Federal judges consider evolution stickers

A federal appeals panel Thursday questioned the accuracy of a judge's ruling that a disclaimer in school textbooks describing evolution as "a theory, not a fact" represents an endorsement of religion.

"I don't think you all can contest any of the sentences" on the disclaimer sticker, Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told an attorney arguing for parents who sued.

"It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that," Carnes said.

The lower court in January ordered a suburban Atlanta school district to remove the stickers. The judge, Clarence Cooper, wrote the disclaimer "conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insiders."

(more)

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/13417359.htm

actually take the time to consider what a "theory" is in scientific terms. A scientific theory is little more valid than your honor's "theory" as to why your cousin jethro prefers squirrel over possum.

yes to all those.

But is it a government endorsement of religion, I don't think so.

It's a FACT. Asshole.

Would that be acceptable?

that said the resurrection of Jesus was a presumption, not a fact.

The nutcases in this country would be screaming bloody murder.

Every Bible should have a sticker:

"Important if true."

Or maybe:

"This is a book, not a bludgeon."

:crazy:

and Nuclear weapons. It is only Theory......

No scientist would ever claim evolution is a fact. It's a sound theory that's supported by huge amounts of evidence, but nobody ever said it was a fact, because there *are* no "facts" in science.

These people are the ones who like to present theories and suppositions as fact, so they assume everyone else does it, too. But we don't. One of the main principles of scientific thinking is to always allow for the possibility that we could be completely wrong about everything, and to be able to change our theories and beliefs in light of new evidence. The trouble is, not only are religious nuts incapable of questioning their beliefs, they believe that to do so is a sign of weak convictions. It's the same as conservatives everywhere; they can't change, so they think people who can change are soft.

If you're into the Discworld series, check out "Small Gods". There's an excellent scene where Brutha, who's been around fundies all his life, is perplexed by the Ephebian philosophers, and how proud they are to admit that they don't really know anything.

What holds more validity an article of faith or a theory that has been studied for centuries?