quote:

---

MARIETTA - The teaching of evolution in public school classrooms, a topic that brought national attention to Cobb schools two years ago, will play itself out once again on Monday.

This time, the debate takes to the courtroom. The Cobb school district defends its 2002 decision to place a sticker inside science textbooks that reads: "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."

The school district says the sticker simply encourages students to keep an open mind and allows teachers to be able to answer any questions about the origin of life, including those about faith-based theories.

The parents who filed suit against the school district asking for removal of the sticker say it violates the separation of church and state and is an attempt to introduce religious theories into a public classroom.

Starting Monday, it will be up to the federal courts to decide if the sticker should stand.

---

quote:

---

The first witness, parent Marjorie Rogers, started the drive to put the stickers in the books. She said it was only fair to put a small disclaimer in a textbook where religious-based ideas about the origin of life are not mentioned.

"I don't want the Bible taught in the classroom. But there is a wealth of science that would support intelligent design, and that is not taught," she said. "There should be a marketplace of ideas."

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a lawyer; but didn't Ms. Rogers damage the school board's case by revealing a religious motivation behind her effort to put the disclaimers on the textbooks? Doesn't this fail the so-called Lemon test? Particularly point number 1?

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: Snuckles ]

quote:

---

There should be a marketplace of ideas.

---

Children! I am Mr. Bri. Welcome to my classroom.

We're going to try something a little different this year. I went to a teacher's conference over the summer and was convinced of the wisdom of "The marketplace of ideas". Apparantly, some of your parents are concerned that I'm not exposing you to all the possible theories in the world of science, and the marketplace of ideas is going to remedy that.

At the front of the class, I've put a series of books out. They contain the lessons for the year. I want you to take this questionnaire home to your parents tonight and get them to fill it out. This questionnaire will guide my in choosing the correct science stream for each student. In the field of maths, your parents can choose such subjects as basic arithmetic, trigonometry, algebra, calculus, the theory of threes, or gnostic contemplation. In biology, you may choose evolutionary theory, Lamarckism, seven day creationism, Hindu milk-to-curdism, or Norse giant-bodyism. In geology, your choices are plate tectonics, shrinking Earth theory, or Noachian floodism. Please note: students that pick seven day creation may not choose plate tectonics. I won't have any heads exploding in my classroom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I like Magoo's idea in the other thread - that university science departments should draw a hard line and say they won't accept applicants from school districts that teach "creation science" into their science programs.

---

Would that not simply punish children for living in the wrong disctrict? As far as I know, it is usually parents who decide where the kids live and go to school.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gula:
Would that not simply punish children for living in the wrong disctrict? As far as I know, it is usually parents who decide where the kids live and go to school.

Therefore, no, I don't think it is a good idea.

---

Perhaps. But really, all the kids would have to do is retake a couple of high school science credits in a school district that actually teaches science rather than theology. And while those students are doing their catch-up remedial work, they can curse their parents for being such major-league assholes, and they can remember the experience for when they become parents (perhaps even in the same school district!) and feel tempted to stick religion in the science curriculum.

Or, by the time students reach high school, particularly their senior years, and hear rumours that the University of Wisconsin-Madison (from the other thread) or the University of Georgia (from this story) won't accept them into science programs because their high school science courses don't meet admission requirements, then they just might be screaming for change themselves in school.

P.S. Magoo - don't you think it's rather classist to characterize people without post-secondary education as "unemployable hillbillies"?

[ 09 November 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

1) My original idea was not just science departments saying no, but Universities. Maybe I didn't write that, but it was in my head.

2) Perhaps instead of "unemployable" I could have written "Minimum-wage-crap-job employable", which is fine when you're young or new to the job market, but not part of most people's career plan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
...In biology, you may choose evolutionary theory, Lamarckism, seven day creationism, Hindu milk-to-curdism, or Norse giant-bodyism. In geology, your choices are plate tectonics, shrinking Earth theory, or Noachian floodism. Please note: students that pick seven day creation may not choose plate tectonics.

---

Your curriculum will not be complete without Catastrophism; the advanced civilization of Lemuria! Our noble heritage of sunken Atlantis! And what about the lost tribes of Israel? And our extra-terrestrial visitors, who built those nice pyramids for us? And, and, and....

quote:

---

I won't have any heads exploding in my classroom.

---

They were slow on the idea that black people could live in the county, too. At a guess, I believe it was all-white until about 1985.

quote:

---

Dare I ask what the reason was for requiring them to have a handgun?

---

I think it was simply a way to jam it up the wazzoo of people who wanted to ban handguns.

"Oh yeah? We'll MAKE you have a gun!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Maybe I didn't write that, but it was in my head.

---

LDA #$FF
STA MODHATON

We are being nice to each other, yes?

STA MODHATOFF
RTS

bIjatlh 'e' yImev!!! P'Tachk! This warrior must rant.

Wait one goddamned minute everybody! If these school board twerps are saying that evolution is just a theory, then they are either lying or just plain nuts.

While there are lots of different theories on evolution, as to why it takes place and how it happens, there is no doubt with the tons of empiric evidence out there that evolution is a fact.

It happens all around us and we see it every day. Things change and adjust in nature constantly. Things adapt and modify, while some things die out and make room for new things. It's a fact of life, and all schools of science, as well as any sane reasonable school of thought, recognize it.

It's just like there are all kinds of theories as to why, or even how, the earth revolves around the sun, and the moon revolves around the earth, but no one disputes that that's actually what's going on.

Conversely, "creationism" isn't even a theory. It's a twisted perversion of the myths of the Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, that provide the basis for life values to be used for a vicious self-serving political agenda.

Any decent religious scholar or practitioner--0and I have talked with many--will tell you that the bible is written in symbolism and metaphors by people who were trying to interpret visions, which they believed were divinely inspired, to spell out a powerful code of ethics and value system for people.

That's why the myths, fables and legends of the bible don't correspond very well to practical reality, but the values and morals definitely do--and that's what important basis of its message.

In other words, a real Christian, Moslem or Jew (the three religions based on the bible) couldn't care less whether there actually was a piece of real estate someplace known as the Garden of Eden. What's important is the symbolism of the garden and the values it represented and the life lessons to be learned from its story.

It's not practical earth science, and it never was intended to be. Twisting into some literal interpretation was the key way the churches of the feudal dark ages and the colonialist era used to terrorize people, suppress free thought and keep them in line.

The corporate "Christian right" in the US is trying to do the same thing today. Pushing the philosophical basis of the bible as earth science is not only an insult to people, science and free thought, but an insult to biblical values themselves, and whoever does this, as far as I'm concerned, should condemned as a heretic.

For the record, I'm not opposed to teaching religious studies or even allowing prayer in public schools (provided all types of prayers are allowed). I even go as far as endorsing the possibility that what is seen as supernatural today could just undiscovered science and fact, just like what is technology today could have been seen as mysticism centuries ago.

But these should be discussed and taught as what they are: religious studies, not practical earth science since that is not what they are about, and saying they are is dishonest and an attack on free thought.

It's interesting to note the "Christian right" that tries to push its narrow biblical interpretations as science and shove it down people's throats doesn't seem to be encumbered by any of the biblical values, such as the Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule and the practices of compassion, love thy neighbour (regardless of who thy neighbour is), forgiving sins and transgressions and, most importantly, judge not lest ye be judged.

Nope. Not them. They are ready to kill, main, torture, slander, imprison and deport anybody who isn't exactly like them, doesn't swear total allegiance to the US government and blindly follow the dictates of Corporate America.

quote:

---

"This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Well...

2) Perhaps instead of "unemployable" I could have written "Minimum-wage-crap-job employable", which is fine when you're young or new to the job market, but not part of most people's career plan.

---

quote:

---

I don't have a university degree, and I don't have a "minimum wage crap job" either, nor did I before I went to university.

---

Maybe I have it all wrong then. I thought we had to ensure lower tuition, so people could go to university and not be stuck in go-nowhere jobs, and I thought we had to hike minimum wage so that these jobs wouldn't be crap.