I must admit that I do too, anything to get a greater understanding of what's going on. But then i was schooled in the 70's/80's and my teachers encouraged us to think about what we were reading - what's being said/what's not being said/who's the audience/etc.

Since the stickers did never mentioned religion, God, or creationism, the stickers in now way could have violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. It's possible that the Judge is an activist engaging in a polictical decision.

When I had this subject in high school, we were taught that humans evolved from Neandathols. This was a fabrication which was known to be false since 1960. Also, we were taught that evolution was a gradual natural process, where random mutations are pruned by natural selection. However the fossil evidence indicates that the occurence of new species occurs in spurts, after a singular disaster. In other words, diversity seems to occur after the natural balance is turned on it's head, often due to external singualar events. Sounds more like un-natural selection to me.

Let's remember the results of Margaret Sanger's Darwinism based eugenics movement in the US, which Adolf Hitler adopted, first by exterminating infants with disabilities. Could not the stickers be motivated by the millions of deaths caused by adherents to the theory. Another outcome of the theory is Marxism itself. The TOE was a seminal theory which effected philosophical thought. Are these not reasons enough to include a disclaimer, so that the theory is taken as only for what it is, and nothing more?

Did you happen to watch any of the actual video of the school board discussion which led to this sticker being placed in school books? Of course not. I suggest you hunt some of them up. Penn and Teller include a large chunk of the video in their tv show (Bullshit) where they cover creationism. It is clear from the video that this sticker was placed with a religious bias. I mean... the whole meeting was full of speeches about a "God-centered world view" or a "man-centered world view."

As for your complete misunderstanding of evolution, the word theory as it relates to science, and Marxism... well I won't bother to disabuse you of such ideas. You can actually look into them if you wish. You'll also note that evolution makes no dictates and prescibes no action. To claim that someone killed the weak as part of evolution is wrong and makes me believe you have been getting most of your ideas from Mr. Kent Hovind.

Sorry, but I don't know who Mr. Kent Hovind is.


If natural selection is responsible for pruning most random mutations. So what happens, according to the theory, if natural selection is supplanted by medical science? The horrors which have occurred in our history, were attempts to restore the effects of natural selection outlined by the theory, and would not have occurred had it not been for the theory.

Whether or not some proponents of the stickers are biased to believe in creationism is not material, because their beliefs are not reflected in the disclaimers themselves, and so their beliefs are not being promoted by the stickers. Using the same argument, one could say that because there are people who hate religion, and who use evolution theory to attack the religious beliefs of others, that to teach evolution in schools is in violation of the first amendment.

I think that rather than a disclaimer sticker, the schools in the district could of been required to also include the problems and objections to the TOE.


____


Actually, most of my ideas on this subject are due to reading the book, "The Brothers Karamazov".

I can say, with great certainty (as I live reasonably near the area in question) that the stickers were put on the books as the best effort the creationists could drum up in their efforts to get the teaching of evolution taken completely out of the schools. Don't think for a second that you're mistakenly thinking the sticker is religiously biased, it *is* religiously biased. It is common knowledge around here exactly where they came from, and what they imply.

If you would like a sample of what they WOULD like to see taught, look up Kent Hovind's website (Dr. Dino... lol!). He's got a fair number of videos which, if you can stay awake though any of them, do give a good laugh or two.

It is essential that the motive of the placement of the sticker was religious whether or not the sticker contained anything overtly religious.

As for your comment about medical science you are again confused about evolution. Evolution does not have a goal it is working towards. You can't "supplant" the direction of evolution because it doesn't have one. I find it amazing that you don't know Hovind because you are almost perfectly parroting him in his video about natural selection. If you don't then I highly recommend you check him out.

Remember that evolution does not have a goal... it is just a process. Any person who claims to be working towards the design of evolution by killing people is misleading you or is confused themself. I could stone my child in the middle of the street and say the bible told me to... and technically I would have much better support than those who would claim that evolution demands we kill the weak.

My point is that medical science negates the role of natural selection, and therefore the process does not exist. This is what motivated the groups and movements. I've read articles by scientists that indicates that evolution does indeed have a goal, and almost a consciousness. I was making two separate points, and my rhetorical question about medical science was about the effect (survival) it has on the process.

Thank you for the judges explanation. I almost agree with it, now that I heard the other side, but I feel that ruling something is unconstitutional because of an impression of establishment may be going to far. Also, just because the people who pressed for the stickers are religious does not automatically mean that the evidence they gave was automatically invalid.

My objections have to do with the historic consequences of the TOE, and the philosophical differences imparted. I think it is as much a mistake to take the Genesis story so literally that one misses the meanings. During colonial times, a Deacon looked at it philosophically, and extracted a couple gems. If we are all the children of Adam and Eve, then we are all equal. He took that being created in the image of God, meant that we are all born with certain immutable rights. He took these ideas and published a pamphlet called "The Principles of Democracy". Part of his motivation was to counter the claim of the King of England of Divine Rule. In some parts of Europe, the TOE was embraced to counter the same claim. But developing a system of government around the idea that we are all just glorified slugs, lead to very ugly political systems.

well that just means that now natural selection will not pick the strongest, "best" human, but the one that has the best health insurance all the more reason for healthcare for all

Sticker issue: student reads sticker, asks teacher what other theory is present..obviously the teacher will say creationalism(no other theory)..student says whats that..and teacher says "well in the bible it says that we were created by god in his image..."
the above clearly shows religion in school, and i think that the judge was right to outlaw it because of the seperation of church and state


what do you mean? i didnt understand...

Edit; reading some links on this stuff and a question came up...if you believe in creationalism(which i dont, but i respect those who do, just not those who force their believe on others) how do you explain that dinosours are older then humans, different epoch?

I believe that the chaos following catastrophies is responsible for the origin of the species to a much larger extent than incremental random mutations pruned by natural selection. It is my belief that it is the singular events which has provided the diversity, that the process outlined by Darwin are far to slow to account for the diversity of species. In other words, I think the truth is better described with chaos theory.

You don't understand the connection between TOE ,eugenics and Marxism, but this short discussion has lead you to promote socialism.

What about the easter bunny and santa?

/ I apologise to all the people who have made thoughtful and well reasoned points in this thread
// questioning my humanity right now

mark

i'm actually a republican: economic issues, libertarian: social issues,,healthcare-govt stay out of it, just making a statement i though amusing, nothing more

well, like some post said earlier in this thread ppl have studied fruit flies whose generation span is very short, to study evolution
about the chaos theory what event could provide for so much diversity? i cant think of any events under the chaos theory that would have the same effects as natural selection + create this diversity

You seem to be laboring under the fiction that chaos theory and evolution are somehow incompatible. Evolution actually involves two theories that are almost always mistakenly lumped together. The first theory is the simple one that new species arise from old species. That's it, nothing else. The second theory, which is much more debated, is how new species arise from older species. In this case, Darwin posited a gradual evolution from one species to the next. Given the amount of time life has been present on earth, there probably is enough time for gradual evolution to create this kind of diversity. The problem is that the fossil record suggest a second theory that is usually called punctuated equilibrium. In this theory, Darwin's gradual evolution does occur, but is frequently overtaken by natural events that suddenly make one set of traits much superior to another. I believe that in general, both gradual evolution and punctuated equilibrium are accepted and viewed as not in conflict.

One thing to keep in mind is that outside of simple organisms like bacteria, the overwhelming majority of mutations are invisible to evolution. Look at the human genome, only 3% of it actaully codes for something we currently recognize as useful. That means that in the other 97%, if a change occurs, there is nothing for evolution to act upon.d


But to get back to the topic of the thread, my problem with the sticker is that it singled out evolution for special treatment. No other scientific theory was selected for this kind of treatment. Since evolution was the target, the judge was correct to look to the reasoning for that targeting and the unavoidable conclusion was that the basis was the promotion of religion, and therefore it was unconstitutional.

A short little story: An ex of mine's brother once told me he read the Holy Bible and the several different versions of it probably a dozen or more times. He won't step foot in a church now! He thinks Christians and Jesus are evil, but the funny thing is, he's probably read their bible more than most of the followers who believe in it have...

I believe in no God(s). I think evolution is a fact, started as a theory but is a fact through do-process and scientific facts to prove its existence.

One of the National Geographics back a few months did a big story on it.. very good stuff, I urge believers of religion and non-religious to pick it up. It was very detailed, talked about Charles Darwin and so on..

A belief is just a belief, along with faith in that belief. I have faith that when I die, I die, I no longer exist. I'm perfectly fine with that.

But I do believe that church and state should be separated by all means. I wouldn't even mind having our government (USA) take off the "In God We Trust" on all of our money.. funny how they created the constitutional law separating these but then yet print that statement on the money used.. Well, somehow Bush got re-elected as well..

For those that might not know the true definitions of some common words:

be-lief:
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.


To me, just shows that having faith or a belief doesn't necessarily mean its a fact or real. It's that persons own confidence in believing whatever they want is true; to them only or maybe a group that believe the same thing.

And I'm not a big football fan but I am so hoping the Steelers lose today, so I can prance around the office Monday making fun of them in front of one of my co-workers who's a big fan..

That's what did it for me. Actually reading the book several times... in several different versions. After that, not even the best apologetics books in the world (and I read all I could find) could turn me back. It is funny because most Christians really don't know what their book says between the covers. Oh, they can tell you the verses they have heard from church... and maybe a couple of stories but they would be hard-pressed to say with convicition if their book had a problem with shirts that contained cotton and wool.*


* Note: according to old testiment law this would be forbidden... so it does in fact forbid it. Just so you know. Religion... much like Linux requires that you RTFM to understand what it really is about.

What did it for my wife was a sermon where the preacher brought out some of the blood and gut's god passages out for the war against terrorism. You know, the verses that never get mentioned because it would prejudice people against it if they knew they were in there. She heard the verse, asked me about it, I gave her a couple hundred more that were equally bad/worse, and she started reading the bible after that. 6 months later, she's an avowed atheist too.