babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Judge orders evolution warnings removed from textbooks

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Judge orders evolution warnings removed from textbooks
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 13 January 2005 07:00 PM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
ATLANTA, GA. - Stickers placed in high school biology textbooks in Georgia that claim evolution is a "theory not fact" are unconstitutional because they endorse religion, a U.S. federal judge ruled Thursday.

District Judge Clarence Cooper ordered the removal of the disclaimers, which were put in the books by school officials in Cobb County in 2002.

"The sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders," Cooper said in his 44-page ruling.

If the stickers do not fit, you must acquit.

From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 13 January 2005 08:39 PM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's good news in my book!
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 13 January 2005 09:07 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Stickers placed in high school biology textbooks in Georgia that claim evolution is a "theory not fact" are unconstitutional because they endorse religion, a U.S. federal judge ruled Thursday.

Uh, no they don't. Is it unconstitutional to doubt evolution on any basis, religious or otherwise?

From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 January 2005 09:14 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Show me anyone who doubts it on any legitimate scientific basis -- or what other scientific theory requires a similar disclaimer.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 13 January 2005 09:19 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gravity. I have serious doubts about gravity and I think there should be a warning to hold onto something at all times, in case gravity suddenly lets go.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 January 2005 11:51 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Gravity. I have serious doubts about gravity and I think there should be a warning to hold onto something at all times, in case gravity suddenly lets go.

There is no gravity, the earth sucks.

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 14 January 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Gravity. I have serious doubts about gravity and I think there should be a warning to hold onto something at all times, in case gravity suddenly lets go.

In "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" Burt Reynolds' character asks Dolly Parton's character if she ever goes jogging. She says that if she ever tried jogging she'd black both her eyes.

I guess I should count myself lucky that if gravity ever lets go I'll only black one of mine.

From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 14 January 2005 12:11 AM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Uh, no they don't. Is it unconstitutional to doubt evolution on any basis, religious or otherwise?

no, gir, it isn't! the religious part comes in b/c 1) georgia is a very fundie state and 2) it's the creationist groups that pushed for and got the sticker on the books.

oddly, my bio prof said something about the theory of evolution today. he said it was a theory and a fact.

From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 January 2005 01:27 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd settle for a compromise. The stickers in every science book, and a similar disclaimer in the front of every bible:

Warning: if the following story reads like a hack author's first work of fiction, with way too many wooden characters, too much bloodshed, a heavy-handed moral lesson and a predictable ending, that's because it was written by many men, in Aramaic and passed down orally over about 800 years before being transcribed, translated, edited and censored.

This book is for entertainment purposes only.

From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 14 January 2005 01:32 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about, "This textbook is not to be used for personal hygiene."
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 14 January 2005 01:33 AM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
magoo~ sounds good to me!

[ 14 January 2005: Message edited by: ShyViolet417 ]
From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 14 January 2005 01:33 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
How about, "This textbook is not to be used for personal hygiene."

Or how 'bout 'This book is not to be used for cleansing of any kind'

From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 14 January 2005 01:35 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Uh, no they don't. Is it unconstitutional to doubt evolution on any basis, religious or otherwise?

It's probably not unconstitutional, but it's stupid.

From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 January 2005 01:53 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Give them enough time and for sure it'll be unconstitutional to doubt that the world was made in 6 days by a benevolent all-being who wants us to hate homosexuals, unless we're women, in which case he wants us to stay home and hate homosexuals.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 14 January 2005 01:56 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
There is no gravity, the earth sucks.


quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
I guess I should count myself lucky that if gravity ever lets go I'll only black one of mine.

Boastful.

You guys each removed my gravity.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 14 January 2005 02:11 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The judge's decision is here. (requires Adobe Acrobat).

One of them lawyerin' types at the Panda's Thumb has an analysis of the decision, and how the judge concluded that the disclaimers violated the establishment clause (using the Lemon test).

[ 14 January 2005: Message edited by: Snuckles ]
From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca