From the Associated Press:

ATLANTA - A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution ìa theory, not a fact,î saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

ìBy denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,î U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.

The stickers were put inside the booksí front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read: ìThis 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.î

ìThis is a great day for Cobb County students,î said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. ìTheyíre going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma.î

In a statement, the school board said it was disappointed by the ruling and will decide whether to appeal. A board spokesman said no decision had been made on when, or if, the stickers would be removed.

ìThe textbook stickers are a reasonable and evenhanded guide to science instruction and encouraging students to be critical thinkers,î the board said.

Thanks to Maurice Black for the link.

I remember attending a Christmas party last fall. A friend was bragging about how determinedly he had informed his very young daughter that Santa Claus does not exist. He seemed to view this as an extremely important issue. Telling his daughter that Santa existed was a lie, a lie perpetuated by authority, and he wasn't going to inflict that on his daughter.

For the agnostic and atheist among us, religious belief and practice seems like a lie which must be opposed.

I've raised two daughters, and I think that this viewpoint is a fundamental mistake, and one that people who understand literature should immediately recognize. What if belief in God, and a theological education, are essential to the psychological development of humans? What if the best method of rearing competent children is not one that strikes atheists and agnostics as rational? Why must the rational prevail, even if the cost is a loss of psychological and spiritual development?

My father believed that children should be given a full religious indoctrination until they were 15 or 16 years old, even though he didn't practice on a daily basis. The public school I attended endorsed prayer, and there was never any doubt that religious moral values were the values of the school. This really is best for children, even if it strikes you as irrational. Disciplinary problems did not exist. Enforcing a strong work ethic in the classroom was not an issue. There is a lot more at work here than the rational. The rearing of children is not, and should not be an entirely rational undertaking.

You don't have to be atheist or agnostic to accept the concept of evolution.

I'm just thinking about those poor textbooks. Put the stickers on, rip the stickers off. I'm sure the books are very attractive now. Who has had to spend all that time (at taxpayer expense?) to do that?

Strictly Speaking, The Parents Are Right

Evolution, like Relativity, is a Theory, not a Fact.

Scientific Facts are things like fossiized bones and even fossilized sea creatures on mountian tops. Other examples would be the speed of light and the gravitational constant.

Theories seek to explain these facts. Scientists--and quite a few religious people--think that Evolution is the best Theory to fit the Facts as we know them. Still, it remains that, a Theory.

AB

Stephen, that was a great point. I am not "religious" and can really have some bad things to say to say about the Christian God concept and so on, but it did not bother me at all that the small town school used to bus one of my kids to a "good news" church program once a week. At the very least, Who cares? [The hour was "voluntary", but not really not for a seven year old, and was not otherwise occupied by any subject matter.]

On the other hand the assault on the theory of evolution in school as a religious-political issue is certainly out of bounds in a science class. And the judge who had the sticker removed also has a good point.

AB,

Not true. Gravity, or the existence of a constant speed of light, are theories in the same sense evolution is a theory.

AB didn't say "gravity" or "the existence of a constant speed of light". The speed of light, and the graviational constant, are things that can be measured. You can't measure evolution. It's a theory that explains observations.

"gravitational"

AB,

As you'd probably agree, however, Darwinian Evolution, Fits and Starts Evolution, or the new stuff that's lining up with Complexity theory are better competitors to the Origin of the Species theory than "Some Kind of Miracle" happened....

Then again, I really don't think high schoolers are ready for Kaufman's Origins of Order or even his more "civilian-friendly" version.

And then yet again, I don't think holding off until the urchins (or high school teachers for that matter) can handle heavy biogeochemistry and heavier duty math before getting into the alternative theories was the original intent of the stickers.

AB's right, but why aren't these parents demanding stickers to warn students that the theory of relativity is also "a theory, not a fact?"

Laura,

Perhaps I had misunderstood the point of AB's comment. If the point was only that evolution is not an observation, but a theory created to explain observations, then its obviously correct.

By that standard, the sticker should read,
"Evolution, gravity, the solar system, etc, ....
are theories, not facts."

It is the singling out of evolution that was ruled to be motivated by religious dogma.

One thing the judge pointed out (at least, according to reports I've read) is the difference between "theory" as used by scientists and "theory" as used by everybody else. Evolution is indeed a theory, but a scientific one, not a flimsy "guess" as non-scientists, and most teenagers, tend to understand the word. The judge was right, the parents were wrong, and thank God (I use that expression non-ironically) that intelligence and reason prevailed.

I suspect that evolutionary theory is singled out because in its infancy it was used to bolster Victorian materialism. It was a way for people who cared about such things to explain the natural world while denying the existence of God. So it kind of got off on the wrong foot where believers in God are concerned. There doesn't have to be a conflict between accepting that evolution happened, and believing in a creator God; any more than there is nowadays thought to be a conflict between church membership and accepting a heliocentric solar system. I think the whole struggle over this issue is a result of people talking past each other.

I will add that there are some new and surprising observations that may change the way we think gravity works.

"Scientists are quick to suggest the Pioneer anomaly, as they call it, is probably caused by the space probes themselves, perhaps emitting heat or gas. But the possibilities have been tested and modeled and penciled out, and so far they don't add up.

"Which leaves open staggering possibilities that would force wholesale reprinting of all physics books...."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html

None of these overarching theories are so wonderful that they must never be challenged.

"None of these overarching theories are so wonderful that they must never be challenged."

That's it in a nutshell. But how then do you explain this to students? It's terribly diffictult to explain, on a wide level, how evolution has been dominant for 150 years but is now facing some criticism. I don't think the creatiionists can reasonably ask for much more in a public school, but the problem is if you even mention intelligent design, some non-religious parents really get in a fuss.

But the scientifically credible criticism is comming from the scientific community, not the Intelligent Design people (who are just creationists with some PR sense). It's still "some kind of miracle occurs" since the ID concept does not imply that Aliens are the designers, but that a genuine deity is.

By all means teach Creationism and ID, but do it as part of a Religions or Mythology class. Pretending that it is science when it is a kludge to link to religious doctrine isn't and shouldn't be the way to present it. Otherwise, you might as well include the "The Intelligent Designer is P!ssed" theory of Atmospheric Electricity when you teach earth sciences.

I see your point on the miracle issue, and ID has a ways to go. What I object to is people rejecting ID outright. As a Christian living in the South, I'll be the first to admit that lots of people espouse creationism but can't defend it. It just seems, according to the objections of some Darwinians, that ID will never, ever be accepted. That's troubling, because it demonstrates that Darwinians have an ideology that they will not relinquish.

I think most biologists would say that evolution is both a fact and a theory. There exists excellent experimental data, including data from controlled experiments, showing that organisms evolve. In that sense evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is the logical framework that connects and explains a variety of biological observations.

The difference between evolution and creationism (including "intelligent design" variants) is that creationism is not even a theory.

ID = creationism isn't really true. Creationism denies natural selection altogether. Creationism also insists that the creation story in the book of Genesis is literally true.

If in fact there is a creator God who guided the beginning and the evolution of life on Earth, then that fact is truth no matter how many atheists refuse to believe it. Some say that whether God exists is strictly a matter of faith that can have nothing to do with scientific thought. But if there is a creator God, then how is science served by refusing to even consider the possibility? If there was an intelligent designer, then everyone who insists on accidental abiogenesis and pure natural selection has left the path of truth. How scientific is that?

Detached,

Not true. Gravity, or the existence of a constant speed of light, are theories in the same sense evolution is a theory.
.....
By that standard, the sticker should read, "Evolution, gravity, the solar system, etc, .... are theories, not facts.

Evolution is a theory. Gravity and the Solar System are observed facts.

A child observes gravity every time he falls down. In the ancient world, they knew that the planets were somehow different from the rest of the stars.

Theories are derived to explain facts: Geocentrism and Heliocentrism, light traveling in Ether or a Vacuum, or the complex collision between Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity, which partially supplanted it.

By the way, the speed of light is not constant. It is constant only in a vacuum. Not only does its speed changes as it moves from one material to the next but the different wavelengths change at a different rate. That is the reason that water droplets can break a sunbeam into a rainbow.

Bill,
As you'd probably agree, however, Darwinian Evolution, Fits and Starts Evolution, or the new stuff that's lining up with Complexity theory are better competitors to the Origin of the Species theory than "Some Kind of Miracle" happened....

This strikes at one of the problems of this debate. Scientists themselves don't know what is going on, at least not with any certainty. Many of the specifics that they teach are as much a result of Faith as belief in Genesis.

The result is that scientist look like closed-minded idiots when they object to the simple, true statement that "Evolution is a Theory not a Fact."

One,

AB's right, but why aren't these parents demanding stickers to warn students that the theory of relativity is also "a theory, not a fact?

Probably because their children are not being taught Relativity.

Laura,

You might enjoy this:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/NHM.HTM

AB,

I don't think you understand what it means for something to be a scientific theory. The theory of gravity is a theory just like the theory of evolution.

We observe objects falling when we drop them; we observe the paths of the planets in the heavens.

We explain these by saying that every particle in the universe exerts a force on every other particle in universe that is directly proportional to the products of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. That is not an observation: it is a theory.

Good science textbooks already do explain that scientific theories represent the best current understanding, and may possibly be proven false in the future.

Hey Bill - I failed to mention that I understand and have no issue with micro-evolution, so that's not really an issue with me. Good points, though. Thanks.

Science requires adherence to scientific method, i.e., preliminary obs, the hypothesis, benching the hypothesis and then putting it to the tough test. ID bypasses this and I cannot see how to patch it without an added layer of faith to override the need for proof. That's the difference between science and religion.

As AD indicates there are edgy responses to the scientific community regarding calling evolution a theory, however, the EvoBios are responding not to Kaufman dissing Darwin (though the fights between the SOCers, Lamarkians and Natural Selectors are very heated from what I understand), but the IDers and Creationists dissing scientific method in the name of their pet issue. To be sure, they could handle it differently.

The trouble with ID though is that it fails the Test test. Even macroscale evolution can be tested in theory via extended observation programs (albiet eons long ones - the more abstract theories in physics likewise have proposed experiments that cannot be executed yet). The more recent science based theories (e.g., the ones involving complexity) can be tested via simulations using established and tested rule bases.

Meanwhile, just how to you test ID (at least in a way to get the results its proponents want - finding little green men or the ancient race from the Kirk does Kirok Star Trek episode probably won't do, nor will finding that the Gods are of the Xena and Hercules variety - concrete but campy). Regardless of what theory you are trying to prove, in principle, you could spot the species jump if you waited long enough regardless of the mechanism. Spotting that measurable transition in the noise is comparatively easy to finding a physical mechanism which may be tough and yet always controversial but its still doable. Yet how would you know that there was a super-metaphysical hand in the experiment. Especially since scaling down the experiment or obnservation program ID would have to emply man-made intelliegent design. We have a word for it in the field. Unfortunately, it's not called ID. It's called cheating. And for an observational program, I'd suspect the true hypothetical Intelligent Designer would a bit too coy, and way too savvy, to be caught in the act stretching a giraffe's neck in front of the instrumentation.

I'm an atheist who has forgotten more about evolution than all of you put together will ever know. That having been said, I think it was a mistake to remove the stickers. Rather than being perceived as wise legal guidance, it will be perceived as political oppression. The resistance will grow, students will wonder what the government is trying to hide, and the whole thing will boil over in a much worse form later.

The stickers said nothing about creationism or ID. The stickers only suggested a healthy degree of skepticism be applied to the learning of evolution. Bravo! The same should be said about everything confronted in a school text. Even more true for anything to come out of a teacher's mouth. Be skeptical, children, oh yes. Be very skeptical.

The stickers said nothing about creationism or ID. The stickers only suggested a healthy degree of skepticism be applied to the learning of evolution. Bravo! The same should be said about everything confronted in a school text. Even more true for anything to come out of a teacher's mouth. Be skeptical, children, oh yes. Be very skeptical.

(Well it would be fun to let the students watch a Lamarckian, SOMer and Darwinist in a cage match and have them duke it out for the children but that could get very very bloody and some parents may complain. I've seen enough catfights at Geoscience and Complexity Conferences to know that it's no place for youngsters who won't know when to duck when the chairs start flying. But anyway...)

Plus mechanism of evoluition wasn't the point behind the sticker. Consider the text of the ruling before you question of the stickers were not about ID. ID vs free-flying evoluition is explicitly mentioned to the exclusion of other science issues (like Gravity), though the Cobb school board did some serious hedging on the relgious aspects and created the appearance of opening the door to a religious/non-scientific-method spin on it.

That said, part me wants the stickers to stay on just so a unit can be put together on discussing the scientific method. They could spin it up slowly with some simple Newton's Laws experiments and end with the test question, "Compare ID vs neo-Lamarckian vs Darwinian evolution through all components of the Scientific Method."

Be careful what you wish for. Be skeptical. But be honest. If it exists outside of scientific method or otherwise requires you to short-circuit it, it ain't science.

Detached,

I think that it is you who are confused about Theories and Facts.

Take Gravity. It is observed that two objects will attract each other. These are observed facts: any scientist can observe this result in the proper experiments. The experiment could utilize a banna peel.

A Theory of Gravitation? There is none. A theory of Gravitation would explain WHY two objects attract each other. There is no coherent explanation of this, at least one that can be explained to a typical educated man.

This is another puzzle scientists must address: OK, Mr. Scientist, you claim to know how everything started (e.g. in Evolution) now explain WHY there is gravity? What CAUSES gravity?

The same is true of magnetism.

FIAT LUX,

AB,

In carefully conducted experiments, we can see physical objects attract each other with gravitational force. Based on this, we postulate that every object in the universe attracts every other object in this manner. The former is the observation, the latter is the theory.

Detached Observer, this: "we postulate that every object in the universe attracts every other object in this manner." is no less magical hand-waving than "God did it". How do objects attract each other? Why? What's the mechanism? What's gravity? Radiation? Particles? What? Answer: It's a phenomenon of nature. Nobody knows what it is. This does not prevent scientists from wondering about it, as indeed they should. It's not true that science forbids speculation about ideas that can't be measured. We'd never get anywhere if it did.

Detached,

If we can not know the simple existance of gravity then we can know nothing. This doubt and uncertainty has now broken down to the past the point of no faith in science and into Nihilism.

A scientist would say, along with the pope, "Faith!, Brother, Faith!"

FIAT LUX,

AB,

Indeed we cannot know the existence of gravity. We can only say that our current observations are consistent with Newton's theory of gravity.

They are also consistent with a great many other things: for example many scientists consider the possibility that the gravitational force may involve terms that can only be observed on small time scales.

Laura,

What you say is completely true and it is generally why scientists do not claim to have any final answers or any claim on absolute truth. All we have are theories that have survived the tests thus far. But lets remember that this discussion started with the evolution stickers: it's not fair to isolate evolution with a criticism that applies to everything else in the science textbook.

typo: small distance scales, not small time scales.

Consider the text of the ruling before you question of the stickers were not about ID. ID vs free-flying evoluition is explicitly mentioned to the exclusion of other science issues

Considering the text of the ruling is precisely what you do no want to do in deciding the merits of the case. What you want to do is to read the sticker literally and judge it by what it actually says. Do not allow either counsel to put words into your ruling. That is the mark of a weak judge.

Simply because a judge was swayed more by one counsel than the other and allowed his ruling to be contaminated by the language of one counsel's case, does not prove in any manner what the merits of the case actually are.

A court of law is a flawed human instrument, as flawed as the humans that participate. Court rulings need disclaimer stickers just as much as school lectures and textbooks.

Considering the text of the ruling is precisely what you do no want to do in deciding the merits of the case. What you want to do is to read the sticker literally and judge it by what it actually says. Do not allow either counsel to put words into your ruling. That is the mark of a weak judge.

Uh, that ain't the way the law works, and just how is a Judge supposed to get to a ruling without listening to the arguments and accruing background data, including the original law.

If you don't like it appeal it. Just as a scientific theories and hypothesis require testability to become accepted in Science, Law has its own rules too. But don't blow it off just because you don't like it.

And in this ruling (and it isn't very long), the paper trail of the original decision and the vagueness of the sticker's text in comparison to the arguments to include it (and that CAN nix a law or regulation, letalone a sticker, case in point creatively blurring "Disruption" in college campuses) showed that there was something off on the original decision, right down to why it was only in a Biology text and not in a Physics or History text, and ID was in there along with a lot of "issues" including plain old clumsyness from the board, thus out it went.

You can't honestly recognize or dismiss a theory or hypothesis if you don't read it. Same is true for a court ruling. Sauce for the Goose. Gravy for the Gander. Unless of course, the evaluator knows everything about everything for all time.

Court rulings need disclaimer stickers just as much as school lectures and textbooks.

Court rulings are subject to appeal -- no lawyer worth his shingle will deny it. All scientific knowledge and data are provisional pending new data and rigorous study -- no scientist would have it any other way. It's the public that has issues with the above expecting Lawyers to be perfect and Scientists to be Omniscient. No sticker is necessary. I remember both when I was in elementary, jr high and high school, let alone college. We just need to remind the rest of the folks who insist that Scientists and Lawyers, be held to the same fantasy-level standards as Oracles and Priests. However, methinks a certain number of them pride themselves in being too smart to study.

Good posts, AB.

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory. Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing; cf Lamarckism and punctuated equilibrium.

Organisms tend to change over time. There's no denying this without denying the evidence of the fossil record. How and why they change is up for debate, but not the fact that they do change.

Post,

Your comment hurts my critical ears.

"Evolution is fact."

Not according to a lot a prestigiuos scientists. You know the guy who co-discovered DNA, Francis Crick? Well, he does not support evolution. Fred Hoyle, one the of worlds most prominet scientists, does not either. And Louis Bounoure, a highly respected director of one of France's science agencies, thinks that the theory of evolution is ridiculous and is a detriment to science.

I can go on, but I think I made my point. I think it would do us all good to get the real facts before we make any "truth" statements.

I don't blame you for your ignorance, Post. I attend a top university in California, and I'm not told the full truth about evolution. Thank God that I don't just believe everything people tell me, even in my classroom.

Youngster, define "evolution" as you understand it.

When I was in school, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, evolution was defined as a change in gene frequency over generations. Is this what you object to?

Youngster:

... and one of my colleagues is brill at chemistry.. But he does not subscribe to the pathogen theory of illness despite the fact that the university is the best environment to test the theory short of a day care center.

Laura,

Hi. I was taught the same thing. Yes, I object to it. But I respect those who espouse it, and I understand why they do. So far, gene advancement has not been observed. Every experiment to help prove evolution at the genetic level has been a disappointment.

Bill,

I see your point. The thing we should remember is that each person lives by faith. Some blindly believe in Evolution. Others, some form of religion.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

Well, I agree and disagree with what happened here. I agree that we should be clear to explain things like Evolution, Gravity, and such as being non-proven theories. But, I am against the singling out of Evolution that they did. But, then again, what do I know. Large portions of the right don't like me because I'm an atheist (which somehow makes me necessarily liberal). The left doesn't like me because I find liberal orthodoxy to be just as ignorant as any other sort of fundamentalism. Neither likes me because I am an ardent (and true) pro-lifer: no abortion and no death penalty. But, enough about me. I just wanted to say that the left and right are great examples of the stupidity of large crowds.