Trial Begins Over Georgia School Evolution Disclaimer ... ATLANTA - A trial opened Monday over whether a warning sticker in suburban Atlanta biology textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact" violates the separation of church and state by promoting religion.

Apparently pointing out a fact is "promoting religion". What is wrong with making sure it’s understood and that there is no confusion over the FACT that evolution is not a fact, but instead actually a theory.

I think you could poll just about anyone and see the need for such a disclaimer. People simply believe, with without showing them any evidence, that evolution is a fact, and that we know without a shadow of a doubt that this IS the way we all came into being.

This leaves no room for debate or additional research and discussion into the mountains of contrary evidence and negates the pursuit and evaluation of evidence that might go against it.

Why have the majority of people come to think we know for certain and that all the evidence is in favor of evolution?

Anyway I could go on and on but the point here is that the ACLU is really screwing up. This isn’t any promotion of religion at all.

The sticker reads, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

EXCELLENT! Did everyone read that? “This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Wow!!! sorry I am just excited to see that sentence was even said in a public school.

Please tell me what is wrong with that disclaimer? How can reminding people that evolution is a theory not a fact (like most science books and teachers refrain from mentioning anymore)? And how is encouraging students to approached this with an open mind, study it carefully and critically consider all the facts wrong?

ACLU what are you thinking taking this case?

A group of parents and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit over the stickers. Jeffrey Selman, a parent who filed the lawsuit said "It’s like saying everything that follows this sticker isn’t true,".

No it’s saying everything that follows is a scientific theory and should be viewed as such. I think a fundamental problem here is that kids and their parents don’t know what it means to be a theory.

Once again... “This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Hmmm so according to Selman that is “like saying everything that follows this sticker isn’t true,". He just doesn’t get it.

A lawyer for the school district, Linwood Gunn, said "It doesn’t say anything about faith. It doesn’t say anything about religion”. Gunn, said the sticker was meant to "encourage critical thinking" and said it did not imply that evolution was wrong.

Parent Marjorie Rogers who started the drive to put the stickers in the books said in court,

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

I agree with that wholeheartedly. Why is this science ignored? I encourage anyone who wants to write it off to ACTUALLY take time to read some intelligent design theory.

Organisms contain biochemical parts that could not have been produced by Darwinian means. Is this taught in school?

Darwin’s black box is a good book, I have been told, if you want to get into some deep science.

The AP article states

“Creationism credits the origin of species to God.”

This isn’t actually true. Creationism credits the origin of a species to some unknown concept or unknown intelligent being, and that doesn’t have to be a “god” or have anything to do with religion.

• Creation theory assumes everything is by intelligent design but doesn’t know who or what that might be or where they came from.
• Big Bang theory assumes everything is based on matter and energy but doesn’t know what created them and where they came from.

Model of Origins:

• The Creation Model of Origins is the theory that the intricate design permeating all things implies a Designer.
• The Evolution Model of Origins is the theory which postulates that the intricate design permeating all things is a product of random chance and excessive time.

Young earth theory is also something that is not taught or even mentioned in school, but has a wealth of scientific evidence. This theory is in contrast to evolution as well. Young Earth theory does not have to do with the bible, religion, or a “god”. There is solid scientific evidence that the earth is actually very young and not millions of years old, but you will not hear any of it in school.

In school as well as society you will get one view and one view only and you will not be encouraged to question that view, seek out new answers, challenge evidence, or challenge what you are taught. What sort of people are we becoming?

I do think that as long as the science book makes it clear and is honest about what is just a theory and what the actual facts are then that is all that’s needed. But in this day and age ask anyone if evolution is a fact and you will see why more is required. People have been confused for far too long and this is a real problem for science.

Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. If we cut off critical thinking and alternative evidence or certain theory we destroy true science and its future.

---

SIDE NOTE: There is no Fossile Record proving or even backing up Evolution.

The Fossil Record is the supposed "missing links" between distinct kinds of animals which can be extrapolated as transitions between kinds.

Archaeopteryx is thought to be a transition between reptiles and birds. There are no unambiguous transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx was thought to be a transition between reptile and bird because of its teeth and the claws on its wings.

The fact is some fossil birds had teeth, and some didn’t. Some reptiles have teeth, and some don’t. Some mammals have teeth, and some don’t. Superficial similarities do not imply genetic relationship.

"There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record." - Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. (Reference: Colin Patterson, personal communication. Luther Sunderland, "Darwin’s Enigma," 1988, p. 89.)