Georgia Judge orders removal of anti-evolution sticker
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ution_stickers

I am upset about this. Why is the promotion of evolution more legitimate than the promotion of THE POSSIBILITY of creation? I think if the government (or this judge) is trying to maintain fairness and prevent integration of church and state or at the very least prevent one theory from being promoted over another, then this sticker is just providing a balance. All it said was that "Evolution is a theory and not a fact". Is that somehow incorrect or untrue? I don't think so.

I am also surprised that Georgia, of all places, is taking this stand against something Biblical.

The only reason you don't believe in evolution is because you're Republican.

-Rudey

LOL. I'll be back to reply to this one.

but they can keep the stickers saying the law of gravity is just a theory, right?

Look, when a board of education wants to add there input to a book, they can call the publisher and have the scientists put it in. The school board is not in the business of teaching their opinions or versions of evolution, leave it to the unmarked textbooks.

I can't believe anyone thinks putting a sticker in a textbook would be considered fair and balanced, think about what you're saying really....

Evolution was unfairly singled out? I wonder what other theories were in the textbooks? It seems there was only one theory in the first place...how is that singling out?

Well, you might as well start believing it because I do. Of course there are more refined ways they could have incorporated their viewpoint but I think that the length to which this judge went to rid the books and ultimately the school system of the idea of creationism as an opposing theory is rediculous.

Actually, I wouldn't want my kids being forced to learn about a religious fairy tale at school. At Sunday school? Fine.

If people want their children to be religiously indoctrinated 5 days per week, they can send 'em off to religious schools.

Point 1: Science is its own religion. To believe in evolution takes a lot of faith.

Point 2: They are not attempting to add Creation to the textbooks, just to point out that there are other theories. There are parents who would say they don't want their children learning a scientific fairy tale just as you wouldn't want your children learning a religious fairy tale. How is it right to substitute one theory for others and completely ignore those others? Though I am a Creationist, I find various Native American creation stories to be fascinating. I would love for my children to learn about them, but there simply isn't enough time in the week. So, a statement regarding the THEORY of evolution not being a FACT seems appropriate to me.

Point 3...a question: What happened to everyone's tolerance on this thread?

But that wasn't what was going on here, ktsnake. It was a little sticker that said evolution was a theory, that's all. If it listed all of the religious doctrines outlined by the Christians then MAYBE that would be too much. Again, though, creationism is not just some fairytale told to kids at bedtime. It is a major belief that resides so deeply in the hearts and minds of countless numbers of people in this country and the world. It also serves as the core for much of the bases of ideals in this country. SO, I still think that if the text books are going to discuss one theory of human/life development, and this government wants to be so fair, then mentioning the FACT that evolution is a theory is at the very least acceptable.

The sticker didn't even go that far into the subject and didn't make mention of any specific religions. Of course we know what the point was, but all it did was point out that evolution is not the only perspective on human development that is out there.

preciousjeni, you and I are ----->here<-----. (meaning we see eye to eye on a lot) ;)

Phasad1913, it's always nice to have a rational back up in these discussions. :)

I know this isn't particularly on topic, but has anyone ever pondered the question of eyeballs and evolution? If creatures evolved in stages and everything took a long time to reach the next stage, then certainly eyesockets developed before eyeballs. Then, eyeballs would begin to develop within the eyesockets and would eventually gain sight.

So, why in the world would the development of something as important as sight - which is logical since evolution brought about things as they became important - involve stages in which there were periods when the eye socket was completely vulnerable to attack, filled with blood and a direct hole to the brain (ok, there's some flesh in there but not much!)?

Sorry to post again so soon - More on evolution...

In today's news:

Chinese Scientists Find Dinosaur-Eating Mammal

It's all a theory.

ETA: See also National Geographic and Washington Post.

Are there other scientific theories besides evolution?

Let's be real here -- the stickers aren't intended to point out that there are other theories -- they're intended to point out CREATIONISM, which, in my opinion, has no place in public schools, period. If you want your kids to learn creationism, take them to church or religious school.

Science doesn't have all the answers. (ok - I'm going to stop posting here for a while - i'm trolling a little too much!)