Learn from the mistakes of others

Friday, May 26, 2006
Federal court of appeals remands Georgia evolution disclaimer case
Jaime Jansen at 8:25 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] on Thursday remanded [opinion text, PDF] an appeal from the Atlanta-based Cobb County School District [official website] asking the court to overturn [JURIST report] a district court decision [text; JURIST report] requiring the school district to remove stickers in their biology textbooks calling evolution "a theory, not a fact." The three-judge panel asked the district court to determine if the public school district's actions were "religiously neutral," implying that the stickers may stay if they do not represent a government endorsement of religion. In order to do so, the district court must consider whether the government pressured the school district into adopting the sticker policy.

American Establishment jurisprudence is strange.

Cobb County originally instituted the sticker policy in response to complaints from some parents claiming that the textbook represented evolution as fact without including any rival theories about the creation of life.

Apart from the various religious dogma, what scientific theories exist that 'rival' evolution?

It seems that US courts have a different approach to the questions "What Is Science" and "How Does Science Work" than they do to unravel major corporate fraud cases and similar complex litigation.

Why do people have so much difficulty separating their beliefs from their assumptions from they actually know?

Other parents of some of the students in the district later sued, claiming the policy violated the separation of church and state under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment [text]. Students and staff last year removed stickers [JURIST report] from 35,000 biology textbooks pending appeal of the case.

They have 35,000 biology textbooks. Does anyone open them?

I wonder what would happen if the school district had put "a theory, not a fact" stickers on Bibles? Would the court be considering the question; "We'd better check that they weren't pressured by 'the government' ... before we decide whether the stickers interfere with people's religious beliefs in such as was to to appear to endorse one view over another ..."

AP has more.

Friday, May 26, 2006
Federal court of appeals remands Georgia evolution disclaimer case
Jaime Jansen at 8:25 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] on Thursday remanded [opinion text, PDF] an appeal from the Atlanta-based Cobb County School District [official website] asking the court to overturn [JURIST report] a district court decision [text; JURIST report] requiring the school district to remove stickers in their biology textbooks calling evolution "a theory, not a fact." The three-judge panel asked the district court to determine if the public school district's actions were "religiously neutral," implying that the stickers may stay if they do not represent a government endorsement of religion. In order to do so, the district court must consider whether the government pressured the school district into adopting the sticker policy.

American Establishment jurisprudence is strange.

Cobb County originally instituted the sticker policy in response to complaints from some parents claiming that the textbook represented evolution as fact without including any rival theories about the creation of life.

Apart from the various religious dogma, what scientific theories exist that 'rival' evolution?

It seems that US courts have a different approach to the questions "What Is Science" and "How Does Science Work" than they do to unravel major corporate fraud cases and similar complex litigation.

Why do people have so much difficulty separating their beliefs from their assumptions from they actually know?

Other parents of some of the students in the district later sued, claiming the policy violated the separation of church and state under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment [text]. Students and staff last year removed stickers [JURIST report] from 35,000 biology textbooks pending appeal of the case.

They have 35,000 biology textbooks. Does anyone open them?

I wonder what would happen if the school district had put "a theory, not a fact" stickers on Bibles? Would the court be considering the question; "We'd better check that they weren't pressured by 'the government' ... before we decide whether the stickers interfere with people's religious beliefs in such as was to to appear to endorse one view over another ..."

AP has more.

Evolution opponents sue Russian Education Ministry
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Angela A. Onikepe at 4:23 AM ET

[JURIST Europe] The Russian Education Ministry [official website, in Russian] faces a lawsuit calling for it to remove evolution from the national science curriculum. The parents of Maria Shreiber, a 15 year old schoolgirl from St. Petersburg, have argued in court papers that school presentation of Darwin's theory prevents students from developing different beliefs about the creation of man. The case spotlights Orthodox Culture Basics [Moscow Times report], an optional course endorsed by the Russian Orthodox Church [Moscow Patriarchate website, English version] and introduced in 2002 [RFE report] by Russian Education Minister Vladimir Filippov for public school curriculums. The subject matter of the course, akin to that of intelligent design [Natural History backgrounder; JURIST news archive], incorporates the Orthodox worldview into the science classroom.

MosNews has local coverage.

o.m.g. ...

Evolution opponents sue Russian Education Ministry
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Angela A. Onikepe at 4:23 AM ET

[JURIST Europe] The Russian Education Ministry [official website, in Russian] faces a lawsuit calling for it to remove evolution from the national science curriculum. The parents of Maria Shreiber, a 15 year old schoolgirl from St. Petersburg, have argued in court papers that school presentation of Darwin's theory prevents students from developing different beliefs about the creation of man. The case spotlights Orthodox Culture Basics [Moscow Times report], an optional course endorsed by the Russian Orthodox Church [Moscow Patriarchate website, English version] and introduced in 2002 [RFE report] by Russian Education Minister Vladimir Filippov for public school curriculums. The subject matter of the course, akin to that of intelligent design [Natural History backgrounder; JURIST news archive], incorporates the Orthodox worldview into the science classroom.

MosNews has local coverage.

o.m.g. ...

Monday, February 20, 2006
US scientists group slams intelligent design legislation
Krystal MacIntyre at 2:01 PM ET

[JURIST] The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) [group website], the world's largest general scientific society, has denounced legislation and policies [statement, PDF; press release] that "undermine evolution" and "deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens," referring specifically to pending legislation in 14 states that would "weaken science education." According to an AAAS statement issued at the association's annual meeting which concluded Monday:

Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one. ...

Many of the proposed bills and policies aim explicitly or implicitly at encouraging the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classes as an alternative to evolution. Although advocates of Intelligent Design usually avoid mentioning a specific creator, the concept is in fact religious, not scientific.

The AAAS praised the December 2005 federal court opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District [PDF text; JURIST report], holding that a Pennsylvania public school district's policy of teaching intelligent design [JURIST news archive] as an alternative to evolution was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause.

Newsday has more.

Monday, February 20, 2006
US scientists group slams intelligent design legislation
Krystal MacIntyre at 2:01 PM ET

[JURIST] The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) [group website], the world's largest general scientific society, has denounced legislation and policies [statement, PDF; press release] that "undermine evolution" and "deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens," referring specifically to pending legislation in 14 states that would "weaken science education." According to an AAAS statement issued at the association's annual meeting which concluded Monday:

Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called "flaws" in the theory of evolution or "disagreements" within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific "alternatives" to evolution. A number of bills require that students be taught to "critically analyze" evolution or to understand "the controversy." But there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one. ...

Many of the proposed bills and policies aim explicitly or implicitly at encouraging the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classes as an alternative to evolution. Although advocates of Intelligent Design usually avoid mentioning a specific creator, the concept is in fact religious, not scientific.

The AAAS praised the December 2005 federal court opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District [PDF text; JURIST report], holding that a Pennsylvania public school district's policy of teaching intelligent design [JURIST news archive] as an alternative to evolution was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause.

Newsday has more.