Information on Cobb County (GA) Suit

Posted 11 November 2004 by Reed A. Cartwright

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/11/information-on.html

The suit against Cobb County (GA) school district to remove anti-evolution disclaimers from biology textbooks is going well. I was able to attend part of the trial today and saw most of the testimony of CCSD’s lone witness, Dr. George Stickle, who oversees science education for the county. The Discovery Institute is apparently unhappy with the way things are going (Why Isn’t Cobb Co. School District’s Attorney Mounting More Vigorous Defense? and Can Cobb Co. Attorney Overcome Trial Mistakes in Time to Save School District?).

Read the rest at De Rerum Natura.

7 Comments

Salvador T. Cordova · 11 November 2004

Hi Reed!

I agree the suit is going well. Lindwood seems to be a real dope and the ACLU is doing an outstanding job. An early congratulations to the anti-IDists.

Salvador

SteveF · 11 November 2004

No doubt Richard dawkins will be offering his support to the ID crowd. Oh, wait a minute.....

Jeff L. · 11 November 2004

Is the ACLU going to bring up the evidence from ape ejaculate? :> That should be good.

Great White Wonder · 12 November 2004

Fyi, CNN just posted a news item on the Cobb County creationism scam: http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/12/evolution.embarrassment.ap/index.html A couple choice sections

Earlier this year, science teachers howled when state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox proposed a new science curriculum that dropped the word "evolution" in favor of "changes over time." That plan was quickly dropped, but comic Jimmy Fallon still cracked wise on "Saturday Night Live": "As a compromise, dinosaurs are now called 'Jesus Horses'."

And just a reminder that, as evangelicals should know better than anyone, shame is still an effective deterrent ...

Doughnut shop worker Maria Jordan, 48, said her Atlanta customers were shaking their heads over the latest dispute. "Lord, don't we have more important things to worry about?" she asked. "It's just a flat-out embarrassment." As for what they are saying elsewhere around the country, she said: "Whatever Georgia's getting up north, we're putting it on ourselves."

Great White Wonder · 12 November 2004

Another Cobb County update http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/12/ga.evolution.ap/index.html I had to chuckle at this

Gunn said religious beliefs make the teaching of evolution different from other science lessons. "I will grant you there are some people that (a sticker) may create some doubt in their mind," Gunn said.

Heh. Gunn is not only smarter than Seth "Greenhorn" Cooper, he's also way ahead of David "The Dissembler" Heddle. I kind of like this Gunn guy. For an attorney with a lot of bad facts, he's a relatively straight shooter. It's almost as if he cares about his reputation and credibility before a Federal judge ...

Jason Spaceman · 13 November 2004

WingNutDaily columnist Kelly Hollowell weighs in on evolution, ID, and the goings-on in Georgia this past week:

A truly scientific theory, by definition, must be testable by repeatable observations. That means a scientific theory can only attempt to explain processes and events that are presently occurring repeatedly and are within our observation. In other words, a scientific theory is empirical in nature. By contrast, evolution and intelligent design are not provable by empirical observation and are therefore not truly scientific theories at all. Each theory does possess scientific character because they each attempt to correlate and explain scientific data. Yet, both intelligent design and evolution are best characterized as explanatory models on mans' origins. They are philosophical and historical in nature, not empirical.

From Will academic freedom come to Georgia?

Frank J · 14 November 2004

Jason Spaceman quotes WND resident pseudoscientist Kelly Hollowell:

"Yet, both intelligent design and evolution are best characterized as explanatory models on mans' origins. They are philosophical and historical in nature, not empirical."

Most IDers beg to differ. William Dembski, for example, claims that ID is testable (and "Darwinism" is not, thanks to some creative language):

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

And Rick Sternberg, the IDer who got Stephen Meyer's empty argument from incredulity past peer review, claims that his version of ID is "ahistorical."

http://www.rsternberg.net/Structuralism.htm

There are exceptions, such as Phillip Johnson, who thinks ID and evolution are both belief systems. But IDers mostly ignore, rather than debate, their fundamental differences on the very nature of ID, not to mention their irreconcilable differences regarding the antiquity of life and common descent. So Hollowell and Johnson are half right, ID is not science.

Then again, is there any point of reading further when the quote "The mind is like a parachute. It only functions when open." is called a "liberal maxim"?