Cobb: Evolution case turns to petitions

Posted 5 January 2006 by Reed A. Cartwright

The AJC has some more information about the latest happenings in the Selman case: Evolution case turns to petitions.

When asked in a telephone interview Wednesday if he thought the March 2002 petitions ever existed, [Cobb County School District's lawyer] Gunn said, "I have my doubts." But on March 28, 2002, the day the school board adopted the stickers, Rogers told the board she had collected signatures from 2,300 people who were dissatisfied with science texts that espoused "Darwinism unchallenged," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the following day. A few days later, a Journal-Constitution reporter examined the petitions at the Cobb school system offices and took notes on names and phone numbers of some of the people who had signed. On Wednesday, Gunn said Cobb school board spokesman Jay Dillon does not believe that ever happened. In an article published April 14, 2002, the Journal-Constitution again reported that the school board had agreed to insert the stickers inside science texts in response to pressure from several dozen parents who criticized the teaching of evolution. The article said the parents had presented petitions with 2,000 names of county residents who demanded accuracy in textbooks. The Cobb school board did not challenge the existence of the petitions at that time. Bramlett said Wednesday he believes the petitions were given to the board in March 2002 and thinks the record supports Cooper's finding that it occurred. "The trial court heard the testimony," Bramlett said of Cooper. "The trial court was there. That's the reason in our legal system that the trial judge's fact finding is entitled to deference by the appellate courts."

69 Comments

Rich · 5 January 2006

Dullard judge Carnes: can someone tell hime evolution is both Theory and fact, and help him with the hard stuff?

"The court gives two bases for its findings and they're absolutely wrong," Judge Ed Carnes told Atlanta American Civil Liberties Union attorney Jeffrey Bramlett, who was arguing on behalf of five parents who sued the school board to get the stickers removed.

In one instance, Judge Ed Carnes of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told Bramlett that there was likely nothing wrong with the statement on the sticker in the question.

"I don't think you all can contest any of the sentences," he said, according to AP.

The issue at stake was whether or not the school board had a religious purpose for using the business card-sized stickers on the inside covers of the science textbooks.

The stickers state that evolution "is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

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

from:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/2108/section/federal.judges.hear.appeal.in.evolution.stickers.trial/1.htm

Ed Darrell · 5 January 2006

Why are the petitions an issue here, Reed? Is the school board now arguing that they were not creationist inspired? Or is the board now arguing that they acted on their own, without creationist pressure?

Is it just that the one judge seemd to get bugged about the petitions?

I'm missing the signficance. I'm sure it's something very simple, but I still don't see it.

Reed A. Cartwright · 5 January 2006

The petition is an issue because Judge Cooper used it to help show that the board bowed to religious pressure. However, something happened at trial or to the record after it, and the lawyers can't find copies of the March petition. It may be because the petition was common knowledge and was mentioned in lots of testimony that it never got introduced into the record or may have been lossed in the record.

Given this error in the record, the board's attorney has now taken to deny the existance of the petition, despite the clear statements by Rodgers that it did exist and it was presented to the board before the sticker was voted on.

Rich · 5 January 2006

"the board's attorney has now taken to deny the existance of the petition"

Does this mean he goes ro jail if its found?

H. Humbert · 5 January 2006

I smell conspiracy.

Moses · 5 January 2006

No. He's just doing a legitimate lawyer trick. The trial record will most likely indicate that the petitions existed and were entered into evidence and were understood and discussed by all parties to the extent they wished to do so.

Registered User · 5 January 2006

How come this Rogers lady is so quiet all of a sudden?

Bob Maurus · 5 January 2006

"The stickers state that evolution "is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.""

Was it ever pointed out in court that Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of living things?

Registered User · 5 January 2006

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

As I recall, the book says something plainly different.

We'll see if Carnes "gets it" eventually.

me · 6 January 2006

Ed-

The way I read the whole missing petitions issue is that the appeals court seemed to be expecting that copies of the petitions entered into evidence.

I'm worried the appeals court will invalidate the lower court decision based upon the absence of this evidence, since the lower court decision used testimony about the petitions as part of its logic in building the argument that the sticker proponents were religiously motivated.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's my read on where this is headed...

Larry Fafarman · 6 January 2006

Comment #68130 Posted by Bob Maurus on January 5, 2006 09:44 PM "The stickers state that evolution "is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."" Was it ever pointed out in court that Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of living things?

"Species," "living things," what's the difference ? I doubt that the court would consider such a nitpicking distinction in the choice of words. Anyway, if that mischoice of words is the only problem that the court finds with the stickers, then the court could just ask that the wording be changed. I think that the important thing is that the stickers made it clear that they are referring to the theory of evolution in the textbooks. I think that when referring to abiogenesis, the term "origin of life" is often used.

Larry Fafarman · 6 January 2006

Comment #68131 posted by Registered User on January 5, 2006 09:44 PM "It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that," Carnes said. As I recall, the book says something plainly different. We'll see if Carnes "gets it" eventually.

Until it is called the Law of Evolution rather than the Theory of Evolution, we may be stuck with Judge Carnes' above statement.

Stephen Elliott · 6 January 2006

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 6, 2006 06:31 PM (e) (s) ... Until it is called the Law of Evolution rather than the Theory of Evolution, we may be stuck with Judge Carnes' above statement.

What is the difference between a law and a theory in science Larry? When you find that out you will realise that the TOE is never likely to be a law. You are aware that a theory covers much more subject matter than a law right?

darwinfinch · 6 January 2006

Posting on dead threads now, Larry F., eh?

Do some research and look up "maroon," so that you at least understand how little anyone here either respects or cares about anything you have yet said in your 24/7 vomiting of lies and ignorance. I mean, don't you have a job? A hobby? A dog?

No curse I could hurl would result in a less admirable person expressing more appalling ignorance and pride than yourself.

CJ O'Brien · 6 January 2006

Are you still on about Laws?
It's so utterly irrelevant. It's never going to be called the Law of Evolution, and it wouldn't rest on any more solid basis of evidence if it were so called. Laws are expressions of deep regularities in the universe, but they don't really explain anything.

Theories unify knowledge, by organizing and explaining large numbers of diverse facts from various (related) fields of inquiry. Theories can be thought of as "bundles" of linked hypotheses (largely proven) that, in turn, generate more (untested) hypotheses. That process, of generating hypotheses within a theoretical framework and then testing them, and, by extension, the theory, by empirical observation and experimentation? That's called science, Larry. It needs theories, but, honestly, it could do without laws. The fact that the process has uncovered a few is all to the good, but it doesn't cast doubt on those areas of inquiry that have not done so.

Sir_Toejam · 6 January 2006

"Species," "living things," what's the difference ?

PLEASE! can we get rid of Larry now? he is not amusing. I find i'm starting to feel sorry for him, and I don't like it. aside from the fact that he hijacks EVERY thread he gets his grubby paws into. enough already!

Mr Christopher · 6 January 2006

STJ, are you in England? If so do you plan to go to the Steve Fuller talk on the 25th?

And on the larry subject, he has gotten some very fine schooling and lessons here on a variety of subjects. It's unfortunate he cannot grasp or make use of any of it.

Sir_Toejam · 6 January 2006

nope, out here in the desert SW, CA.

and still thinking of moving to NZ.

I'm running out of reasons not to; the Kitzmas present we all received notwithstanding.

Mr Christopher · 6 January 2006

Well I wonder how I came to believe you were in the UK. No worries...

Speaking of CA looks like a social studies teacher who is also the wife of an Assembly of God pastor will be teaching IDC near Bakersfield.

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4329497&nav=9qrx

Sir_Toejam · 6 January 2006

Is that the same person who invited Francis Crick to be a speaker?

Well I wonder how I came to believe you were in the UK

i take it as a compliment that folks confuse my locale. in this case, perhaps it's because I often end messages with cheers

Dean Morrison · 6 January 2006

Mr Christopher - I'm in the UK as is Steve Elliot - where is Fuller speaking on the 25th??

Larry Fafarman · 6 January 2006

Comment #68054 posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 5, 2006 06:01 PM The petition is an issue because Judge Cooper used it to help show that the board bowed to religious pressure.

However, Judge Cooper clearly stated that the petitions did not influence his decision -- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/selman-v-cobb.html "......the Court does not rely on communications from these individuals[i.e., the petitioners], who apparently sought to advance religion, to determine whether the School Board itself sought to endorse or advance religion when it voted to place the Sticker in science textbooks. See Adler, 206 F.3d at 1086 (stating that courts should not discern legislative purpose from letters written by community members to school officials)." Furthermore, the petition promoted the following purpose (shown in bold), which Judge Cooper considered to be a valid secular purpose -- "Second, by presenting evolution in a manner that is not unnecessarily hostile, the sticker reduces offense to students and parents whose beliefs may conflict with the teaching of evolution. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Sticker satisfies the first prong of the Lemon analysis." Furthermore, as indicated above, Judge Cooper ruled that the textbook stickers passed the first prong -- the "purpose" test -- of the Lemon test. The decision to ban the stickers was based solely on a finding that the stickers failed the second prong, the "effects" test. It appears that the strategy of the plaintiffs' attorney is the following --- in case the appeals court reverses the district court ruling that the stickers failed the second prong, he is hoping to convince the appeals court that the stickers should fail the first prong because of the alleged petition. But to do that, the plaintiffs' attorney must now -- (1) prove that the alleged petition actually existed and had valid signatures and that it was presented to the school board prior to the decision to adopt the stickers; (2) prove that a significant number of the petition's signers were motivated by religion; and (3) overrule Judge Cooper's above ruling -- supported by precedent -- that the petition could not be a factor in the decision. Personally, I feel that considering the petition to be a factor would be going too far. Making the petition a factor would in effect be saying that an idea is religious just because some people support that idea for religious reasons. And I think that the defendants and the defendants' attorneys are behaving particularly foolishly if they are lying by denying that the petition ever existed, because it appears that the plaintiffs' attorney has an uphill battle to try to make the petition a factor in the case. Scary Larry ===================================== I'm from Missouri. You'll have to show me. ----- Willard Duncan Vandiver

Dave Thomas · 6 January 2006

Well, there is a Theory of Music. So, when will music books in schools get a sticker that says

Music is a Theory, not a Fact...

Dave

Sir_Toejam · 6 January 2006

how's this for a textbook title for a theory of music class:

a Muses Musings on Music and Musicology

Larry Fafarman · 6 January 2006

Comment #68428 Posted by Stephen Elliott on January 6, 2006 06:38 PM Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 6, 2006 06:31 PM *****Until it is called the Law of Evolution rather than the Theory of Evolution, we may be stuck with Judge Carnes' above statement.**** What is the difference between a law and a theory in science Larry? When you find that out you will realise that the TOE is never likely to be a law. You are aware that a theory covers much more subject matter than a law right?

Comment #68432 Posted by CJ O'Brien on January 6, 2006 06:44 PM Are you still on about Laws? It's so utterly irrelevant. It's never going to be called the Law of Evolution, and it wouldn't rest on any more solid basis of evidence if it were so called. Laws are expressions of deep regularities in the universe, but they don't really explain anything. It [science] needs theories, but, honestly, it could do without laws.

OK, but there are some areas of science that have both theories and a law (or laws) --- e.g., gravity. There is the law of gravity (Newton's law of universal gravitation) and various theories of gravity -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity. But there is nothing called the "law of evolution." Even micro-evolution, which we know to be a fact, is not called the "law of micro-evolution." So how does something qualify to be a scientific law? Does it have to be expressible mathematically? Most scientific laws are in fact expressible mathematically, as in the following list of scientific laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws However, some laws are often not expressed in mathematical terms, e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is often stated in the following way -- "it is impossible to construct an engine which, operating in a cycle, does nothing but draw heat from one source and perform an equivalent amount of work." However, entropy, which is a physical property of matter associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, does appear in mathematical expressions. Anyway, back to the present subject-- Judge Carnes' statement to the plaintiffs' attorney, "I don't think you all can contest any of the sentences [on the textbook sticker]. It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that." There have been some objections to this statement on the grounds that some of evolution theory, micro-evolution, is a known fact, and on the grounds that the circumstantial evidence of macro-evolution is a known fact. But macro-evolution per se is just a theory, so in regard to speaking of evolution science as a whole, the judge was not incorrect in saying that evolution is a theory and not a fact. Also, it is not true that laws do not explain anything. Some laws are useful in explaining scientific concepts and phenomena, and some laws can be derived from scientific theories. Laws are not necessarily exclusive from theories. As for saying that science can do without laws, I emphatically disagree. Many scientific laws have essential practical applications. Scary Larry ================================== "I'm from Missouri. You'll have to show me." ---- Willard Duncan Vandiver

Eugene Lai · 6 January 2006

However, some laws are often not expressed in mathematical terms, e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics

LOL

Bob O'H · 7 January 2006

OK, but there are some areas of science that have both theories and a law (or laws) ---- e.g., gravity. ... But there is nothing called the "law of evolution." Even micro-evolution, which we know to be a fact, is not called the "law of micro-evolution." So how does something qualify to be a scientific law? Does it have to be expressible mathematically?
— Larry

A "law" of evolution has ben proposed by some people, but it suffers from not being law-like. I discussed the general problem here: O'Hara, R.B., 2005. The Anarchist's Guide to Ecological Theory. Or, we don't need no stinkin' laws. Oikos 110: 390-393. Although I was focussed on ecological theory, the same arguments apply to evolutionary biology. Bob

Dean Morrison · 7 January 2006

How about this for to the sticker?:

"As the 'Law of the Jungle' is a Law, not a theory; it should be approached with a closed mind; repeated recklessly and applied uncritically."

'Sod's Law' says that the president is already putting the sticker in his copy of the constitution as we speak......

Larry Fafarman · 7 January 2006

Comment #68490 Posted by Eugene Lai on January 6, 2006 10:05 PM ****However, some laws are often not expressed in mathematical terms, e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics***** LOL

OK, let's go over this again, moron. Why are a lot of people here opposed to the textbook stickers? Is the stickers' statement "evolution is a theory and not a fact" not a true statement? I say that if the statement is false -- i.e., evolution is a fact -- then we should have the law of evolution instead of the theory of evolution. I claim that one cannot take issue with that statement on the sticker unless one also agrees that evolution should be known as a law instead of a theory, but some people disagree with that. And I say, why shouldn't it be known as the law of evolution? One of the factors I considered was whether a scientific law must be expressible in mathematical terms. Most scientific laws are, but then I noted that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly expressed in qualitative terms, but also noted that some concepts of that law are expressed in mathematical terms. However, I have found some scientific ideas called "laws" that are never expressed in mathematical terms, e.g., Buys-Ballot's Law of meteorology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buys-Ballot%27s_law So if evolution is a known, proven fact, then it should be known as the law of evolution instead of the theory of evolution, even though evolution is not expressible in mathematical terms. So again I ask, what is wrong with the statement on the stickers? Do the stickers not make a true statement? Are the stickers unconstitutional just because some people support them for religious reasons? Scary Larry

Eugene Lai · 7 January 2006

OK, let's go over this again, moron.

Most scientific laws are, but then I noted that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly expressed in qualitative terms, but also noted that some concepts of that law are expressed in mathematical terms.

LOL. The Second Law Of Dealing With Morons is: DON'T ARGUE WITH ONE. It is not commonly expressed in mathematics. You can try prove this law wrong.

qetzal · 7 January 2006

Why are a lot of people here opposed to the textbook stickers? Is the stickers' statement "evolution is a theory and not a fact" not a true statement?
— Larry Fafarman

No, it isn't. Evolution, used in one sense, is a theory. Evolution used in a different (but related) sense is a fact.

I say that if the statement is false --- i.e., evolution is a fact --- then we should have the law of evolution instead of the theory of evolution.

That's because you don't understand (or refuse to acknowledge) the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. Despite having them explained to you umpteen times.

I claim that one cannot take issue with that statement on the sticker unless one also agrees that evolution should be known as a law instead of a theory, but some people disagree with that.

Because anyone who understands scientific theories and laws knows your claim is false.

And I say, why shouldn't it be known as the law of evolution? [math discussion deleted] So if evolution is a known, proven fact, then it should be known as the law of evolution instead of the theory of evolution, even though evolution is not expressible in mathematical terms.

Learn the difference between a theory and a law (if you can), and then you'll understand.

So again I ask, what is wrong with the statement on the stickers?

1. They are objectively incorrect. 2. They are misleading. They intentionally disparage the theory of evolution, in an effort to imply that evolution is not the overwhelmingly accepted explanation for the diversity of life that it actually is. 3. They are religiously motivated, and seek to shore up certain religious beliefs (creationism, typically of the biblical variety).

Do the stickers not make a true statement?

Again, no.

Are the stickers unconstitutional just because some people support them for religious reasons?

Here's an idea: read the judges' opinions!

Stephen Elliott · 7 January 2006

Larry,
try here.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

That is the last time (hopefully) I will do that for you.

Have you studied this?

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cgt/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm

If so, are you applying law 7

Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ · 7 January 2006

However, some laws are often not expressed in mathematical terms, e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics...
— Lyin' Larry

dS = dQ/T It is a characteristic of incompetent people that they cannot recognize their own errors. Normal people self-correct, incompetent people do not.

Larry Fafarman · 7 January 2006

Comment #68581 posted by qetzal on January 7, 2006 10:09 AM Larry Fafarman wrote: *****Why are a lot of people here opposed to the textbook stickers? Is the stickers' statement "evolution is a theory and not a fact" not a true statement?***** No, it isn't. Evolution, used in one sense, is a theory. Evolution used in a different (but related) sense is a fact.

OK, then I propose wording the stickers as follows -- "This textbook contains material on evolution science. Evolution science, which concerns the origin of species, is part theory and part fact. The part that is theory should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." I noted that another area of science that is part theory and part fact, gravity, has a law of gravity (Newton's law of universal gravitation) and theories of gravity. But evolution science does not have laws for the things that we know to be true, e.g., there is no law of micro-evolution and no law of survival of the fittest (I tried to justify that by pointing out that these concepts are not expressible mathematically, but I also noted that some recognized laws of science are never or only sometimes expressed in mathematical terms).

****Are the stickers unconstitutional just because some people support them for religious reasons?**** Here's an idea: read the judges' opinions!

If the answer to my question is yes, then this is guilt-by-association, pure and simple.

Aureola Nominee, FCD · 7 January 2006

Mr. Fafarman:

If the answer to my question is yes, then this is guilt-by-association, pure and simple.

But since, as everybody who has read the judge's ruling knows, the answer to your question is, once again, "no, you don't know what you're talking about", then it is a case of your arguing from ignorance, and displaying amazingly wilful cluelessness.

Larry Fafarman · 7 January 2006

Comment #68584 posted by Engineer-Poet, FCD, Î”Î Î“ on January 7, 2006 10:32 AM Lyin' Larry wrote: ****However, some laws are often not expressed in mathematical terms, e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics...**** dS = dQ/T It is a characteristic of incompetent people that they cannot recognize their own errors. Normal people self-correct, incompetent people do not.

There is nothing to correct ! OK, bozo, let's go over my original statement from Message #68484 -- ".......some laws are often not expressed in mathematical terms, e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is often stated in the following way --- ' it is impossible to construct an engine which, operating in a cycle, does nothing but draw heat from one source and perform an equivalent amount of work. ' However, entropy, which is a physical property of matter associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, does appear in mathematical expressions." No matter how careful I am here in what I say, people will always quote me out of context and distort what I said, or ridicule my statement on the basis of a debatable point. There is hardly anything I can say here -- no matter how true it is -- that will not be ridiculed by someone. Your simple equation is not considered to be a complete statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- it is just a definition of entropy. In contrast, most scientific laws are completely expressed in mathematical terms -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_laws (some of the laws in this list are completely described by mathematical statements that are not given, so the proportion of laws that are expressed purely mathematically is greater than this list indicates). As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics, this is stated in many different ways. The following webpage gives some qualitative and mathematical statements of this law --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics The mathematical expressions are generally not considered to be necessary in stating the law.

W. Kevin Vicklund · 7 January 2006

Larry, the concept of scientific law is 19th century. Just because modern science doesn't call something a law, doesn't mean that it doesn't qualify to be a law. Many of the concepts of evolution can and are expressed mathematically. In a different thread, I wrote a mathematical expression for natural selection (which you so cudely call survival of the fittest) that refers to the probability of the reproductive success (Pr) of individuals with a (b)eneficial mutation, n(0) mutation, (n)eutral mutation, (h)armful mutation, and (l)ethal mutation, as follows:

Pr(b)>Pr(0)=Pr(n)>Pr(h), Pr(l)=0

Another example would be the probabilty function of whether a mutation will become fixed in a population. A third would be the number of harmful mutations a population can sustain (a topic brought up on PT a few months ago, in fact). The list goes on.

A law is merely a subset of a theory, Larry. You would have us demote evolution.

And x "is part theory and part fact" describes all of science. Why slap a sticker on just evolution?

History tells us there is one reason, and one reason only. Non-scientific, religious beliefs.

Alexey Merz · 7 January 2006

I noted that another area of science that is part theory and part fact, gravity, has a law of gravity (Newton's law of universal gravitation) and theories of gravity. But evolution science does not have laws for the things that we know to be true, e.g., there is no law of micro-evolution and no law of survival of the fittest (I tried to justify that by pointing out that these concepts are not expressible mathematically, but I also noted that some recognized laws of science are never or only sometimes expressed in mathematical terms). [emphasis added]

What a shocker. Larry Knownothing is unaware of the entire Modern Synthesis - the major work done from 1920 on to integrate quantitative genetics and evolution. What is it with people who think that the less they know, the more weight their opinions should have? Such hubris.

Alexey Merz · 7 January 2006
Whoops. Blew the formatting. Another try:
I noted that another area of science that is part theory and part fact, gravity, has a law of gravity (Newton's law of universal gravitation) and theories of gravity. But evolution science does not have laws for the things that we know to be true, e.g., there is no law of micro-evolution and no law of survival of the fittest (I tried to justify that by pointing out that these concepts are not expressible mathematically, but I also noted that some recognized laws of science are never or only sometimes expressed in mathematical terms). [emphasis added]
What a shocker. Larry Knownothing is unaware of the entire Modern Synthesis - the major work done from 1920 on to integrate quantitative genetics and evolution. What is it with people who think that the less they know, the more weight their opinions should have? Such hubris.

Arden Chatfield · 7 January 2006
What a shocker. Larry Knownothing is unaware of the entire Modern Synthesis - the major work done from 1920 on to integrate quantitative genetics and evolution. What is it with people who think that the less they know, the more weight their opinions should have? Such hubris.
Youre forgetting -- Larry has said himself that his lack of knowledge makes him the best one to comment on such things. All our book larnin' just muddies our minds and makes it so we 'can't see the forest for the trees'. He understands he doesn't need to 'match our pathetic level of detail'. I guess this is what's 'scary' about him.
"This textbook contains material on evolution science. Evolution science, which concerns the origin of species, is part theory and part fact. The part that is theory should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Do you advocate the same warning for books discussing the Theory of Plate Tectonics or Gravity? If not, why not? (And no, I won't explain to you what 'plate tectonics' is. Look it up yourself.)

CJ O'Brien · 7 January 2006
A great deal of theoretical biology has a quite elegant mathematical expression. If one wanted, I think it would be acceptable to say that some "laws" have been brought to light by the work of RA Fisher, JBS Haldane, and Sewall Wright. But it's semantics at that point, and I'd be willing to bet you have no idea what any of the work of those individuals entails, and would consider any treatment of it "propaganda."
You're chasing your tail.

Dean Morrison · 7 January 2006
Hey Larry! - 'Ghost of Paley' needs a Moron to peer-review a paper he's working on!

Larry Fafarman · 7 January 2006
Comment #68608 posted by Alexey Merz on January 7, 2006 02:51 PM What a shocker. Larry Knownothing is unaware of the entire Modern Synthesis - the major work done from 1920 on to integrate quantitative genetics and evolution. What is it with people who think that the less they know, the more weight their opinions should have? Such hubris.
Can't you people make a point in a civil manner, without calling a person ignorant, stupid, etc. ? I don't do that sort of thing. These mathematical formulations of evolution, unlike the mathematical formulations of most scientific laws, are unessential, crude, and not universally accepted. Anyway, whether or not some parts of evolution science can be called a "law" is beside my basic point, which is that at least some of evolution science is theoretical. So it would not be incorrect of the textbook stickers to say that evolution science is part theory and part fact.

Stephen Elliott · 7 January 2006
Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 7, 2006 04:18 PM (e) (s) ... Can't you people make a point in a civil manner, without calling a person ignorant, stupid, etc. ? I don't do that sort of thing. These mathematical formulations of evolution, unlike the mathematical formulations of most scientific laws, are unessential, crude, and not universally accepted. Anyway, whether or not some parts of evolution science can be called a "law" is beside my basic point, which is that at least some of evolution science is theoretical. So it would not be incorrect of the textbook stickers to say that evolution science is part theory and part fact.
People can, but choose not to. You have been judged by your actions and are reaping what you sowed. You have made little or no effort to actually learn things since arriving here. People notice, then you get treated accordingly. BTW Larry, you do resort to personal insults. Anyway, why do you persist behaving the same way? Was it Einstein who claimed a definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same actions and expect different results?

Reed A. Cartwright · 7 January 2006
Keep the comments on topic or they will be closed.

Larry Fafarman · 7 January 2006
Comment #68600 posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on January 7, 2006 01:31 PM Mr. Fafarman: ****If the answer to my question is yes, then this is guilt-by-association, pure and simple.**** But since, as everybody who has read the judge's ruling knows, the answer to your question is, once again, "no, you don't know what you're talking about", then it is a case of your arguing from ignorance, and displaying amazingly wilful cluelessness.
Whatever. Anyway, you have not told me what you think of my rewording of the stickers -- "This textbook contains material on evolution science. Evolution science, which concerns the origin of species, is part theory and part fact. The part that is theory should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."- So, the questions are -- (1) Is the above statement factually correct ? (2) Does a factual statement that makes no direct or indirect reference to religion ever violate constitutional church-state separation when presented in a public-school science class?

Larry Fafarman · 7 January 2006
Comment #68617 Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on January 7, 2006 04:29 PM Keep the comments on topic or they will be closed.
OK, sorry about that. I usually try to avoid going off-topic --- I thought that it was OK in this case because the issue of the wording of the stickers concerned the court case under consideration. I will return to the specific topic of the petitions shortly.

Anton Mates · 7 January 2006
I noted that another area of science that is part theory and part fact, gravity, has a law of gravity (Newton's law of universal gravitation) and theories of gravity.
— Larry Fafarman
You know, Newton's law of universal gravitation stopped being "proven fact" about a century ago. Nonetheless, we still call it "Newton's law," not "Newton's alleged law but actually a big pile of lies." That should tell you something about the usage of the terms "law" and "fact" in science.

gwangung · 7 January 2006
Can't you people make a point in a civil manner, without calling a person ignorant, stupid, etc. ? I don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, you do.
These mathematical formulations of evolution, unlike the mathematical formulations of most scientific laws, are unessential, crude, and not universally accepted.
This is incorrect.
Please do some research.

Larry Fafarman · 7 January 2006
Hey, you people who are continuing to discuss the law vs. theory thing and the wording of the stickers, you are not being fair. I agreed to stop discussing these off-topic subjects because the originator of this thread asked us to stop. Now you are placing me in a position where I cannot defend myself.
However, I think that these subjects are current and should be discussed, and that therefore a new thread on these subjects should be started. What I like about the AOL message boards is that any user can start a new thread. One of the big reasons why we get into these off-topic discussions here is that some people cannot resist making some off-topic remarks out of the blue, and those remarks start the off-topic discussions. If these people could start their own threads, they would not feel the need to make these off-topic remarks.

limpidense · 7 January 2006
It's just an opinion, and I understand what opinions are like, but rather than close the thread I think it is time Larry earned a ban.
It will be interesting for me to see when this Larry manages this, as I am sure he will. He is rude, often (perhaps always) lies and half-lies, doesn't know much (well, often he honestly brags about not knowing anything) about the topic he seizes, lamprey-like, upon, although he has only a confused set of religio-political teeth and nothing else, and he has evidently received a self-divined mission to muck up as many discussions as possible.
It might be better not to feed him at all, since he can evidently partially digest even the knowledge that, although he brings nothing to the table, he is, in his way, a cute little lamprey, but obviously his opponents have not the strength to allow his nonsense to rot its own course.
Please note I find the true lamprey an interesting creature, as worthy as all others.

steve s · 7 January 2006
Noooo. He doesn't yet deserve a ban. I for one am curious to know how, with all available evidence to the contrary, he can imagine that attorney/client privilege has been violated. It is kind of mysterious to me how people develop and maintain beliefs which are 100% in opposition to the evidence. maybe in a few hundred more posts he'll explain why he imagines that violation has occurred.

Alexey Merz · 7 January 2006
Larry Fafarman typed*:
These mathematical formulations of evolution, unlike the mathematical formulations of most scientific laws, are unessential, crude, and not universally accepted.
As Fafarman's post #68484 makes crystal-clear, a day ago he did not know that these "mathematical formulations" existed. Now he posts a sweeping claim that they are "unessential, crude, and not universally accepted." To anyone who might not have been paying attention: Larry Fafarman does not care whether or not his statements are based on evidence, and he does not care whether they are true. He is, apparently, happy to post brazen lies. * That's not writing. It's typing. -Truman Capote

ben · 7 January 2006
But aren't you impressed with how "persuasive" and "well-researched" the lies are? He certainly is.

Larry Fafarman · 7 January 2006
Looks like I am the only one here who is willing to return to the original topic of this thread.
I need to make some additions to my Message # 68464
(Sorry, in my citations of the Selman v. Cobb County opinion, I would like to include the page numbers, but my computer crashes on the pdf file with the page numbers, so I am forced to use a reference without the page numbers. Some html versions of court opinions include notations for the page numbers, and I wish that this one did). The opinion is on --
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/selman-v-cobb.html
REVIEW
Review of Message # 68464 --
Judge Cooper specifically said that the influence of community members was not a consideration in his test of the first ("purpose") prong of the Lemon analysis. He ruled that the textbook stickers passed the first prong but failed the second ("effects") prong. Here again is his statement that the community members' influence did not apply to the first-prong test ---
"......the Court does not rely on communications from these individuals, who apparently sought to advance religion, to determine whether the School Board itself sought to endorse or advance religion when it voted to place the Sticker in science textbooks. See Adler, 206 F.3d at 1086 (stating that courts should not discern legislative purpose from letters written by community members to school officials)." (emphasis added)
Note: According to the context of the above statement, the judge apparently believed that the alleged petition was submitted to the school board before the adoption of the Stickers, i.e., that "these individuals" included the petition signers, but the judge may have been mistaken about this. This is discussed in the next section.
TIMING OF SUBMISSION OF THE ALLEGED PETITION
An issue raised in the appeals court was whether the alleged petition was submitted to the school board before or after the adoption of the Stickers. The Selman opinion explicitly states that a letter from Ms. Rogers was presented to the school board before adoption of the stickers, but does not explicitly state that the petition was presented to the board before the adoption of the stickers --
"Namely, Marjorie Rogers wrote a letter to the School Board over two weeks before the adoption of the Sticker recommending, among other things, that the School Board place a disclaimer in each book. Moreover, Ms. Rogers and over 2,300 other Cobb County citizens submitted a petition to the School Board also asking the School Board to place a statement at the beginning of the text that warned that the material on evolution was not factual."
However, the context in which the preceding statement was made implies that the judge believed that the petition was submitted to the board before the adoption of the Sticker, but the judge could have been mistaken. Anyway, as noted above, the judge said that the petition and other messages from community members had no influence on his test of the first ("purpose") prong.
.
ALLEGED PETITION'S EFFECT ON SECOND PRONG
In the analysis of the second-prong ("effects") test, the Selman opinion says --
"Thus, the Court's focus here is not on the particular views or reactions held by the Plaintiffs or the numerous citizens and organizations who wrote to the School Board The Court's focus is on ascertaining the view of a disinterested, reasonable observer."
--- and ---
"Specifically, the informed, reasonable observer would know that a significant number of Cobb Country citizen had voiced opposition to the teaching of evolution for religious reasons. *******. Further, the informed, reasonable observer would be aware that citizens and parents largely motivated by religion put pressure on the School Board to implement certain measures that would nevertheless dilute the teaching of evolution, including placing a disclaimer in the front of certain textbooks that distinguished evolution as a theory, not a fact."
The judge contradicts himself in the above two statements. First, he said that the second-prong test did not focus on the views and reactions of the community members, but later he treated these views and reactions as an important factor. Also, it is odd that he considered the community members' motives to be a major factor in the second-prong test (the "effects" test, which is not supposed to concern the motives of the school board or the community members) but not a factor in the first-prong test (the "purpose" test, which is primarily concerned with motives). Anyway, the Stickers failed the second-prong test in the Selman opinion because of many reasons other than communications from the community members, including the alleged petitiion.
SUMMARY --
In the Selman opinion, the alleged petition was ignored in the first-prong (purpose) test, which the Stickers passed, and was apparently important but not central to the second-prong (effects) test, which the Stickers failed.
Whether the alleged petition was submitted to the board before the adoption of the Stickers is crucial in regard to the first-prong test (if the appeals court tries to overrule Judge Cooper's decision to ignore the alleged petition in the first-prong test), and is also an important -- but not crucial -- consideration in the second-prong test.
Anyway, I think that it would be very foolish of the defendants or the defendants' attorneys to lie about the alleged petition (either as to its existence or the timing of its submission to the school board), because they would look bad if the lie were exposed and because the petition is not central to the case.
Scary Larry
=============================
"I Think I Don't Remember" ---- Title of Art Buchwald's book spoofing political shenanigans
"I don't know what you said you thought I knew" --- school board member William Buckingham, testifying at Dover trial

gwanngung · 7 January 2006
Hey, you people who are continuing to discuss the law vs. theory thing and the wording of the stickers, you are not being fair.
Translation: I am getting my ass whupped even worse than usual, to the point where even I have to admit it, so I'm advancing in another direction.

Alexey Merz · 7 January 2006
Anyway, I think that it would be very foolish of the defendants or the defendants' attorneys to lie about the alleged petition (either as to its existence or the timing of its submission to the school board), because they would look bad if the lie were exposed and because the petition is not central to the case.
It always looks bad for someone's credibility when a lie is exposed, eh, Larry? As you say it's good reason not to lie, though a better reason is, you know, because lying is wrong

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 January 2006
It's just an opinion, and I understand what opinions are like, but rather than close the thread I think it is time Larry earned a ban.
Larry serves a good purpose ----- he gives us a target so we don't pointlessly fight with each other. He also shows all the lurkers how utterly vapid and brainless the typical rank-and-filer IDer really is. I say, keep him around.

UnMark · 7 January 2006
Evolution happens; it is a fact. HOW evolution happens is the explanatory framework known as the Theory of Evolution. This should be nothing new to anyone here. . . .
Thank you, Dr. Miller:
"This textbook contains material on science. Science s built on theories, which are strongly supported by factual evidence. Everything in science should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Were that disclaimer placed on EVERY science textbook, I'd have absolutely no objections. (I'd add "explanations" before "strongly", but that's just me.)

noe · 7 January 2006
I think churches should slap disclaimer stickers on their bibles that creationism is a theory not a fact.
And what's up with wanting to respect peoples beliefs, isn't that just a load of spineless sissified political correctness?

Larry Fafarman · 7 January 2006
Comment #68631 Posted by gwanngung on January 7, 2006 08:00 PM ****Hey, you people who are continuing to discuss the law vs. theory thing and the wording of the stickers, you are not being fair.**** Translation: I am getting my ass whupped even worse than usual, to the point where even I have to admit it, so I'm advancing in another direction.
The thread starter's threat to cut off this thread if off-topic posts continued was not an idle one. He already cut off another thread -- without warning -- for that reason. I much prefer the America Online message boards, where any user can start a new thread. Unfortunately, there is a lot of censorship -- most of it unwarranted -- on the AOL message boards, too. The problem with the AOL message boards is that a lot of the time they have little or no activity on this subject.

jim · 7 January 2006
Larry,
You may open all the threads you wish at After the Bar Closes (AtBC).

Dean Morrison · 7 January 2006
He already has...
let's all try to 'spot the next 'alter big ego'
???

Larry Fafarman · 8 January 2006
Here is something that should be easy to check out ---
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article says ---
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/0105metsticker.html
"In a six-page letter, Bramlett apologized for a "mis-citation" in his legal brief that compounded confusion among the court's judges about the petitions. He also acknowledged that the only petitions entered into evidence in the case were submitted to the school board on Sept. 26, 2002 --- six months after the board adopted the stickers, which called evolution 'a theory, not a fact.' "
-- and --
"In his response, filed Tuesday, Gunn repeated his assertion that the trial record does not include a 2,300-signature petition submitted by Rogers, which was referred to in Cooper's ruling. In fact, Gunn told the court, 'I have never seen such a document.' "
So one attorney says that the trial record includes the alleged petition (regardless of when it was submitted to the board), and another attorney says that it does not. Which is it?
Maybe the court should settle the questions about the petitions by just flipping a coin.
Looks like I am the only one who is still making substantial contributions to this thread. Other commenters are just making ad hominem attacks against me.

Larry Fafarman · 8 January 2006
Comment #68045 posted by Ed Darrell on January 5, 2006 05:51 PM Why are the petitions an issue here, Reed?
See Comment #68630 of this thread. Also, the mere fact that there are discrepancies regarding the petition is enough to make it an issue, regardless of the petition's bearing on the case. Note: I am getting tired of referring to the petition as the "alleged petition" (I call it that because its existence has now been questioned). From now on, I will just call it "petition."
Is the school board now arguing that they were not creationist inspired?
Even if the petition was creationist inspired, no one knows how many people signed it in support of creationism and/or religion. And what did the petition say? Even if the petition specifically mentioned creationism and/or religion (and that was not necessary and would have unnecessarily turned off some potential petition signers), some people might have signed it for reasons that were noncreationist and nonreligious.
Or is the board now arguing that they acted on their own, without creationist pressure?
Judge Cooper, citing precedent, expressly said that religion-based pressure on the board was not a factor in his test of the first (purpose) prong of the Lemon test. See Comment #68630 . The appeals court could overrule that decision, but I think that they would have to cite precedent to the contrary and/or argue that Cooper misinterpreted the precedent he cited. Also, there is the question of the extent to which the petition represented creationist or religion-based pressure (as I said, presumably some people signed the petition for reasons that were noncreationist and nonreligious). These are some of the pitfalls of considering motives in establishment clause cases. Because of these pitfalls and for other reasons, I think that consideration of motives should be scrapped.
Is it just that the one judge seemed to get bugged about the petitions?
The vote and opinion of each judge or justice -- whether on an appeals court panel on in the Supreme Court -- is of critical importance. For example, whether there is a split in an appeals court decision (2-1 instead of 3-0) is a critical factor in the decision of the Supreme Court on whether to grant review --- the Supreme Court accepts only about one-percent of appeals for review and anything that raises a red flag is of critical importance. Also, a dissenting judge (or justice) gets to write his/her own opinion. There was nothing in the news reports as to how or whether the other two judges spoke about this issue at the hearing. Their silence -- if they were silent -- does not indicate disagreement with Judge Carnes. If they strongly disagreed with Judge Carnes, they should have spoken up. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article showed that there was good reason to be concerned about the petitions. Scary Larry

Alexey Merz · 8 January 2006
Here is something that should be easy to check out ----
Translation: Fafarman is too lazy to check it out for himself, and wants someone else to do a Google search for him.

Larry Fafarman · 9 January 2006
Comment #68758 Posted by Alexey Merz on January 8, 2006 02:10 PM ****Here is something that should be easy to check out ----**** Translation: Fafarman is too lazy to check it out for himself, and wants someone else to do a Google search for him.
How could I check it out myself? I asked whether or not the petition is actually in the court record. I have no access to the court record, so I cannot check that out. No matter what I say here, someone will find some reason to attack me.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 January 2006
No matter what I say here, someone will find some reason to attack me.
Don't flatter yourself, Larry. Nobody here gives a flying fig about you. (shrug)

Larry Fafarman · 12 January 2006
Comment #69827 posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 10, 2006 07:07 PM ****No matter what I say here, someone will find some reason to attack me.**** Don't flatter yourself, Larry. Nobody here gives a flying fig about you.
See what I mean ?