, no, but in the minds of creationists it most certainly does. You have only to read the arguments of young-earthers and intelligent design creationists to see this in action. These people have absolutely no coherent theories of creationism; that's why their ideas are not science. Their arguments consist almost entirely of taking whacks at details of evolution or the basic methodology of science, and hoping that naive readers will conclude that, since a few points about evolution have been 'proved' false, creation by the Christian God, being the only alternative they can imagine, must be true. The various JW publications that discuss the question use the same method.

  : It's true that creationists generally advocate a rejection (or unscientific criticism) of evolution. But the reason they do that is because they have been legally barred from directly praching creationism in the schools.

  Two points: the reason they reject evolution is purely religious; they've been legally barred from teaching creation in public schools because the courts have ruled that it violates the Establishment clause, recognizing that it's a religious, not scientific, teaching.

  : It's not logical to say that because creationists have chosen the secular alternative closest to their actual position, that alternative has now become 'religious'.

  Of course it is, because the fact is that their objections ARE purely religious. You have only to read creationist literature, along with criticisms from good scientists, to see this. The Institute for Creation Research has a policy that unabashedly states that its objective is to promote Genesis as good science. The Intelligent Design people are more cagey, but I've quoted material in this thread that proves that their intent is the same.

  : That's like saying that if I start drinking O'Doul's because I'm not allowed to drink beer, then O'Doul's becomes beer.

  Your comparison is garbled, but I think I understand your intent. In beer drinking, you have thousands of alternatives, but in the question of creation versus evolution, the very form of the question allows two and only two alternatives.

  : I suspect that where we really diverge is that I firmly believe that Cobb County has the legal right to teach its children bad science.

  Sounds like you'd have no problem with Cobb County teaching snake-handling, then. Correct me if I'm wrong.

  AlanF
• 

  TD

  Hi Euphemism

  I suspect that where we really diverge is that I firmly believe that Cobb County has the legal right to teach its children bad science. If you don't agree with me on that, then you're unlikely to find any Establishment Clause arguments persuasive.

  As someone who appears to have read the decision, you're probably aware that the case was precipitated by planned revisions to curriculum policy that actually strengthened evolution instruction and the adoption of new textbooks for that very purpose.

  The Board subsequently revised the policy on origin theories requiring discussion "..to be moderated to promote a sense of scientific inquiry and understanding of scientific methods, and to distinguish between scientific and philosophical or religious issues" indicating that they did understand the distinction which they turned around and muddied with the sticker.

  So to me at least, the Cobb County School Board does not appear to have been a group of creationists exercising a right to teach bad science. They appear more to have been a group of bureaucrats attempting a balancing act between bringing their curriculum more in line with the rest of the state on one hand and placating some vocal and angry, religious parents on the other. One of their own science teachers, Wes McCoy, was uncomfortable with the language of the sticker and proposed two alternatives that did not employ the loaded language of traditional creationism. They should have listened to him.

  Even were this not the case, I would question whether a "right to teach bad science" should trump Establishment Clause challenge because it appears to me to be for all intents and purposes, an elevation of ignorance to the status of a legal shield.

  No matter whether the ignorance is real or feigned, it would enable every other county and school district throughout the Bible-belt to subsequently print similar disclaimers for any subject that offends their religious sensibilities and say in defense, "Awww shucks! The effect may be the appearance of preferential treatment toward the Bible-thumpers, but the plain truth is that we don't know what a "scientific theory" really is and doggone it, ignorance ain't a crime!"

  I agree that allowing judges to be overly subjective would be a bad thing, but I honestly think the alternative in this instance would be worse.

  Tom
• 

  Euphemism

  AlanF:

  But one of my points is not about the fact that in some cases a public vote determines curricula, but whether it's proper for such a vote to determine curricula when the desired material flies in the face of good science, or even common sense.

  Well call me a legal formalist if you will. But whether it seems improper to you or me or a judge, I don't see that a court has the right to declare it unconstitutional without a clear basis in the constitution.

  There's a small group of Bible-thumpers in Tennessee who handle poisonous snakes as part of their wierd interpretation of the Bible. Suppose this group came to constitute the majority of a small town, and a school board dominated by them decided to require that all high school students learn snake handling. Explain to me why you think that these taxpayers should or should not be allowed to have such a requirement.

  If the school made a good faith effort to teach the science of snake-handling--i.e. how to handle snakes without resort to prayer or the 'gifts of the holy spirit'--then yes, I believe it would be constitutional. But of course, the whole premise of Christian snake-handling is that the power to handle snakes comes from the holy spirit, and therefore it would be impossible to teach it in a secular manner.

  Suppose that a group of young-earth creationists came to constitute the majority of a state, and they instituted a requirement that all students be indoctrinated with the idea that the universe was created 6000 years ago, according to Genesis. Explain to me why you think that this would violate the Constitution or not. Relate it to the concept of state's rights.

  That would be a close one. I would say that if they were to present exclusively scientific "evidence" that the universe had existed for only 6000 years, that would constitutional. If they claimed that the universe was "created", that would be religious--and hence unconstitutional--because 1) 'relationship to a creator' is one of the traditional legal definitions of religion, and 2) it is by nature an unverifiable claim.

  I have little doubt that you'll agree that such curricula would be ridiculous and therefore should not be taught in public schools, nor that you'd want some sort of court action to prevent such teaching.

  I agree with the first two statements, but the last one does not logically follow. In the design of the early Federalists, the three branches of government were to be counterbalancing; but in the mind of most contemporary secularists and liberals, the judicial branch has acquired a special mystique. The original purpose of judicial review was to prevent the political branches from usurping basic freedoms, not to serve as a remedy for every stupid or ignoble act of the legislature. The remedy for stupidity is the ballot box.

  Granted, stupidity often takes the ballot box by storm. But the premise of democracy is that majority rule is better than rule by elites--even supposedly wise elites such as judges. The judges are there as referees, to blow the whistle when the rules are broken. It is not their job to coach the players.

  Take note that, until about 1860, courts held that blacks and native Americans were 2nd class citizens or animals, and had few or no rights. Such interpretations were argued not to be violations of the Constitution. Today, people -- including and especially judges -- tend to be more enlightened. The same sort of common sense that resulted in what we'll both agree is a better interpretation of the Constitution also ought to result in disallowing the teaching of nonsense in public schools, do you not agree?

  The courts held that blacks were second-class citizens precisely because that was the 'common sense' of most people at the time. The change was achieved, not through judicial interpretation of the law, but through the proper process of changing the law (the 13th through 15th Amendments).

  Obviously, what a plantation-owner, a judge, or even your average laborer of 150 years ago considered common sense is not what you or I would consider common sense. For that matter, you and I would probably also find a great deal about which to disagree with Roy Moore, or even with each other. Which is exactly why the law has to rest on formal, stated principles, rather than on 'common sense'.

  : It's not logical to say that because creationists have chosen the secular alternative closest to their actual position, that alternative has now become 'religious'.

  Of course it is, because the fact is that their objections ARE purely religious.

  People sometimes make secular choices for religious reasons. My dad bought a minivan because it would be useful for field service. I chose to work part time so I could pioneer. In both cases the motivation was religious, but the actions were purely secular.

  In beer drinking, you have thousands of alternatives, but in the question of creation versus evolution, the very form of the question allows two and only two alternatives.

  But that is not how the school district presented the question. The school district presented it as evolution vs not evolution. If children are taught at home or at church that 'not evolution' implies creation, that is not the fault of the government. I agree that the government should dispel that misconception, but it is by no means constitutionally obligated to do so.

  TD:

  So to me at least, the Cobb County School Board does not appear to have been a group of creationists exercising a right to teach bad science. They appear more to have been a group of bureaucrats attempting a balancing act between bringing their curriculum more in line with the rest of the state on one hand and placating some vocal and angry, religious parents on the other.

  That's the judge's conclusion. I think it is definitely true of at least some of the school board members. And I think that the judge did right in erring on the side of caution and not imputing improper motives that could not be proven.

  No matter whether the ignorance is real or feigned, it would enable every other county and school district throughout the Bible-belt to subsequently print similar disclaimers for any subject that offends their religious sensibilities and say in defense, "Awww shucks! The effect may be the appearance of preferential treatment toward the Bible-thumpers, but the plain truth is that we don't know what a "scientific theory" really is and doggone it, ignorance ain't a crime!"

  I agree that allowing judges to be overly subjective would be a bad thing, but I honestly think the alternative in this instance would be worse.

  As long as the stickers remain secular, I think that the bible-thumpers have the constitutional right to do that. And I don't think it would be the catastrophe we make it out to be.

  After all, states currently have the constitutional ability to simply stop teaching evolution altogether. Why don't they? Because despite all the loudness of the fundies, there is still an overall consensus in favor of science teaching. If there weren't, the courts wouldn't hold out very long.

  And frankly, for a kid growing up in an overwhelmingly Christian community, I think that the small bit of additional misinformation they'll get from a small sticker is nowhere near as harmful as the political backlash produced when judges unreasonably thwart the popular will. The Republican Party (and even worse elements, such as Roy Moore's coterie) are riding high on that sentiment, and this ruling just gave them more fuel.