Evolution and school violence—a sad connection?

[jackwellman]

Now...about your final comment:

"It wouldn't hold up even in a court of law.!" Actually, it already has. Creationism and intelligent design, however, have not held up in courts of law."

Indeed they have been upheld in the courts. In fact the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest authority in the land my friend!)! Supreme Court Justice Brennan, LA Balanced Treatment Act, "The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess, to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. ...Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science education.", Supreme Court of the United States. No. 85-1513. Edwin W. Edwards, et al. Apellants v. Don Aguillard, et al. (June 19, 1987).

STEPHEN GOULD, "But no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before and it can be taught now." New York Times Magazine, 7/19/1987, p.34. MICHAEL ZIMMERMAN,

"' Creation science" can still be brought into the science classroom if and when teachers and administrators feel that it is appropriate. Numerous surveys have shown that teachers and administrators favor just this route. And, in fact, 'creation science' is currently being taught in public school’s science courses throughout the country." Bioscience, 17 (9):635, 1987. WILLIAM B. PROVINE, Cornell,

"Teachers and school boards in public schools are already free under the Constitution of the USA to teach about supernatural origins if they wish in their science classes." Biology And Philosophy, V.8, p.123, 1993.
　
Texas Textbook Mandates, "1.4 scientific theories and laws based on existing evidence as well as new evidence... under process skills:... 6.3 examining alternative scientific evidence and ideas to test, modify, verify or refute scientific theories. ... 9.2 scientific theories of evolution and other reliable scientific theories, if any;...", Texas State Board of Education, Proclamation 66, March 11, 1989 (Amended in 1993 to include "strengths and weaknesses of evolution.")
　
A Court rules atheism is a religion: "A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion…even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said." August 20, 2005, WorldNetDaily.com

So at least the Courts are fair. You have a right not to believe in a Creator, the U.S. Supreme Court said so. But so too did they say that science classrooms, legally, can "examine alternative scientific evidence and ideas..." in addition to evolutional theory. What's wrong with that?

Now, are you still saying that it's not been upheld in the courts or do you not agree with the U.S. Supreme Court?

[zoetherat]

"Now, are you still saying that it's not been upheld in the courts or do you not agree with the U.S. Supreme Court?"

I'm saying you're wrong. Creationism and intelligent design have repeatedly lost in the courts for a long time. The arguments you make are not good arguments. And if you had researched them at all, you would have realized that.

"Indeed they have been upheld in the courts. In fact the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest authority in the land my friend!)! Supreme Court Justice Brennan, LA Balanced Treatment Act, "The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess, to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. ...Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science education.", Supreme Court of the United States. No. 85-1513. Edwin W. Edwards, et al. Apellants v. Don Aguillard, et al. (June 19, 1987)."

Jack, do you even know what this court case was about? Louisiana passed a law that said science teachers were required to teach both creationism and evolution. This law was called the LA Balanced Treatment Act. Supporters of evolution said that it was unconstitutional and brought it to court. The Supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional. This Supreme court ruling you bring up was a DEFEAT for creationism.

Lets break down the quote-

"The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess, to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life"

What Justice Brennan is saying here is that the LA Balanced Treatment Act does not appear to have a secular educational purpose. The Creationists were arguing that it did.

"Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science education."

Yes, but...

1) Their ruling stated that the LA Balanced Treatment Act DID NOT have a secular intent.
2) This court case, and previous court cases, established that Creationism IS NOT a scientific theory.

Here is a wikipedia summary of the case-

"While the Court held that creationism is an inherently religious belief, it did not hold that every mention of creationism in a public school is unconstitutional.... Just as it is permissible to discuss the crucial role of religion in medieval European history, creationism may be discussed in a civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions class where the intent is to factually educate students about the diverse range of human political and religious beliefs. The line is crossed ONLY when creationism is taught as science, just as it would be if a teacher were to proselytize a particular religious belief."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_a ... egal_cases

The creationism/ evolution debate is about whether or not creationism is a valid scientific alternative to evolution, and the court has ruled that it is not.

[zoetherat]

After the first version of creationism got it's butt kicked in the courts, they tried to change it to creation science. After creation science got it's butt kicked in the courts, creationists tried to sneak it back into the public schools by calling it "intelligent design". And then intelligent design went to trial and it got it's butt kicked too. YET, YOU'RE ARGUING THAT THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD CREATIONISM??? HUH?!?

[jackwellman]

As for your comment:

"YOU'RE ARGUING THAT THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD CREATIONISM??? HUH?!?

I am not the one arguing this FACT. It is the U.S. Supreme Court (the highest authority in the land my friend, where is your authority for claiming it is illegal to teach it!?!)! I repeat, Supreme Court Justice Brennan, LA Balanced Treatment Act, "The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess, to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. ...Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science education.", Supreme Court of the United States. No. 85-1513. Edwin W. Edwards, et al. Apellants v. Don Aguillard, et al. (June 19, 1987)."

As, Stephen Gould stated so cleary, "... no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before and it can be taught now." New York Times Magazine, 7/19/1987, p.34. MICHAEL ZIMMERMAN.

This case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court and was upheld! I am not aguring, just plainly revealing facts about what you claim is illegal, the Supreme Court would have prohibited it nationwide. They have NOT. Local school districts across this nation have publicly elected School Boards to represent the PUBLIC and if that's what the districts teach and the parents have no problems with it, then why forbid it? An evolution is the only way (or the highway) is narrowminded and strips any critical thinking skills that schools try to encourage to solve theoritical problems. If they teach Intelligent Design with evolution, let students make up their own minds. It's as if evolutionists are afraid of a little competition.

Why should I argue for what has been declared legal by the U.S. Supreme Court? Do you not agree with them, you still haven't answered my question.

[zoetherat]

If you try to teach creationism or intelligent design as science in a public school, you are violating the constitution. If the school allows a teacher to do that, then the school can be taken to court for violating the constitution. This is what the courts have established. All the recent court cases on creationism are ones where the creationists tried to get creationism (in one form or another) taught as science. The creationists lost those cases.

It's not illegal to teach creationism, but it is illegal to teach it as science in public schools. I did not make that distinction, and perhaps i should have. However, i did not think i needed to because i assumed you knew what i meant. It's common knowledge so i thought it was obvious.

"As, Stephen Gould stated so cleary, "... no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before and it can be taught now." New York Times Magazine, 7/19/1987, p.34. MICHAEL ZIMMERMAN."

I don't know if this quote is being taken out of context or if it's from before the Supreme Court ruling in 1987. The quote is also from 1987, so perhaps it does predate the ruling. In any case, you're flat out wrong. It's illegal to teach creation science in public schools. Simply looking up the subject on wikipedia would have revealed that to you.

"An evolution is the only way (or the highway) is narrowminded"

Only science belongs in public school science classrooms and creationism and intelligent design are not science. That's what the courts ruled. Equal time should only be given for scientific theories of equal merit. Creationism isn't scientific and it has no scientific merit.

"This case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court and was upheld!"

The creationists were the ppl supporting the LA Balanced Treatment Act. The evolutionists claimed that the act was unconstitutional. The court sided with the evolutionists and ruled it unconstitutional. I can't put it any simpler than that.

I'm done having this discussion with you Jack. Hitting my head against a desk is a better use of my time.

[jackwellman]

Then I suppose someone, somewhere will get an attorney and try suing the state of Kansas (among many others). The Kansas State Board of Education approved new science standards for teachers in public schools that question Charles Darwin's teachings on evolution and hand a victory to advocates of "intelligent design."

The board's 6-4 vote a few years ago, reversed a 2001 decision that affirmed Darwin's theory of natural selection. That vote came two years after most references to the theory were removed from state standards.

Advocates for intelligent design (ID) helped write the new standards, which challenge Darwin's 1859 theory. Scientists have long considered the theory — which explains how species evolve through survival of the fittest, passing new and better traits to their offspring — as proven reality. But there remains no conclusive proof of it. This should be allowed to be told the students. The world is so complex that new species can not be explained only as the product of mere chance alone, contrary to what they might feel differently about.

The Kansas standards do not overtly promote intelligent design, but they challenge Darwin and change the state's definition of "science," no longer limiting it to a search for natural explanations of phenomena. Evolution does not explain how the material to make life possible (matter) come into existence.

Anyway, If you are done with this, perhaps you could move to a different thread about the scientific realms of the theory of evolution. There are a multitude of subjects like Creation vs. Evolution.

[jackwellman]

From the same court case:

"The Supreme Court has already been made it crystal clear that the teaching of creation science can not be legally prohibited from being taught in the classroom, if the local school district opts for it. Incidentally, this is what the Supreme Court calls it: Creation-science. Chief Justice Rienquist & Justice Scalla, "We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation-science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on the earth." Edwards vs. Aguillard, Dissent (1987).

And, "the Supreme Court has said about this issue in 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the high court concluded that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” The court also said that teaching these theories would pose no constitutional problems provided they are not taught to the exclusion of evolution.

That is putting it very simple too, right out of the Justice's mouth!

[zoetherat]

"The Kansas standards do not overtly promote intelligent design"

And the reason it doesn't "overly promote intelligent design" or creationism is precisely because they know that if it did, the courts would rule it unconstitutional.

Your evidence:

You've presented Reinquist's and Scalia's opinion from the Aguillard court case, but that has no authority because it was the minority opinion.

You've presented the part of the majority opinion where the court says that a variety of scientific theories can be taught in a secular manner. But because they ruled that creationism isn't scientific or secular, that part of their ruling excludes creationism.

You've presented quotes saying that creation science may be taught in public schools, but those quotes date from 1989, so they might preclude the ruling that made it unconstitutional.

All bad evidence.

[zoetherat]

I found this on wikipedia. Either your information about the Kansas school board isn't up to date, or wikipedia's entry on this topic isn't up to date.

"There has been a controversy regarding the status of creationism and evolution in the Kansas public education system, which is also the subject of a great deal of debate in the legal, political, and religious arenas.

In 1999, the Board ruled that instruction about evolution, the age of the earth, and the origin of the universe was permitted, but not mandatory, and that those topics would not appear on state standardized tests. However, the Board reversed this decision February 14, 2001, ruling that instruction of all those topics was mandatory and that they would appear on standardized tests.

Then on August 9, 2005, the Board approved a draft of science curriculum standards that mandated equal time for the theories of "evolution" and "intelligent design". But February 13, 2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted in 2005. The definition of science was once again limited to "the search for natural explanations for what is observed in the universe", [1] or what is known as "methodological naturalism"."

[jackwellman]

Teaching of creation science can not be legally prohibited from being taught in the classroom, if the local school district opts for it. This has not changed and until the Supreme Court rules that all school districts in the United States can not teach Intelligent Design, there will continue to be local school districts that choose to do so, with support of the local population. The fight in Kansas is not over yet either. If anyone wants a video or audio transcript of this case, you can hear or see for yourself what Chief Justice Rienquist & Justice Scalla have said about ID: "We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation-science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on the earth." Edwards vs. Aguillard, Dissent (1987).

From this same case the transcripts continue "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction...with the intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction" and, provided it is not taught to the exclusion of evolution.

If it is illegal to teach Creationism or ID, then why is is so widespread in the states as I write this? President Bush recently told reporters, quote, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," unquote. And although he said that local districts should make such curricular decisions, President Bush said he supported the teaching of both sides so people can understand, quote, "what the debate is all about."

The meaning of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly says, "Congress cannot pass any law concerning a religion or establishing a religion; and cannot pass any law that prevents the free exercise of religion." To do otherwise is clearly a violation of the Constitution and discrimination and hate crime against believers. The U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning separation of church and state is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees that nondiscriminatory teaching of Creation Science and Intelligent Design Theory and freedom of speech cannot be denied to schools. The power to legislate - - pass laws is specifically allocated in the U.S. Constitution to Congress; not the US Supreme Court justices. What laws Congress cannot make are also stated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch of our government, conceived as a counterbalance to the legislative branch. In this capacity it has the ability not to make laws, but to judge whether or not a law is being broken. Courts have been overstepping their authority of "making or interpreting laws", which is clearly wrong. Congress and the Senate make laws and it takes 2/3rds of the states to ammend or add another constitution in a national referrendum (ie to exclude teaching ID). Since when have judges been given this right to re-write or interpret the U.S. Constitution? It's outrageous.