Judge Cooper Rules Conservative Christians
Second Class Citizens and Political Outsiders
|
Author: Jerry Bergman, Ph. D. |
Essays by
Author |
Warbook: Disclaimers
War 1/7/2007 JA CL
Abstract
The extreme level of enforcement of Darwinism ideology is nowhere illustrated
as well as in the court case reviewed in this article now on appeal. This paper
evaluates the decision by Clarence Cooper, United States District judge on the
constitutionality of using disclaimers on textbooks that present evolution as a
fact. The case, Jeffrey Selman vs. Cobb County School District and Cobb
County Board of Education 1 02-CV-2325-CC is hereafter referred to as the
Ruling. The court appears to have ruled that no criticism of the Darwinian
world view is allowed in public schools because criticism of Darwinism is an
“endorsement” of religion, and consequently “unconstitutional”! The judge also
made it clear that what he calls “fundamentalists,” a term he never defined,
are “political outsiders” the reverse of the Brown v. Board of Education
Supreme court and other court decisions that decided in favor of equal rights
for all Americans regardless of religion, creed, race, or color.
Note: All page numbers, unless otherwise noted,
refer to the judge’s decision.
Introduction
The court ruling
in the decision by United States District judge Clarence Cooper issued on the
13th Day of January, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, relates to a subject that I have taught
for over thirty years at the college level, evolution. Consequently, I can
speak with some understanding and experience about this topic. Suffice is it to say that this decision
contains more errors of fact and obvious contradictions than virtually any
other court decision that I have ever read (and I have read many). This entire court case was over a mere three
sentences that the Cobb County School District placed on textbooks. The
complete statement at issue is: “This text book contains material on
evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a
fact, regarding the origin of living things.
This material should be approached from an open mind, studied carefully,
and critically considered” (Gross, 2005, p. 3A). The judge ruled that this was an “endorsement” of religion and,
therefore, it was “unconstitutional” to state these words in a public school
classroom! Before the judges ruling,
Darwin Skeptics were consigned to the back of the bus, and after the ruling
they are not even allowed on the bus unless they enter incognito and remain in
the closet.
The judge
reasoned that only two theories about the origin of life and its diversity
(i.e. the origin of species) exist, and degrading one, in essence, supports the
other. Consequently, since one theory
involves a Creator or intelligence we usually call God, he considers that
particular theory “religious” and,
therefore, criticism of the other theory is unconstitutional support of
religion. The reasoning of this ruling
is problematic for two reasons. First, if extended to other areas, it would
exclude a great deal of accepted science. Second, and more importantly, the
reasoning behind this ruling rests on a very narrow view of “religion” that
includes only theistic religions. In fact, non-theistic religions exist, and these
religions have as their creation story Darwinian evolution. Therefore, by
attempting to remain neutral on the topic of origins, this court’s endorsement
of the “other side,” supports non-theistic and atheistic religions such as
Religious Humanism. In fact, evolutionary naturalism is one of the tenets of
Religious Humanism.
Those who object
to Darwinism indoctrination in public schools have, so far, been unsuccessful
in preventing this indoctrination. All
approaches have failed, including requiring presentation of both sides of the
controversy. The issue is complex--and
is often not a question of teaching creationism in public schools, but of
teaching Darwinism objectively. Many
creationists even oppose the teaching of Creationism in the classroom for a
number of reasons, including it will likely be poorly taught by teachers who
oppose a Biblical worldview, and furthermore, how many teachers in secular
schools know enough about the subject to teach it properly (Hollowell, 2004)?
The judge noted
that parents began to be concerned about the issue of origins when they learned
that instruction on evolution was being strengthened in the new
guidelines. One parent, Marjory Rogers,
submitted several comment forms criticizing the presentation of evolution in
the textbook and “condemned the books for not mentioning any alternative
theories, such as one involving a creator” (pp. 6-7). Furthermore, the school board received complaints from other
parents to the effect that the textbooks did not present the subject of origins
“in a fair manner,” because they did not “offer any information regarding
alternative theories or criticism of evolution.” Alternative theories include not just Creationism and Intelligent
Design, but also pangenesis, and the aquatic ape theory, to name only two
examples.
The concerned
parents obtained signatures from 2,300 Cobb County residents requesting that
the school board “clearly identify presumptions and theories and distinguish
them from fact.” They also asked that
the board insure that other theories aside from Darwinism are presented and,
last, that a statement be placed in a prominent place at the beginning of the
text, informing students “that the material on evolution was not factual but
rather was a theory” (p. 7). The school
board evidently concluded these were genuine issues and for this reason
consulted with legal counsel to determine if there was any way of responding to
the parents’ concerns.
Some parents and
administrators felt that a “disclaimer” may help to alleviate the ongoing
tension between Darwinists and non-Darwinists.
The placement of a small “neutralization Sticker” on each biology
textbook would not require the changing of the textbook content. Consequently, the legal district council
recommended language that it concluded would be constitutional, producing the
language that eventually appeared on the Sticker. This was no small issue.
Over two thousand parents who formally complained about how the biology
textbooks used in the district presented evolution, and the Sticker seemed to
be the ideal solution to a problem that, all to often, schools are in the
center of.
This statement
did not please everyone. It upset “many
evolutionists” because, they claimed, “the Sticker diminishes the status of
evolution among other theories” (Hollowell, 2004). Needless to say, the Sticker ended up in court. The case was heard in November of 2004. The Sticker was attacked on a number of
grounds. One attack is to claim that
evolution is “science” and the opposition to it is not. The problem with this conclusion is “How
could arguments on one side be science, and the counter arguments be
non-science?” Is the argument that the
thymus is vestigial (and evidence of evolution) science, and those facts that
argue it is useful to mature T-cells, and not vestigial or proof of evolution,
non-science (or religion)?
A key question in
this debate is “What is science?”
Kenneth Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, and Joseph
Levine in their text titled Prentice Hall Biology (2002) define science
as any activity that furthers the goal of science, which is to
investigate and understand nature, to explain events in nature,
and to use those explanations to make useful predictions. Science has several
features that make it different from other human endeavors. First, science deals only with the natural
world. Second, scientists collect and
organize information in a careful, orderly way, looking for patterns and
connections between events. Third,
scientists propose explanations that can be tested by examining evidence. In other words, science is an organized way
of using evidence to learn about the natural world. The word science also refers to the body of knowledge that
scientists have built up after years of using this process (p. 3).
They add that science always starts with observations, but an
observation by itself
has little meaning in science, because the goal is to understand
what was observed. Scientists usually follow observations with inferences. An inference is a logical interpretation
based on prior knowledge and experience (p. 4).
Given this definition, science clearly involves both arguments in
support of Darwinism and against it.
Under the subheading “A Scientific View of the World,” the text states
that many people
think about everyday events in a scientific way. Suppose a car
won’t start. Perhaps it’s out of
gas. A glance at the fuel gauge tests
that idea. Perhaps the battery is
dead. An auto mechanic can use an
instrument to test that idea. A logical
person would continue to look for a mechanical explanation, testing one
possible explanation after another until the cause of the problem was
identified. All scientists... bring the same kind of problem-solving attitude
to their work. They consider the whole
universe a system in which basic rules apply to all events, small or
large. Scientists assume that those
rules can be discovered through scientific inquiry (p. 6).
Importantly, scientists must collect data to achieve the goal of science,
which is a
better understanding of nature. For scientists, science is an
ongoing process, not the discovery of an unchanging, absolute truth. Scientific findings are always subject to
revision as new evidence is developed. In keeping with this approach to
pursuing knowledge, certain qualities are desirable in a scientist: curiosity,
honesty, open-mindedness, skepticism, and the recognition that science has
limits. An open-minded person is ready
to give up familiar ideas if the evidence demands it. A skeptical person continues to ask questions and looks for
alternative explanations. Scientists
are persuaded by logical arguments that are supported by evidence. Despite recognizing the power of science,
scientists know that science has definite limits (2004, p. 6).
In the glossary, the text states that science is an “organized way
of using evidence to learn about the natural world; also, the body of knowledge
that scientists have built up after years of using this process” (p. 1088). These definitions make it clear that facts
are science regardless of which side of the controversy they support. Both evolution and creation are explanations
derived from extrapolations of those facts.
Kelly Hollowell, who has degrees both in biochemistry and law, adds that
because “evolution and intelligent design are not provable by empirical
observation” neither are scientific theories.
She adds that each theory of origins
posses scientific character because they each attempt to correlate
and explain scientific data. Yet, both
intelligent design and evolution are best characterized as explanatory models
on mans’ origins. They are
philosophical and historical in nature, not empirical.
Use of the Term “Theory”
A major problem
for those who objected to the Sticker was the claim that the words
“evolutionary theory” are misleading because the term “theory” in science does
not have the same meaning as it does for laymen. Many lay people interpret the word theory as having the connotation
of a “guess,” such as illustrated by the expression “that’s just your
theory.” In science, these critics
claim, a theory is a well supported idea that is applicable to a wide variety
of information and facts. A review of
science textbooks finds that there exists far less agreement regarding the
definition of the word theory than its critics allege. The term theory is actually often used in
science writings in the so-called public sense as well as in the “scientific”
sense. Another problem is that the
Sticker was written in language for students and teachers, who are laypersons,
not scientists.
The court quoted
Dr. Kenneth Miller who argued “the Sticker plays on the popular understanding
of the term theory, suggesting to the informed reasonable observer that
evolution is only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’ The Sticker thus has great potential to
prompt confusion among the students.”
In fact, using Miller’s own definition from his textbook shows that the
Sticker implies no such thing (2002, p. 35).
Miller claims that this disclaimer will “confuse” students about the
nature of science, yet he admitted that in science a theory is an explanation
of a natural phenomenon, and a “fact” is a confirmed observation. All scientific theories are tentative
because, by definition, all scientific theories are falsifiable and theories
that are not falsifiable are not science.
Furthermore, the court itself called evolution a theory, noting that
evolution is now the only theory of origins being taught in Cobb County
classrooms (p. 26).
Motivations of the Board
The court noted that, although the
motivations of the school board to vote for the Sticker varied widely, the
board unanimously decided to adopt the Sticker. Board member Mr. Johnston sincerely wanted students to consider
critical information about Darwinism, and he did not want to inject religion
into science instruction. Lindsey
Tippins was concerned that science textbooks do not address the controversy
about macroevolution from an evidentiary position (pp. 9-10). Tippins inquired about the permissibility of
teaching ID, but was told that this option was not acceptable. Consequently, she clearly understood the Sticker’s
purpose was to facilitate discussion in the classroom about controversial
issues and not bring religion, Intelligent Design, or Creationism, into the
classroom.
Teresa Plenge
stated the school board was simply trying to come up with a constitutional way
to guide science class discussions and yet still encourage students to think
critically (p. 10). Her intent was not
to invoke discussion about Creationism, but to encourage teachers to be
tolerant of students’ beliefs. She felt
that teachers should get back to the task of studying Darwinism and that the
purpose of the Sticker was to promote critical thinking among students.
Board member
Laura Searcy added that she felt the Stickers would help to notify parents
about the issue so that they could handle potential difficulties that Darwinism
instruction might create. Ms. Searcy
was “rigidly opposed to alternative theories” of origins being taught in the
classroom but only wanted students to analytically evaluate topics other then
evolution. She added that the board singled out this topic because it was the
only subject creating controversy (p. 11).
Likewise, school
board member Betty Gray was concerned about the parents that did not want
evolution teaching to infringe on students personal beliefs about the origin of
life. She decided that the Sticker
would serve the dual purpose of clarifying for teachers the fact that this
topic could be discussed, and yet it would also indicate to parents that
the science classroom would be tolerant of the range of views that students
have regarding origins. The court
concluded that Ms. Gray’s testimony “was credible,” adding that her intent was
to insure that the science classroom would be safe for youngsters to express
themselves, “whatever their views are” (p. 12).
Mr. Johnston and
Mr. O’Neill testified by affidavit that they were in favor of the Sticker with
the goal of promoting tolerance and the acceptance of a diversity of
opinions (p. 12). Diversity and
tolerance seem like laudable goals mentioned numerous times in this case as a
motivation for the Sticker.
The court noted
that, after the school board adopted the Sticker, “numerous citizens,
organizations, churches, and academics from around the country contacted the
School Board, and individual School Board members, to praise them for their
decision to open the classroom to the teaching and discussion of creationism
and intelligent design” (pp. 12-13).
Conversely, the
board also received letters expressing dismay over their decision. The Sticker caused some parents, such as
Kathy Chapman, to be alarmed. Chapman
“immediately felt that the Sticker ‘came from a religious source’ because, in
her opinion, religious people are the only people who ever challenge
evolution. She viewed the Sticker as
promoting the religious view of origin[s] and questioning the science in the
textbooks” (p. 16). Jeff Silver
perceived that the Sticker opened “the door to introducing schools of thought”
based on faith and religion into science classes. He also believed that the Stickers “disparaged evolution and
implicitly asked students to think about alternative theories” (p. 16). One wonders what is wrong with thinking
about alternative theories.
Implementation of the Policy
The School Board
had the Stickers printed in the summer and fall of 2002. They were then sent to the schools where
they were physically affixed to all of the science textbooks that contained
material about the origin of life. The
board also revised its origins policy in September of 2002. This policy stated that the school district
“believes that the discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a
necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the
origin of the species.” It further
added that the purpose of the policy is to
foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom
consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of
diversity of opinion, and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward
religion. It is the intent of the Cobbs
County School Board of Education that this policy not be interpreted to
restrict the teaching of evolution, to promote or require the teaching of
creationism, or to discriminate for or against a particular set of religious
beliefs, religion in general, or non-religion (p. 15).
The revised regulation
adopted in 2003 stated
under no circumstances should teachers use instruction in an
effort to coerce students to adopt a particular religious belief or set of
beliefs or to disavow a particular religious belief or set of beliefs. Instruction should be respectful of personal
religious beliefs, and encourage such respect among students. Teachers should not interject their personal
faith-based beliefs, or lack there of, into such instruction, and should maintain
a posture of neutrality toward religion (p. 15).
The Sticker, and
the motivations for its use and its meaning, were specifically defined in the
school board policy. Consequently, in
ruling that the Sticker was unconstitutional, the court also negated the school
board’s policy. Is the court, in
essence, saying that teachers should in class openly “disavow a particular
religious belief or set of beliefs” and that teachers should “interject their
personal” lack of belief and not maintain a posture of neutrality toward
religion in the classroom? Importantly,
the school superintendent, high school science curriculum supervisors, nor the
“Board members who testified at trial have received complaints about the
teaching of religion or religious theories of origins in science classes” (p.
16).
Does the Sticker Single Out Darwinism?
Another claim the
court made is that “many in the scientific community maintain that evolution is
not a theory of the origin of life, but is a theory concerning the
origin of the diversity of life” (p. 3, emphasis mine). The judge could easily have consulted the
leading biology textbooks to determine that this is not true. Most texts I have reviewed teach that
naturalistic evolutionary theory not only explains the diversity of life, but
also the origin of life.
Another claim was
that the Sticker diminishes the “status” of evolution compared to other
scientific theories. The judge noted
that evolution was the only theory mentioned in the Sticker--yet, he claimed,
other scientific topics taught in school also “have religious implications,
such as the theories of gravity, relativity, Galilean heliocentrism” (p.
8). The question “why single out
evolution” is obvious: no one has a problem with most all other science theories,
such as gravity. Obviously, everything
in science (as well as in every other field) has religious implications, but
the religious-science conflict centers around evolutionism primarily because
evolution strikes at the central core of theism, i.e., whether life was
created by intelligence, or is a result of the outcome of natural forces,
natural law, time, chance, and the accumulation of mutations (copying
errors).
The judge implies
that the religious implications of other theories should be discussed (and I
agree), but, to be consistent, the judge would also declare that discussion of
the religious implications of all other theories is also unconstitutional. The solution is to stress that all other
theories are also theories, not to rule that stating evolution is a theory is
unconstitutional. If the judge wishes
to author a Sticker that would be constitutional, he should do so.
Dr. Wes McCoy, a
high school science teacher serving on a textbook adoption committee, proposed
an alternative Sticker. This
Sticker stated this “textbook contains material on evolution, a scientific
theory, or explanation, for the nature and diversity of living things. Evolution is accepted by the majority of
scientists, but questioned by some. All
scientific theory should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and
critically considered” (p. 13). The
Sticker proposed by Dr. McCoy would likely also be unacceptable to the court,
as would any words that, in any way, appeared to discredit Darwinism. It appears any Sticker that treats
Darwinism in an objective fashion would be objectionable. Although gravity is called a law, scientists
at the higher level of research still have many questions about a wide variety
of scientific theories (or at least they discuss the shortcomings of the
theory, such as, to give three examples, the Bohr theory of the atom, the Big
Bang theory and Einstein’s theory of relativity).
Is a Sticker a Church?
The ACLU-led
lawsuit against the School Board claimed that the Sticker “violates the
separation of church and state by promoting religion.” The problem with this argument is the
failure to recognize that if the sticker does in fact promote a certain
religion--theism-- its removal will also have the effect of promoting religion--non-theistic
religion such as atheism. Removal of
the sticker will not return the status quo for several reasons. One is that the
court removed it, thus implying theism is less acceptable than the opposite,
atheism. Secondly, the purpose of the sticker was to neutralize the textbook,
and its removal allows the concern that the parents responded to which resulted
in the sticker to remain.
The committee
believed that the textbook written by Kenneth Miller and Joseph Lavine was one
of the best books they had reviewed for high school students. The Miller and Lavine book openly teaches
what is normally defined as religious values and beliefs. For example, note the quote below (copied
from my 1995 edition).
Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical
materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and
that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless
but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly
eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity
was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass
of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there
was no divine plan to guide us (1995, p. 161).
The judge also
notes that the school board, “unanimously adopted the text book recommended by
the administration with the condition that the Sticker “would be placed
in certain of the science textbooks” (p. 8).
Furthermore, the judge admitted that the school board was made up
of “a variety of persons” religiously and that the majority “did not intend to
promote or benefit religion in voting for the Sticker” (p. 9).
Many commentaries
have also concluded that including a simple Sticker, such as the one
described above, on textbooks is not even close to the equivalent of the state
“establishing” a religion as the constitution forbids. Stickers are not churches or religions, even
Stickers that advocate approaching a theory with an open mind. The school district lawyer, Linwood Gunn,
said the Sticker was simply meant to “encourage critical thinking,” and that it
was “silly” to consider a Sticker the “promotion of religion.” He added that the Sticker “doesn’t say
anything about faith ... [or] religion.”
Gunn added that the school board was simply trying to accommodate all
views--those of both theists and atheists.
Those who oppose evolutionism and Darwinism argue that opposition to
this Sticker illustrates the level of fanaticism of many Darwinists.
The lawsuit also
claimed that the declaimer is a “fundamentalist Christian expression,” ignoring
the fact that Muslims, Jews, Christians and about 90% of the U.S. population do
not accept Darwinism as commonly understood by scientists today. This position was supported by the brief filed
by Hindu scholars in support of the school.
One of the
parents who filed the lawsuit, Geffery Selman, claimed the Sticker is “like
saying everything that follows the Sticker isn’t true” (AP November 9, 2004 p
10). Obviously the Sticker neither states,
nor implies, any such thing.
Nevertheless, in an attempt to justify its removal, Selman also claimed
that the Sticker impeded an adequate educational experience because reading
these three sentences will somehow make the student’s entire science education
inferior! He even argued that the
Sticker might cause college admission counselors to question the science
education of Cobb County students because they are “forced to endure the
presence of the warning label on their textbooks” (Hollowell, 2004)! Neither he nor anyone else cited any
evidence to support these claims, and much empirical evidence exists against
them.
Most of the media
weighed in on the side of those opposing the Sticker. A headline in the Journal Gazette, for example, claimed that
the Sticker makes “Georgia looks silly” and that “some in Atlanta worry that
Georgia is making itself look like a bunch of rubes or, worse, is discrediting
its own students” (Wyatt, 2004, p. 5A).
Furthermore, “dozens” of science instructors argued that the Sticker
“makes the state look backwards.” And
high school teacher Wess McCoy worried “the issue could tarnish his students”
(Wyatt, 2004, p. 5A). It is irrational
to claim that three short sentences will do all of this harm. Students can just ignore the Sticker (as
most likely will). In response to
Selman’s claim, Hollowell concluded that
Darwinists have long discovered an effective way to silence those
who question evolution is to marginalize them by name-calling and character
assassination. They characterize those
who support the intelligent design movement as Bible-thumping fundamentalists,
dangerous pseudo-scientists, flat-earthers, and so on. Undaunted by such juvenile attacks, there
are many bona fide critical thinking scientists, myself included, that support
intelligent design (2005).
Collen R.
Purrington, a biology professor at Swarthmore, even created a series of mock
Stickers to poke fun at the Cobb County Board of Education Sticker. An example: “this textbook promotes
intelligent design Creationism, as an alternative to evolution and natural
selection because intelligent design is the premise of several best-selling
science fiction novels.”
Are the Disclaimer Notes also Unconstitutional?
Along with the disclaimer
the board passed a set of “notes” to explain the policy that stated students
have a “basic right and privilege” to “form his/her own opinion or maintain
beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter. Students are urged to
exercise critical thinking and gather all information possible and closely
examine each alternative toward forming an opinion” (Quoted in World
July 1, 2000, p. 11). The court’s
ruling not only outlaws the disclaimer, but also the notes, implying that to
urge students to “exercise critical thinking and gather all information
possible and closely examine each alternative towards forming an opinion” is
unconstitutional when it comes to Darwinism.
Students evidently are to accept without question the Darwinian version
of the origin and diversity of life, the naturalist’s creation story.
The judge stated
that evolution is accepted “by the majority of scientific community” thereby
admitting that part of the scientific community does not accept
evolution. Do these scientists not
deserve to be heard? Gunn said he
expects the Sticker disclaimer will hold up in court on appeal because its goal
is to “improve the curriculum while also promoting an attitude of tolerance for
those that have different religious beliefs” (Wyatt, 2004).
Is Darwin Unconstitutional?
In view of the
judge’s decision, statements such as the following by Charles Darwin in his
autobiography also would be unconstitutional:
Another source of conviction in the existence of God follows from the
extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and
wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backward and
far into futurity, as a result of blind chance or necessity. With thus reflecting I feel compelled to
look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogist to
that of man; I [therefore] deserve to be called a Theist (1958, pp. 92-93).
Darwin adds that this conclusion was “strong” in his mind when he
wrote the Origin of Species (1859).
The judge would have to rule that these words were unconstitutional
because this statement openly teaches intelligent design. The motive of presenting these words
on a Sticker (or textbook) is to convince the reader that God exists, thus, as
the judge ruled in this case, these words are an unconstitutional endorsement
of religion. Conversely, Darwin
continued, since he wrote the Origin of Species his belief in God “has
very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker” and, furthermore, he added,
“can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, developed
from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it
draws such grand conclusions?” (1958, p. 93).
Darwin then
concluded, “I, for one, must be content to remain an Agnostic” (Darwin, 1958,
p. 94). Would these conclusions
by Darwin be deemed constitutional by the judge? Judging by the contents of many textbooks
that have never been challenged by the court, they would be allowed. What if the motivation of adding this
clarification of Darwin’s thoughts was to convince students that the agnostic
(or theist or atheist) religious worldview was correct? Likewise, this motive has never been
challenged by the courts, which have consistently ruled that the goal to dissuade
people away from theism (or the Bible) is appropriate. The courts have ruled this way because they
assume that this conclusion results from an objective, academic study of
history (or reality). Thus, to persuade
students to believe in God is unconstitutional, but to dissuade people away
from belief in God has consistently been deemed constitutional. The courts would, no doubt, also argue, as
they have in the past, that Darwin’s statement indicating theism is
“unscientific,” but his statement indicating atheism (or at least agnosticism)
is “scientific.”
It is important
to stress that the judge never defined terms that were central to the case
including faith, religion, nor science, and he implies all ideas “from a
religious source” are inferior, unwelcome or in some way negative. The Sticker hardly discouraged considering
evolution ideas, but simply asked students to critically evaluate them. Jeffrey Selman concluded that the Sticker
“singled out evolution” and, therefore, was “obviously religious” (pp. 16 Ð
17). If critically evaluating evolution
is religious, by implication evolution cannot be critically evaluated,
but rather must be uncritically accepted on faith (or authority).
The court ruled the Sticker had
Two Secular Purposes
The court ruled in
this case that the school board
did not act with the purpose of promoting or advancing
religion in placing the Sticker in the science text books. To the contrary, the court found that the
School Board sought to advance two secular purposes. First...to encourage students to engage in critical thinking as
it relates to theories of origin.
Second, given the movement in Cobb County to strengthen teaching of
evolution and to make it a mandatory part of the curriculum, the School Board
adopted the Sticker to reduce offense to those students and parents whose
personal beliefs might conflict with teaching on evolution (p. 22).
The summary
judgment ruled that these two purposes were secular and not a sham. Furthermore, the court found the School
Board testimony
highly credible. Fostering
critical thinking is clearly a secular purpose for the Sticker, which the court
finds is not a sham. First, it is
important to note thatÉa large population of Cobb County citizens maintained
beliefs that would potentially conflict with the teaching of evolution ... the
Sticker appears to have the purpose of furthering critical thinking because it
tells students to approach the material on evolution with an open mind, to
study it carefully, and to give it critical consideration (p. 24).
The court then
added the Sticker language that states evolution is a theory and not a fact,
“somewhat undermines the goal of critical thinking by predetermining that
students should think of evolution as a theory when many in the scientific
community would argue that evolution is factual in some respects” (p. 24). Of course, many in the scientific community
also argue that macroevolution is not factual (the court never defined
evolution, nor even distinguished between micro- and macroevolution, and one
would be hard pressed to find anyone in the scientific community who believes
that microevolution was not factual).
One would also be very hard pressed to find anyone in the scientific
community, including creationists that did not agree with the statement,
“evolution is factual in some respects” (p. 24). Contradicting the judge’s previous claim, the court correctly
concluded that the School Board “did not seek to disclaim evolution by
encouraging students to consider it carefully.
Rather, the School Board sought to encourage students to analyze the
material on evolution themselves and make their own decision regarding its
merit” (pp. 24-25).
The court notes
that “the School Board’s singling out evolution is understandable in this context,
and the undisputed fact that there are other scientific theories with religious
implications that are not mentioned in this Sticker ... supports the court’s
conclusion that the board was not seeking to endorse or advance religion. Therefore, the court continues to believe
that the School Board sincerely sought to promote critical thinking in adopting
the Sticker to go on the text books” (p. 26).
The fact is “evolution was the only topic in the curriculum, scientific
or otherwise, that was creating controversy at the time of the adoption of the
textbooks and Sticker” (p. 26).
The court further
ruled that the Sticker must be removed because its chief purpose is to
“accommodate or reduce offense to those persons who hold beliefs that might be
deemed inconsistent with the scientific theory of evolution” (p. 26). These people cannot be accommodated
in any way, and are political outsiders. This outcome is actually contrary to
Supreme Court’s Brown vs Board of Education decision and other court
decisions that decided in favor of equal rights for all Americans regardless of
religion, creed, race or color.
The Religious Motivation of Some Makes
a Law Unconstitutional
The court then
claims that “there is no dispute that there is a large number of Cobb County
citizens opposed to the teaching of evolution in a rigid fashion,” a conclusion
based on the evidence (p. 27). The
court added that it is clear that “many of these citizens were motivated by
their religious beliefs.” How does the
court know this? Did it do a survey of
the over two thousand citizens that submitted a petition specifically inquiring
as to why they opposed evolution?
The court simply assumed this without evidence. Furthermore, this claim discriminates
against those with religious beliefs.
Those who oppose could claim that any action was motivated by
religious beliefs, thus unconstitutional.
This claim could also be used to discredit those with no “religious
beliefs.”
People oppose
Darwinism for many reasons, and the court gave no indication as to what these
were, implying that religion was the only reason. Although the court implied that these people
were endeavoring to “endorse or advance religion” the clear testimony is that
many were seeking only to reduce the state’s hostility toward religious beliefs
by indoctrinating them in a position that they felt was damaging to their
beliefs. The fact that many were
endeavoring to achieve neutrality, as the court itself indirectly recognized in
its decision, was overruled, favoring the few that were influenced by their
religion (such as atheism, agnosticism, or liberal Christianity).
The court stated
that the “highly credible testimony of the School Board members made it clear
that the School Board adopted the Sticker to placate their constituents and to
communicate to them that students’ personal beliefs would be respected and
tolerated in the classroom” (p. 27). In
striking down the Sticker, the court clearly implied that these students’
personal beliefs would not be respected, nor tolerated in the
classroom. This ruling expresses clear,
open, and blatant hostility toward the beliefs of a “large number of Cobb
County citizens.” The court then noted,
“The Constitution does not require the government to ‘show a callous
indifference to religious groups.’” Yet
the court’s decision shows exactly this attitude: The court ruled unconstitutional a Sticker that the School Board
adopted to put “student, parents, and teachers on notice that evolution would
be taught in a manner that is inclusive rather than exclusive” (p. 28). And “the law clearly holds that mere
accommodation of religion is insufficient to render the Sticker
unconstitutional” (p. 28). And yet the
court concluded that what the School Board was trying to achieve--accommodate religion--was
unconstitutional in contradiction to its’ own conclusions.
The judge’s Decision
The court concluded that it is
convinced that the Sticker at issue serves at least two secular
purposes. First, the Sticker fosters critical
thinking by encouraging students to learn about evolution and to make their own
assessment regarding its merit. Second,
by presenting evolution in a manner that is not necessarily hostile, the
Sticker reduces offense to students and parents whose beliefs may conflict with
the teaching of evolution. For the
forgoing reasons, the court concludes that the Sticker satisfies the first
prong of a Lemon analysis (p. 30).
Although the
judge concluded that the school board’s purpose for the Sticker was to
accommodate the religious views of the parents, the plaintiffs argued that the
result is to advance religion and is thus unconstitutional (p. 28). On the question of endorsing religion, the
court declared the Sticker “unconstitutional” for the reason that
an informed, reasonable observer would interpret the Sticker to
convey a message of endorsement of religion.
That is, the Sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for
religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community,
while the Sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they
are political outsiders. This is
particularly so in a case such as this one involving impressionable public
school students who are likely to view the message on the Sticker as a union of
church and State” (p. 31).
Concluding that
the Sticker sends the message that those who oppose evolution for religious
religions are “favored members of the political community” stretches the facts
enormously, especially in view of the fact that the so-called “favored members
of the political community” has lost every court case in which they
tried to exercise their political rights in this area since the Scopes
trial. The court repeated this claim on
page 36, stating, “the Sticker communicates to those who endorse evolution that
they are political outsiders, while the Sticker communicates to the Christian
fundamentalist and creationists who push for a disclaimer that they are
political insiders.” Of course, it does
no such thing and, if it did, the court’s ruling officially declares those who oppose
the Sticker “political insiders.”
This effort to
accommodate clearly does not represent favoritism, only accommodation. Similarly, accommodating those whose
religion prohibits working on Saturday (because Saturday is their Sabbath, such
as Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, or Muslims) does not make Seventh Day
Adventists, Jews, or Muslims “favored members of a political community.” Furthermore, it is, at best, extremely
unlikely and most likely ludicrous to believe that students would interpret the
message on the Sticker as a “union of church and State.” At any rate, the judge should have relied
upon scientific research to determine whether or not the Sticker would imply
either favoritism or union of church and state. I have polled a number of students on this, and they unanimously
agreed that the Sticker conveys no such message. After reading the Sticker, they were asked it they “viewed the
message on the Sticker as a union of church and State.” All stated no, and several commented that to
conclude such would be ridiculous.
The court added
that, by “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 theory”
and “the informed, reasonable observer would infer that the School Board’s
problem with evolution to be that evolution does not acknowledge a creator”
(pp. 36-37). Consequently, the court
ruled, “the Sticker sends an impermissible message of endorsement” (p.
37). The court’s ruling implied that it
is unconstitutional to “acknowledge a Creator” in school (for a discussion of
this issue see Beckwith, 2003).
The court then
gave an inaccurate history of the opposition to teaching evolution in public
schools by what the court called “Christian fundamentalists and creationists”
(p. 32). As noted, a wide variety of
Christian denominations, and many Muslims as well as Jews, also oppose teaching
Darwinism dogmatically in the schools.
I know of no statute that made it “criminal to teach evolution in the
schools” as the judge claimed (p. 32).
The Butler Act made it a misdemeanor only to teach human
evolution as fact in public schools, allowing the teaching of the evolution of
other life forms. The court then
concluded that
the informed, reasonable observer would know that a significant
number of Cobb County citizens had voiced opposition to the teaching of
evolution for religious reasons [and] that citizens and parents largely
motivated by religion put pressure on the School Board to implement certain
measures that would nevertheless dilute the teaching of evolution, including
placing disclaimer in the front of certain text books that distinguish
evolution as a theory, not a fact.
Finally, the informed, reasonable observer would be aware that the
language of the Sticker essentially mirrors the viewpoint of these religiously
motivated citizens (p. 33).
A common claim by
courts is that religious motivations render a judgment inferior, suspect, or
even illegal. This is indicated by the
judge’s statement that while the
School Board may have considered the request of its constituents
and adopted the Sticker for sincere, secular, purposes, an informed, reasonable
observer would understand the School Board to be endorsing the view point of
Christian fundamentalists and creationists that evolution is a problematic
theory lacking an adequate foundation (p. 33).
Again, the board ruling does no such thing! Importantly, the court acknowledged that the
amicus brief submitted by biologists and Georgia scientists indicates that
“some scientists” have questions regarding certain aspects of evolution, which
the informed observer would also be aware of.
The court, though, ruled that on the “whole, however, the Sticker would
appear to advance the religious view points of the Christian fundamentalists
and creationists who were vocal during the text book adoption process regarding
their beliefs that evolution is a theory, not a fact, which students should
critically consider.” Thus the court
concluded that, even though there also exists a clear secular purpose (and
scientists who disagree with Darwin), the Sticker appeared to advance the
religious view point of a certain group.
Consequently, this indicates that all accommodations to religious
persons would “advance” the viewpoint, or at least lends credibility to the
viewpoint, of religious persons, and, therefore, is unconstitutional. This ruling has made all “religious persons”
second-class citizens.
The court’s main
concern was the statement that “evolution is a theory, not a fact,” concerning
the origin of living things (p. 33).
The court ruled this critical language runs afoul of the Establishment
Clause, not because of its truth or falsity, even though the amicus brief
submitted by the Colorado Citizens for Science et al. opposing the
Sticker that “the statement is not entirely accurate,” but rather the problem
with the language was that there has been a lengthy debate between advocates of
evolution and the “proponents of religious theory of origins” and, therefore,
the board appeared to side with theists and this, the court implies, is
improper: the school cannot side with those who are theistically-religiously
motivated, but it can side with those who are differently-religiously
motivated i.e. atheistically-religiously motivated.
The court in this
ruling clearly favors the non-theistically-religious viewpoint, a stance that
is self-evidently not neutral, a goal the court claimed to be striving
to achieve. The court also claimed to
have reviewed law review articles that “affirm that encouraging the teaching of
evolution as a theory rather than as a fact is one of the latest strategies to
dilute evolution instruction employed by anti-evolutionists with religious
motivations” (p. 35). The court ignored
the fact that those favoring teaching Darwinism in schools often have
“religious” motivations or, more actively, motivations opposing theism and
defending alternative “religious” views (Ruse, 2005).
The court also
argued that, although evolution instruction is required in Cobb County
classrooms, the two sentence Sticker distracts and “effectively” dilutes
evolution instruction “to the benefit of the anti-evolutionists who are
religiously motivated individuals” (for example, see page 39) even though all
origin of life positions are religiously motivated. From the very beginning of Darwinism, religious motivations have
been critical on both sides. The court
ruled that both views are not allowed, and only one view can be presented, the
view that is held, almost without exception, by the atheistic community and not
the view held by the majority in the theistic community. Many in the atheistic community and others,
including many scientists, were “thrilled” with this decision (Holden, 2005, p.
334; Ebert, 2005, p. 182).
One Result of this Case
The decision will
also continue to divide the nation into the so-called red (Republican) and blue
(Democrat) states. A Moody Monthly
article (April 1998, p. 86) concluded that the decision against Stickers will
also be “another straw that will promote some people to exit the public school
system, feeding the growing Christian school movement as well the growing home
school movement.” The recent adverse ruling in the Dover case has furthered the
determination of many persons and churches to home school or start their own
schools.
Summary
Although the
Sticker is composed of only three sentences, and the textbook on evolution
contains hundreds of pages, the court ruled that these three sentences are not
permitted in public school classrooms (p. 40).
The court concluded, “the constitution requires that the government pursue
a course of complete neutrality toward religion” (p. 42). The judges ruling hardly does this, but
instead clearly conveys hostility toward religion, inferring that the ideas of
a certain group of theists are not only unwelcome, but also cannot even be
accommodated.
The court
concluded that the Sticker sends “a message that the School Board agrees with
the beliefs of Christian fundamentalist and Creationists, which the court ruled
is unconstitutional because the School Board has “improperly entangled itself
with religion by appearing to take a position [for religion]. Therefore, the Sticker must be removed from
all of the text books into which it was placed” (p. 42). Thus, the court ruled, accommodation that
entangles the government with one religion is, in this case,
inappropriate. The court then sided
with another “religious” view, which the court implied is a proper view.
The court has by
this ruling made non-theists, non-Creationists privileged citizens. Only their views will prevail in the
schools, and accommodation will not occur because “the Sticker aids the beliefs
of Christian fundamentalists and Creationists” and, therefore, is
unconstitutional. Furthermore, because removal
of the Sticker aids the beliefs of non-Creationists and non-Christian
fundamentalists, including atheists, it is appropriate to remove it. This extremely biased decision openly
entangles the court with religion. The
School Board cannot accommodate parents it concludes were religiously
motivated. The court has not completed
a scientific survey, so no one knows whether or not this is the case, although
some parents, no doubt, opposed Darwinism on scientific grounds, or at least
non-religious grounds, as the court indicated.
Postscript: On
May 25 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Court
vacated judge Coopers decision, citing eighteen factual issues of concern and
concluding they did not want to decide this case on less than a complete
record. No doubt the court noted many of the same issues mentioned in the
review above.
References
Anonymous. 2000.
“‘Critical Thinking’ is Not Enough: Darwin Disclaimer Tossed Out by
court.” World, July 1, p. 11.
Beckwith,
Francis J. 2003. Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The
Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield.
Darwin,
Charles. 1958. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
1809-1882. Edited by Nora
Barlow. New York: Norton.
Ebert,
Jessica. 2005. “Georgia court Bans Biology Textbook
Stickers.” Nature, 433:182.
Gross,
Doug. 2005. “Evolution Disclaimer Struck Down.” The Journal Gazette, Friday, January 14, p. 3A.
Holden,
Constance. 2005. “Teaching Evolution: judge Orders Stickers
Removed from Georgia Textbooks.” Science,
307:334.
Levine, Joseph
S. and Kenneth R. Miller. 1994. Biology: Discovering Life. Second Edition. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company.
Miller, Kenneth
R. and Joseph Levine. 2002. Prentice Hall Biology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ruse,
Michael. 2005. The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
United States
District court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division. 2005.
Jeffrey Michael Selman, Kathleen Chapman, Jeff Silver, Paul Mason,
and Terry Jackson, Plaintiffs vs. Cobb County School District and Cobb County
Board of Education, Defendants.
January 13.
Wyatt,
Kristen. 2004. “Evolution Backers Say Georgia Looks
Silly.” Journal Gazette, Friday,
November 12, p. 5A.
Return to the top of this Essay
This page last updated 4/21/98
Back to the Revolution Against Evolution home page
The Creation Bookstore
Revolution Against Evolution TV Show
Creation Essays
Seminars and Class Schedule
Online Books
Other online resources
Frequently Asked Questions
The Amy Foundation Website
Mount Hope Church
The Revolution Against Evolution has had over one million visitors since 4/28/97.
. 
. Contact rae.org or send comments
about this page HERE.