The Cobb County (Georgia) school board has seen fit to put a disclaimer in its biology textbooks:

Prior to this move, the schools had just torn out the offending pages dealing with evolution. A group of parents and the ACLU have filed suit against the school district. As you might imagine, the issue has started a firestorm. The judge who is presiding over the trial has even received a letter containing an unknown “white powder”, which caused the offices to be closed yesterday. Access North GA

It seems that Texas, in addition to pooh-poohing evolution, also modified their health educations texts to redefine marriage from “between two people” to “between a man and a woman”. Sources: 1st Amendment Center-#1, and 1st Amendment Center #2

Similar things have happened or are happening in Wisconsin, Kansas, Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Questions for debate:

Given the expanded role religion is playing in our government, does this concern you?

Is it appropriate for school boards to modify school textbooks to suit certain personal belief systems?

As Clarence Darrow said in 1925, are we once again "opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the Middle Ages"?

Given the expanded role religion is playing in our government, does this concern you?
Yes, I favor total seperation of church and state.

Is it appropriate for school boards to modify school textbooks to suit certain personal belief systems?
Is it appropriate for our government to put a similar statement in our bibles?
So, I say NO.

As Clarence Darrow said in 1925, are we once again "opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the Middle Ages"?
People who want to remain ignorant will do so, and if they want to keep their children in the middle ages I suppose they can. But they should not be making decisions for my children.

Is it appropriate for school boards to modify school textbooks to suit certain personal belief systems?

To a point yes it is. If my child went to a school that celebrated the paternalism of the southern slave system as an ideal form of society, I think I would have some problems with it.

In these controversies I actually think that the language cited in the Cobb (suburban Atlanta) County I don't have a problem with it. Darwin's Theories are theories. Education should be approached with an open mind and even a skeptical mind isn't that the scientific method.



As Clarence Darrow said in 1925, are we once again "opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the Middle Ages"?

I think we are always two trends away from a reign of bigotry, but I don't think we are there. This Evolution controversy has remained since 1859/1871. I think we also have to worry about the bigotry of political correctness and enforced consensus.

It is fair enough to have students understand the theory of evolution. We should not force them to accept it as fact.

Why can't we have an educational system in which fundamentalist christian or any other extreme spiritual sect can feel safe entrusting their children to. I am deeply troubled by the expanding home schooling movement. largely fueled by Christians that feel under assault by the rules that block out Christianity from the realm of education.

A disclaimer telling people to approach a scientific theory with an open mind is the least of my worries.

Okay, this is the odd thing about science and people's misunderstanding of it. All things in science are "theories". The term "fact" is just another way of stating that it is a highly justified theory. This is why you see things like the "theory of evolution" or the "theory of optics" or the "theory of quantum mechanics". However, there are key differences between theories in science vs. "theories" in religion:

1. Does the theory fit the observables?
2. Does the theory make predictions?
3. Can the theory be falsified?

While the list is not exhaustive, if the theory cannot address those three issues, then it is by definition not science. So, what does this disclaimer really mean? For me, it indicates a complete misunderstanding of what science is all about.

Given the expanded role religion is playing in our government, does this concern you?

It is worthwhile to be skeptical of scientific theory. In order to be skeptical one must not only understand the theory but also understand the principles behind the philosophy of science. One must recognize that scientific theories can be shown to be incorrect or incomplete. The 19th century theory of phlogiston has been demonstrated to be incorrect (that is, its predictions were contravened by empirical observation, thus it was falsified). Newtonian mechanics has been demonstrated to be incomplete (that is, its predictions do not work for large masses or high velocities or non-inertial reference frames). Evolution as first conceived by Darwin is not the same as the modern theory of evolution. I fully expect aspects of the theory to be refined further.

Is it appropriate for school boards to modify school textbooks to suit certain personal belief systems?

If the subject is science only, then it is not appropriate to introduce religion into it. If the subject is a comparison of issues in science with issues in religion, then it is appropriate to address evolution head on within that context.

I tend to agree with Eeyore's take here. Emphasizing that theories are theories is not saying that theories are wrong. They are simply the best possible explanation of observed events. A similar disclaimer should be made with global warming: it's a theory not a fact.

Given the expanded role religion is playing in our government, does this concern you?

Hmm, I didn't see any reference to religion. I see the implications, but given the fact that evolution WAS included and this solution seems to keep the pages from being removed can only be seen as a step in the right direction.

As far as the marriage reference, conventional marriage IS between a man and a woman. There is currently a debate regarding changing this. But as of now, the statement reference is not factually wrong in the United States.

Is it appropriate for school boards to modify school textbooks to suit certain personal belief systems?
School boards do not write textbooks. They do, however, have a responsibility to set a curriculum. Belief systems are inherent in this and always have been. As long as school systems are not teaching things that are factually wrong, I don't see the major problem here.

As Clarence Darrow said in 1925, are we once again "opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the Middle Ages"?

Although Darrow's quote is quite odd, but the man was a cad. He dismissed Bryan's death six days after the Scopes trial rather harshly. The man, as Alan Dershowitz once described him "comes off as something of an anti-religious cynic."

The Theory of evolution does not explain how living things were created. There are huge gaps in the creation of living things from complex amino acid chains. In short, evolution is an incomplete theory.

Yes, evolution is observable as far as a species changing to adapt to its environment. The "survival of the fittest" aspect of evolution is relatively unchallenged. It is the origin of life debate which is still unexplained satisfactorily. That does not equate to a "reign of bigotry" when one points out the flaws.

I tend to fall in line with what logophage posted here. This doesn't so much strike me as an attempt to infuse religion into the curriculum as a gross misunderstanding of science and the scientific method.

As logo said, in science everything is a theory and scientists constantly strive to either improve them or disprove them and replace them with an alternative theory based on new findings. Saying that evolution is a theory is redundant and unecessary, because it is commonly understood that it is a theory and that there are holes in it.

It is in that way that this concerns me because it means that many of our youth aren't going to get a good understanding of what science is.

Given the expanded role religion is playing in our government, does this concern you?
As Amlord said, I don't see anything overtly religious, but the intent is very clearly there and there really isn't any denying that. As I said above it strikes me as unfortunate because it means the community doesn't have a good understanding of science.

I'm a little bit torn as to whether or not I care though. It doesn't appear that the federal government is pushing this, that is a good thing. It does however appear that the community is pushing it and I do not really agree with that. But, I think it is only pushing the edge a little bit, and certainly isn't over it as far as separation of church and state. I wouldn't tolerate it in my community, but then again the community I live in would never consider something like that anyway, so I have nothing to worry about. So, I'd say let Cobb county do what it wants as long as it doesn't violate constitutional principles. The second it does, I would oppose it.

Is it appropriate for school boards to modify school textbooks to suit certain personal belief systems?
School boards should be able to select text books, but I don't think they should be modifying them or censoring them. We are talking about text books here not literotica or something, there isn't exactly much controversial stuff in them.

The textbooks should be selected based on quality and meeting the district's educational goals. Of course the personal beliefs of those on the school board are going to play into the equation, but I don't think that discussing evolution for example is an appropriate reason not to purchase a text book. That would be like censoring text books that assert that the earth revolves around the sun, you are just doing a disservice to the children because they will not be properly educated when compared to their peers in other states and internationally.

As Clarence Darrow said in 1925, are we once again "opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the Middle Ages"?
I think that is a little bit extreme and premature. Given their way, I'm sure that certain elements of society would prefer to regress quite a bit, but I have confidence in the system that prevents that from happening to a great extent. Small battles are fought on a daily basis, but the line never moves much in either direction these days.

Given the expanded role religion is playing in our government, does this concern you?
Hmm. If it were re-worded to avoid specific mention of evolution, and instead talk about theories generally, then it would be fine, or even admirable. In fact, the last sentence on it's own should be printed on every reference work on every subject. Including the Bible! Though I think if a school board suggested that we'd find out what the true motivations behind this disclaimer are.

As it stands, though, it reads like a consumer health warning. you know, the kind of "WARNING - This product may contain nuts. It should not be consumed by nut allergy sufferers." that fear of litigation places on seemingly every product these days. Including packets of nuts.

It points in a worrying direction, but I'll start to worry when the next lot of school science textbooks come out which - purely for sceintific balance, you understand - start including the "theory" of creationism as a competing idea.

Because, as any scientist will tell you, creationism (whatever else it is) ain't science because it doesn't arise from empirical observation (like evolution does), it can't be replicated (anyone with eyes and a passport can go to Galapagos and make the same observations as Darwin did), and it can't be proven wrong .

Despite evidence that evolution is incomplete, and that nobody anywhere has yet been able to prove Darwin wrong, it isn't hard for a Darwinist to imagine evidence necessary to demonstrate that evolution doesn't happen. Ask the same of a creationist and they would likely find it inconscionable - the very basis of creationism is the belief that the Bible is literal truth; their "theory"'s fundamental basis is faith, not science.

Is it appropriate for school boards to modify school textbooks to suit certain personal belief systems?
It happens all the time. Some school books now feature sex education, equal treatments of different races and sexualities. Such things have only arisen because teaching establishments, including school boards, have believed them to be necessary or beneficial.

You and I probably think this is a good thing. Many others (not entirely by coincidence, many of the same people who want to see evolution downgraded to the status of an optional ingredient to which some may be allergic) do not agree. Them's the breaks.

As Clarence Darrow said in 1925, are we once again "opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the Middle Ages"?

Maybe blowing the cobwebs off the keyholes, but not opening the doors just yet. As I say, until creationism goes in as a science subject. Then we aren't just opening the doors, we're dancing through them with Middle Aged blindfolds firmly in place.

On the wider issue, I think there is only one approach to scotch this whole area. The elements are:
1. Introduce Religious Education classes into schools...
These classes must cover all major religions and belief systems, including atheism, and should be about awareness not indoctrination, with a particular emphasis on why the separation of church and state is desirable. And if science books have to have "warning, may contain unproven theories" splashed on the cover, all the books studied in R.E. lessons must have "warning, may contain Bronze Age creation myths from pre-scientific cultures". Neither would be a statement of anything but fact.
2. Introduce a definition, if necessary a Constitutional definition, of what constitutes science
Along the lines of empiricism, reproducibility, and falsifiability as the three cornerstones. Creationism should be taught if school boards want it to be, but in the R.E. lessons. And Judeo-Christian creation should be discussed alongside the Hebrew sheol universe, the Native Australian Dreamtime, and the Jedi "midichlorians" with no more or less weight placed on it.

In other words, the State should do a deal with the Church, the idea being that some of the Church's ideas are permitted into schools on the State's terms, in return for the Church not interfering in State science education any further.

I think we have more overtly religious politicians, but I don't know that religion itself is playing an expanded role in our government.

No, I am not concerned. One of the greatest criticisms of evolution by creationists is that it cannot be observed; and yet creation "out of nothing" is not observable either. So neither can be seen as a fact.

And really, I'm one of those weird people who believe it was entirely possible that the Creator has been using evolution to continue to create!


Whatever. It has happened before, whether it is considered appropriate or not. Maybe this will necessitate the appearance of strongly-opinioned parents who have never been interested enough before to attend school board meetings.


Clarence Darrow was a colorful speaker who made his living making this sort of statement. But remember: he was arguing in favor of the inclusion of a theory in the science curriculum; he was not arguing for its exclusion.

As Clarence Darrow said in 1925, are we once again "opening the doors for a reign of bigotry equal to anything in the Middle Ages"?

Many years ago I saw a stage production of Inherit the Wind. I have also seen the movie version with Spencer Tracy and Fredrick March several times. Each time, I’ve almost laughed myself silly. Never would I have dreamed that this sort of nonsense might come full circle in the 21st century.

There are many signs that we are moving backwards and not maturing socially, culturally or intellectually. The evolution in textbooks question, which has been around for awhile, is just one of them. Here’s another example. For several years ABC has broadcast Saving Private Ryan as a salute to our Veterans on November 11. Although they again broadcast the 5 Academy Award film this year, about 60 ABC affiliates, including Belo owned WFAA-TV in Dallas did not for fear of reprisal from the FCC. As one prominent Republican board member put it yesterday, we are “moving forward.” The only question is forward to what?

The fervency with which the right is pursuing such issues is part of a larger milieu.

The arrogance of certain Christians who don't understand religion very much concerns me. Let me call them "gnostics" instead. They think they know everything, including how creation happened, while in reality all they have are the myths of early creation understandings. These myths involve poofing things into existence, such as plants and animals.

I'm sorry. Poofing into existence doesn't explain anything. Show me the mathematical proof of this poofing into existence. At least physicists support their theories of creation with math proofs. All these gnostics have is scripture, and scripture begs the question of accuracy.

Somebody, we don't know who, thought about creation some number of millennia ago. We aren't quite sure how long ago, because it first started as oral tradition and got written down later, after writing was developed.

Of course, one of the pet ideas of the gnostics is that creation is only 6,000 years old. They have no proof of this other than scripture, and that itself has been interpreted into millennia from days.

But don't point out that days did not exist until light and darkness were separated, so there you go. At least that paradox goes along with the physics idea that time did not exist until creation -- something that's very hard to understand in any system of explanation.

So here's my concern: The gnostic explanation of creation does not involve critical thinking, only blind following of scripture. This is a dangerous way of thinking that has lead to a lot of bloody deals, all supported by intellectual blindness, not understanding. That this type of thinking is being promoted in government to support a new round of religious war concerns me deeply.



No. Our country is founded upon, and has expanded the notion, that all people are equal under the law, yet free to believe in whatever we want. Religious belief is soft. It isn't supported by observable phenomena, as opposed to equality among sexes and races. We can observe that everyone's mind works the same and is subject to the same illnesses. We can't observe God, nor can we display the existence of God. We can only observe the manifestation.

Creationists are revisionists. They approach evidence with the conclusion in place, not an open mind. This is dishonest. It's lying.

I personally have my own beliefs regarding creation and religion, and they differ quite a bit from Christianity or any of the other established religions. However, I'd never want these beliefs foisted on anyone else. There's a reason for this, too. One of the beliefs involves letting everyone develop along their own paths in their own ways. Another belief is that anyone trying to shove their beliefs down anyone else's throat is arrogant and plain wrong.

Science is agnostic. It doesn't claim to have any absolute answers and always seeks a better explanation. To tell students to approach science with an open mind is redundant. Science must be approached with an open mind. It is the fundamental starting point of science.



Yes, and this is even more dangerous than terrorism and communism rolled into one.

Will the following website eventually be banned as we return to ignorance?

Creation Is BIG!

I'm supposed to respect other people's ideas on religion. They may have a very narrow view of things, but hey, that's where they are at. However, I'm also supposed to resist narrow people's attempts at limiting our knowledge and our explorations of the manifestation.

Religious belief and scientific inquiry have collided ever since the Age of Reason. I'm hoping that someday we will understand, but the way things are going, I'm not very sure humans are capable of this understanding. We won't be cabable of it if we let the gnostics lord over us with their super-sensative senses of what is.

There is a good fiction story, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, that deals with a theocracy divided into member states. In light of the fundamentalists' push to place all things educational and governmental in a Biblical framework, the story gains credibility.

We do want to avoid a Taliban-like Christian regime in this nation. But I am not particularly worried about things like the teaching of Creation theory because I know that there are plenty of folks unwilling to roll over and play dead while others craft the curriculum to suit one belief system. Notable among the opponents will be the ACLU.

If zealous, religious parents want to dictate to the school systems what they want taught, can they still focus all of their efforts on a voucher system for kids taught elsewhere?

I am wondering if they can regularly (and without some pangs of conscience) show up at these school board meetings and yet consistently oppose the improvements (increase in number of teachers, building repairs, enough textbooks) needed in public schools? Possibly. But the subjects can be broached with them in these selfsame school board meetings, subtly or otherwise. So something good may come out of it.

I have an update for this thread.

The US District Court of Appeals, Northern District of Georgia, not exactly known for liberal decisions, has ruled that these stickers are unconstitutional and has ordered their removal.



The ACLU has a copy of the Court's opinion available for download here. It's a hefty 44 pages but the gist I got out of it was that the Cobb County school board was making special concessions at the request of "six day Bible" Christians by placing these stickers in the texts. Such concessions are unconstitutional because they violate the establishment clause.

Way to go, ACLU. You make me proud again.

Wow! I am truly amazed...not only that the ruling went that way, but that the State of Georgia was the one to make it! I do worry about the backlash that is bound to happen as a result of the ruling. I can hear the screams from the outraged fundies now.

Regardless of mine or any other's personal beliefs, I have to agree with Rabbi Scott Saulson when he said: