Cobb Will Appeal

"Cobb school board to appeal evolution ruling" By KRISTINA TORRES The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 01/18/05 As if taking a federal judge's ruling against them as fighting words, the Cobb County school board voted Monday to appeal a court order to remove evolution disclaimers from textbooks. In a 4-2 vote, board members said U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper's decision "amounts to unnecessary judicial intrusion into local control of schools," according to a statement they released immediately after the vote. The decision came after members met with lawyers for three hours in closed session. "We have to make our best judgment based on the facts," said Curt Johnston, a member who was chairman when the board adopted the disclaimers in 2002. He said the board believes the facts show the judge erred when ruling that the disclaimers --- which call evolution "a theory, not a fact" --- convey an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. In their statement, the board said it felt "condemned . . . for taking a reasonable approach to address the concerns of [Cobb] citizens on a controversial issue." The disclaimers stem from a petition drive begun in 2002 by Marjorie Rogers, who described herself during testimony in November as a creationist who believes the Bible's book of Genesis is factual. Rogers collected 2,300 signatures from supporters, prompting the board to print the disclaimers on stickers and place them in 13 science books used in middle and high schools. The disclaimers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Six parents sued to remove the stickers saying the disclaimers violated the principle of separation between church and state. Cooper heard three days of testimony, plus closing arguments, in November. He issued his ruling Thursday. The board's decision Monday flabbergasted Jeffrey Selman, the leader of the parents who sued. "They're ludicrous," he said. "They're ignoring the ruling." Emily Cohen, a Campbell High School sophomore, said Monday that most students she knows make fun of the disclaimers, which she finds "somewhat offensive." "[They] kind of say, 'consider it critically,' as if we wouldn't have," Emily said. Board Chairwoman Kathie Johnstone read the board's statement aloud Monday, although both she and Laura Searcy voted against the appeal. Johnstone, the only one of seven members not on the board when the disclaimers were written, said she personally felt "it's time to move on." "I'm worried about the toll it will have on the district," she said. Board members said they would pursue the appeal at no additional cost, a promise stemming from board attorney Glenn Brock's pledge to do his remaining work on the case for free. Brock's law firm has charged the board roughly $74,000 so far. Brock said he will request a stay as early as today from the judge's order that the disclaimers be removed immediately.

Emily Cohen, a Campbell High School sophomore, said Monday that most students she knows make fun of the disclaimers, which she finds "somewhat offensive." "[They] kind of say, 'consider it critically,' as if we wouldn't have," Emily said.

Actually Great White Wonderbread,

It's about the 1st amendment not using the phrase wall of separation between church and state.

It's about the 1st amendment reading freedom *of* religion not freedom *from* religion.

It's about a majority standing up for its rights.

It's about powers not explicitely granted to the federal gov't reserved for the states and the people.

It's about freedom of speech.

And it's about teaching the *theory* of evolution like it was the *law* of gravity.

Board members said they would pursue the appeal at no additional cost, a promise stemming from board attorney Glenn Brock's pledge to do his remaining work on the case for free. Brock's law firm has charged the board roughly $74,000 so far.

It's about a majority standing up for its rights.

I have been thinking that the finding held that while the motivation of the school board could be secular (eventhough it wasn't really) their actions could be sectarian.

This is actually a bigger finding than (I) people seem to think.

"I tried to exercise my basic rights as a citizen to propose a new idea, and school officials responded by suspending normal procedures, publicly attacking my personal religious beliefs, and even threatening to sue me to stop me from speaking out," reported Caldwell. "These are tactics you'd expect in a banana republic, not the state of California."

Jason,

How did you wander in here? Welcome anyway.

As far as I know, the obligitory fees are paid differently in different states.

DaveScot said:
" If that charge is true someone is going to hang for it."

But if it is yet another lie from the DI proponents/creationists, you'll just won't mention it again and continue to troll, won't you, DaveScot?

Please note that both GWW and me are still waiting answer to our very reasonable, very easy answers to our questions. Until you answer them, I think I will assume tht everything you post is a flame/lie/distortion, mainly because you have given me no grounds to think otherwise.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

By the way, Dave, which Austin school teachers aren't allowed to say Merry Christmas?

I think I will assume tht everything you post is a flame/lie/distortion

DaveScot, if you look a little closer, you'll see that neither Christmas nor winter break was mentioned on the website - rather they were mentioned in news releases. Now, this might just be because the official name of the break is "winter break", not "Christmas break".

Also, how does this in any way show that the teachers are not allowed to say "merry Christmas"? Until you show an official policy, or other proof to that effect, I'll say that the claim is unsupported.

DaveScot:

"And it's about teaching the *theory* of evolution like it was the *law* of gravity."

Dave, hate to break it to you but Einstein's general relativity is only a *theory* of gravity. Newton had a well-accepted *theory* of gravity until Einstein found a better one. Einstein himself reckoned that he didn't have the whole story but the rest of the rational world agrees that he has the best one yet. Incidentally, Einstein was always on about coming to know the mind of God.

Like Newton, Darwin had a pretty good theory but it too has been refined in the subsequent century and a half, what with the discovery of DNA and the observation that we're only 1.5% different DNA-wise than chimpanzees.

There's a lot of gravity-defying in the Bible, as well as some instant creation. Maybe it's time you literalist types widened your scope instead of just concentrating on evolutionary theory.

On the other hand, you could usefully recall Jesus' parable of the talents and start to use your God-given brain.

DaveScot trolled:
"Oh gee, that really hurts. I care about your opinion so much and all . . . "

I wonder, DaveScot, why do you come here? You are certainly not here to listen, since by your own words you don't care about opinions other than your own (or probably other than those that agree with your own).

I was not trying to hurt you. I was just telling you that, until you answer what amounts to the most basic questions about the belief you are trying to defend as being scientific, your words will carry no weight as far as I am concerned. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that many other people here are thinking the same thing - that you can either defend your loud, but empty, statements with some facts, or you should stop trolling.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Dave,

You're attempting a proof in the negative. Like trying to claim that, because you don't find any indian elephants in your neighborhood, they don't exist.

Give us positive proof that the Austin teachers are forbidden from saying 'Merry Christmas'.

Cary

Davescot,

Anti-evolutionists call macroevolution "just a theory." There is an essential distinction between the phenomenon of macroevolution and the theory of evolution. A scientific theory is a well-supported and useful general explanation or organizing principle as exemplified by the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution refers to the mechanisms, such as mutation, competition, and population isolation that cause evolution. Macroevolution itself is a scientific fact, not a theory in any sense of the word. Because of overwhelming evidence, such as the fossil record found in the geologic column, comparative anatomy, and the distribution of species, almost all professional biologists accept the phenomenon of macroevolution with the same confidence that they accept heliocentrism. Scientific facts are not absolute truth. They are accepted beyond a reasonable doubt by a near consensus of scientists, but by definition are tentative. It is a scientific fact that if you let go of a pencil, it will fall toward the center of the Earth, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it will fly into space.

You know, if you ignore the obvious troll "DaveScott" it might go away. If you did ignore it, there might be a bit more intellectual discourse here.

On the other hand, I've noted that most people on internet message boards prefer to waste time responding to trolls. I guess it gives them a bit of intellectual pleasure doing so. But for most of us, it makes it clear that reading comments isn't all that useful

FIRST AMENDMENT: The District shall take no action respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Board for a redress of grievances. U.S. Const. Amend. I FREEDOM OF SPEECH Students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. At school and school events, students have First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Student expression that is protected by the First Amendment may not be prohibited absent a showing that the expression will materially and substantially interfere with the operation of the school or the rights of others. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733 (1969) [See also FNCI] The inculcation of fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic society is part of the work of the school. The First Amendment does not prevent school officials from determining that particular student expression is vulgar and lewd, and therefore contrary to the school's basic educational mission. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S. Ct. 3159 (1986) PRAYER AT SCHOOL ACTIVITIES A public school student has an absolute right to individually, voluntarily, and silently pray or meditate in school in a manner that does not disrupt the instructional or other activities of the school. A student shall not be required, encouraged, or coerced to engage in or refrain from such prayer or meditation during any school activity. Education Code 25.901 Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the schoolday. But the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the District affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer. The District shall not adopt a policy that establishes an improper majoritarian election on religion and has the purpose and creates the perception of encouraging the delivery of prayer at a series of important school events. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 120 S. Ct. 2266 (2000) (addressing school-sponsored, student-led prayer delivered over the public address system at high school football games) [See also FMH(LEGAL) at INVOCATIONS/BENEDICTIONS]

Dave,

A fifth grade teacher in California may NOT have a right to preach to children in a public school room. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law to authorize such an infringement of the children's rights to religion and belief. Neither the nation as a whole in the U.S. Constitution nor the people of California in their state constitution have delegated any rights, duties or privileges in religion to government, and especially not to state agents such as teachers, to infringe on the religious rights of the kids.

So where that clown Caldwell gets off saying his rights are infringed is a mystery to any student of the Constitution and religious freedom.

[They] kind of say, 'consider it critically,' as if we wouldn't have," Emily said.

There's no civil right in the United States more sacrosanct than freedom from discrimination and persecution due to religious beliefs. If that charge is true someone is going to hang for it.

Folks, I would advise against spending time and energy responding to any comments by "DaveScot". Some might characterize him as a "troll" in the parlance of the Internet, but I would consider the traits on display on the comments above. His statements are disingenuous; his choice of words is specious; he diverts the thread to tangential or off-topic matters; and, most repugnant of all, he exhibits a mean-spirited attitude and an affection for sophomoric sarcasm. He isn't worth our time, folks.

Actually Dave,

It's about Thomas Jefferson using the phrase "wall of separation between church and state."

It's about the 1st Amendment reading "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

It's about a majority standing up for its wrongs (but not getting away with it).

It's about powers not explicitly granted to the federal gov't to force religion down citizen-student's throats.

It's about not distorting the concept of freedom of speech to force religious preaching in the form of stickers on citizen students.

And it's about teaching the *explanation* of evolution like it was the *explanation* of gravity.

http://haloscan.com/tb/atrios/110601902931173296

we shouldn't forget the value of reminding people of the jokes that they really are.

Actually, folks, if there were no Dave-to-dump-on it would be necessary, or at least advisable, to invent one.

Dave Scot wrote (comment 14095):

It's about the 1st amendment not using the phrase wall of separation between church and state.

Response:

This issue was laid to rest nearly two centuries ago!

Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

During the 1810's, President James Madison [often referred to as the "Father of the Constitution"]wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.

Source:http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm

Dave Scot wrote:

It's about the 1st amendment reading freedom *of* religion not freedom *from* religion.

Response:

Your freedom of religion is protected as long as it doesn't interfere with my freedom of religion (or vice versa). However, individual religious freedom is irrelevant in the Cobb County case. What's at issue here is the government (i.e., the Cobb County School Board) taking sides with a particular religious viewpoint. That is what the 1st Amendment prohibits.

Dave Scot wrote:

It's about a majority standing up for its rights.

Response:

The Constitution and its amendments is not so much about the rights of the majority as it is about protecting minority viewpoints from the "tyranny of the majority". That is the beauty and strength of the American system of government.

Dave Scot wrote:

It's about powers not explicitely granted to the federal gov't reserved for the states and the people.

Response:

The Constitution and its amendments cover ALL of the people. States have the authority to pass laws that add to or strengthen the basic rights and protections conferred by the Constitution; they don't have the authority to weaken them. States and local governments cannot show favoritism toward one set of religious beliefs and practices in the same way that they cannot abridge the right of citizens to bear arms.

Dave Scot wrote:

It's about freedom of speech.

Response:

The Cobb County case has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. The School Board is a unit of government, not a person (even a corporate one); it does not have the right of free speech under the Constitution. Also, the legal precedent is well established that a teacher, as a condition of their employment with a unit of government (i.e., a public school district), does not have the right to contravene school policy or to teach material that is contrary to the established curriculum. Nor does a teacher, as an representative of a local government, have the right to promote specific religious beliefs and practices in the public school classroom.

Dave Scot wrote:

And it's about teaching the *theory* of evolution like it was the *law* of gravity.

Response:

This statement demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of scientific terminology. A scientifc "Law" is a descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. For example, we know that gravity affects masses in a consistent fashion everywhere it has been measured.

A "Theory", on the other hand, is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Thus, theories, are more significant scientific statements than are laws.

The Theory of Evolution is more firmly based than the Theory of Gravity. We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution, yet we know very little about the nature of gravity, why it exists, and how it works.

I know that this is a bit off-topic with with respect to the Dover situation, I thought I'd put in my own $0.02 regarding Caldwell. I read through Caldwell's complaint (available at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=274) and found that -- much to my amusement -- one of the two "science experts" Caldwell cites as representing the "minority scientific viewpoint" with respect to evolution is none other than Phillip Skell, a crackpot who was pestering PZ Myers just a couple of weeks ago. If you want the amusing goods on Skell (and have a few minutes to waste on some cheap laughs), just wander on over PZ Myers' blog (www.pharyngula.org) and use the search utility to dig up the Skell posts.

If Skell is the best talent that Caldwell can enlist for his cause, Caldwell will be laughed out of court in a matter of minutes (remember that if Caldwell *does* get a court hearing, his case will be heard by a judge who resides in California, not Alabama or Georgia).

Arrrggghhhh! in my previous post, s/Dover/Cobb/

They're only going to appeal if the lawyers will do it for free? Their faith must not be that strong, if they're not willing to put their district's own money on the line.

"The appeal is contingent on their lawyers doing it for free."

I'm not sure, but I'll bet that the Thomas More Center would take it on for free. They were sharply critical of Judge Cooper's opinion. Of course, as has been noted of their involvement in Dover, it's more than a tad hypocritical to retain an overtly religious law firm, whose stated goal involves promoting Christian beliefs into public policy, to argue that no religious purpose exists for the questioning of evolution. Not that the court would consider it, but it's hilarious nevertheless.

Perhaps the Discovery Institute would take it for free. They were reportedly upset with the school board's lawyer that none of their scientists were called on to testify. But they've also made statements about 'waiting for the right time', which involves a SCOTUS turnover, and how the Dover case could hurt its grander, wedge-like designs by establishing a precedent which would then be harder to overturn.

The Thomas More Center would have a far easier time with the facts in the Cobb County case than they're going to have in Dover, where the school board has created a series of nightmares for them.

Whoever appeals Cobb County will have a rough time too, however, because of the deference that will be granted to Cooper's findings of fact, since the case went all the way through to the end.

Hey Tom Baillieul (or anyone who can answer me)!

Appreciated your remarks re "dumpster Dave," but you made one statement that puzzled me.

"We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution."

Well, okay, I'm not a scientist, much less a biologist (I'm a science writer, all sciences, including evolution science), and so I still struggle sometimes to understand certain things. One of my problems is the inter-relationship and relative strengths of the various mechanisms. I understand that they can be organized as follows:

1. Mechanisms that increase genetic variation:

(a) DNA mutates, resulting in allele changes that are neutral (most), deleterious (some), beneficial (very few).

(b) DNA recombines within genes and/or between genes and thus adds new alleles and new combinations of alleles.

(c) Genes flow.

Example one: new organisms migrate into a population and by mating engender fertile hybrids that can vector genes from species to species.

Example two: Genes can flow from one species into a distantly related one. Margaret Kidwell showed that a tiny parasite mite transfered DNA from Drosophilia willistoni into Drosophilia melanogaster. The DNA then spread till today all natural populations of melanogaster has it, and only laboratory stocks of it don't.

2. Mechanisms that decrease genetic variation:

(a) Natural selection
(b) Sexual selection (nonrandom) (some biologists include it with natural selection)
(c) Genetic drift (random)

That said, here's my problem:

You say, "We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution."

But Chris Colby says, "Biologists know little about the genetic mechanisms of speciation." (Search for his Intro. to Evolutionary Biology at Talkorigins.)

So what gives? Who's right? What am I missing?

---Dylan

You say, "We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution." But Chris Colby says, "Biologists know little about the genetic mechanisms of speciation." (Search for his Intro. to Evolutionary Biology at Talkorigins.)

— Dylan Thomas

How do two populations change genetically so much that they can no longer reproduce with each other?

Okay, point taken.

But Colby still seems a bit less sanguine than Baillieul about the security of our scientific handle on the mechanisms, especially as regards the difficulty integrating genetics into even microevolution.

Colby (1996): "Initially, a wide variety of observations seemed to be consistent with the neutral theory. Eventually, however, several lines of evidence toppled it. There is less variation in natural populations than the neutral theory predicts. Also, there is too much variance in rates of substitutions in different lineages to be explained by mutation and drift alone. Finally, selection itself has been shown to have an impact on levels of nucleotide variation. Currently, there is no comprehensive mathematical theory of evolution that accurately predicts rates of evolution and levels of heterozygosity in natural populations" (Intro.Ev.Biol., Talkorigins).

This info. is nine years old. Any news?

How do two populations change genetically so much that they can no longer reproduce with each other?

This info is nine years old. Any news?

"And in the lab, representive members of isolated breeding populations readily interbreed if the 'breed with me' signals are deliberately confused. These signals might be coloration, mating call, season, displays, or whatever. There seems to be some triggering mechanism that initiates sexual interest, and speciation seems often to happen when these triggers change."

Cool, but this is all Darwinian, non-Mendelian, phenotypical stuff.

What's going on genotypically? Enough so that we can convince a no-nonsense federal judge of the assertion that, "We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution"?

Yo Great White,

"Aren't you guys supposed to report the news to us?"

Are we supposed to report the latest on black hole thermodynamics to Stephen Hawking?

Science writer rules:

1. Get the story.
2. Check the story.
3. Report the story.

Knock out step 2 and you could write for the DI.

Science writer rules: 1. Get the story. 2. Check the story. 3. Report the story.

Are we supposed to report the latest on black hole thermodynamics to Stephen Hawking?

this is all Darwinian, non-Mendelian, phenotypical stuff. What's going on genotypically?

Great White,

You think I'm writing a story rather than posting my concerns regarding the chances for success of Cobb County's appeal, don't you?

"If you bugged Hawking with questions about the 'latest' in black hole theory without consulting a public database for the information first, he'd think you were a pest.  At least, if I were Hawking, that's how I'd feel."

Maybe that's (one reason) why you're neither a reporter nor nothing remotely like Hawking.

"Mutations that cause changes in the phenotypes . . . "

Stop the presses!

You think I'm writing a story rather than posting my concerns regarding the chances for success of Cobb County's appeal, don't you?

Stop the presses!

Maybe that's (one reason) why you're neither a reporter nor nothing remotely like Hawking.

Since they are doing the Lord's work, I'm surprised they're not praying for $$$ from heaven to fight this most Holy of battles. /sarcasm

It's about freedom of speech.

So, you're in favor of the science classroom becoming an open forum for all viewpoints, regardless of whether they are about science or not? When are you going to get it through your head that the scientific process is NOT democratic? The science classroom is not to be used as a soapbox, even if the views being espoused are shared by the majority of people. Science is about sharing information regarding theories that CURRENTLY best explain the evidence we find in nature.

And it's about teaching the *theory* of evolution like it was the *law* of gravity.

Therein lies your problem. There is no distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity. The distinction exists in only one place -- your head. You can accept gravity because it doesn't challenge your religious faith. Evolution, which deserves as much credibility as gravity, is problematic for you because you cannot reconcile it with your faith. I've got news for you: DEAL WITH IT! It's a problem of your own making. It will not be rectified by standing still and making science revolve around your faith. Science will not be dumbed down because you have chosen to abide by a faith that is impervious to reality.

You know, if you ignore the obvious troll "DaveScott" it might go away. If you did ignore it, there might be a bit more intellectual discourse here.

To say nothing of the fact that the replies such trolls receive are interpreted by them as "suffering for Christ's sake." It's a lose-lose proposition. Responding to them is not only a waste of time. But, it re-enforces the troll's view that they are being singled out and "bashed" because they are True Believers. Ignoring them would be the best policy for all concerned. Although, I have to confess that it's fun (and easy) to shoot down their bilge.

Anyone tired of Dave Scott's ranting and trolling? Read this instead. This interesting editorial just came up on the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/opinion/19jacoby.html You may need to register to read it, but doing so is free. Cheers.

More sophisticated proponents of intelligent design, those who are religiously conservative but not insistent on literal adherence to the biblical creation story, use anti-Darwinist arguments from a tiny minority of scientists to bolster their case for a creator. Last month, a group of parents in Dover, Penn., filed the first lawsuit to address the issue, challenging the local school board's contention that "intelligent design" is a scientific rather than a religious theory and, therefore, does not violate the separation of church and state.

Great White,

"I can't read minds."

I was asking what you think, not commenting on telepathy.

"If you have concerns abou the chances for success of Cobb County's appeal, then why not simply articulate them?"

I didn't?

"'Stop the presses!' You heard someone say that in a movie, didn't you?"

I did?

"Since they are doing the Lord's work, I'm surprised they're not praying for $$$ from heaven to fight this most Holy of battles. /sarcasm"

My prayer dialog:

"Lord, if to you a thousand years is but a day, then the same would be true of $$$, right?"

"Yes, my son."

"Then, could I have just one of your dollars?"

"Yes, my son, of course."

"Thank you so much, Lord. So that will total $365,000, right."

"Right you are, my son. I'll send it within a week."

After a bit of I-net sleuthing I've reached the conclusion that Tom Baillieul is overly optimistic with his statement, "We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution."

Apparently not. Of the types of mechanisms --- (1) mutation, (2) gene duplication, (3) migration, (4) genetic drift, and (5) natural/sexual selection --- we have a good understanding of only (5).

And even that "good understanding" is much more phenotypcial than genotypical. Whether this will impact the Selman v. Cobb County appeal I have no idea.

But if I were the appellate court judge, I would most certainly ask some rather penetrating questions of any witness who would assert, "We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution."

If you were the appellate court judge, Thomas, you wouldn't ask any witnesses any questions at all. Fact finding, including witness testimony, happens at the district court level. If Cobb County appeals, the circuit court will (eventually) decide the case on purely legal grounds. As someone else mentioned on this thread, the appellate court will give enormous deference to the district court's findings of fact. The judges (probably three of them) will question the attorneys during their oral arguments, but no one else will speak. For such a simple case, it's possible that the court won't even take oral argument, but will decide the case on the briefs. On the other hand, judges like theater as much as anyone else, so who knows?

In any event, I have a hard time seeing your objections. You might bear in mind that "we have a good understanding of" does not equal "we understand absolutely everything about", say, mutation or genetic drift. It seems that biologists in fact have a very good understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. That's not to say that there isn't much more to learn, though, which is one reason why people get all worked up when fundamentalists try to squelch education.

Hi Colin,

I have no legal training, but tend to doubt your assessment. Judges have immense powers when it comes to discovering the truth.

"I have a hard time seeing your objections."

Obviously, since one cannot see what isn't there.

"It seems that biologists in fact have a very good understanding of the mechanisms of evolution. "

Thanks for your opinion.

Cheers,

Dylan

Perhaps I was unclear - it's not a matter of opinion, or a belief that the appellate judges won't be interested in further factfinding. It's how the courts are structured. Here's the very short and sweet version:

District courts make findings of fact and apply the law to those facts. When a party appeals to the circuit court of appeals, it's heard by a panel of judges who are *only* reviewing the legal questions at hand. The judge or jury at the district court level is the only factfinder; the circuit court either accepts the district court's findings or (rarely) sends the case back for further findings. (Cases are often sent back, but usually because the appellate court decided that the district court wrongly applied the law.)

In this case, the circuit court would be looking at the application of the Lemon test, for example, especially things like how the judge (correctly, as far as I know) collapsed the second and third prongs into one test. (NB, I've only skimmed the ruling.) The appellate court would not look into questions like whether biologists understand evolution, because it absolutely would not--could not if it wanted to, in fact--hear witnesses or make new findings of fact.

Dylan Thomas,

Your question about whether we understand the mechanisms behind evolution depends upon what one means by "mechanisms", but generally speaking, you are correct that our knowledge is limited. There are all kinds of things that affect evolution, which are being studied right now of course, but which we don't have a complete understanding of. Two prominent areas are evolution & devolopment (evo-devo) and epigenetics. And I'm not an expert in the field, but I don't think anyone has a clear molecular explanation of what, precisely, prevents proper mating when one species splits into two (or more). Obviously, there are a variety of events that can go haywire.

One area that I do know quite a lot about is sequence evolution. We are quite good at aligning sequences and accurately calculating the probability that the two sequences come from a common precursor. The process of aligning sequences requires putting in gaps (insertions or deletions) in the alignment. The methods we use to insert these gaps are entirely phenomenological - there is no underlying theory that explains the distributions of gaps that we observe.

I suppose your question also depends upon what one means by "very good understanding", but I would say that for most mechanisms our understanding is not very good.

Just finished reading Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District, U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper presiding. And here's what I found or relevance to this discussion:

1. "[T]he Court takes no position on the origin of the human species. ... the issue before the Court is not whether it is constitutionally permissible for public school teachers to teach intelligent design ...."

2. "[T]his opinion resolves only a legal dispute ... whether the sticker ... violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ...."

3. "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the MECHANISM by which it occurred, this Sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community for the benefit of the religious alternatives. By denigrating evolution the School Board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the Sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories."

Point No. 3 here is significant in that it is the ONLY scientific criticism of evolution mentioned in the entire ruling. This in spite of the fact that he gives no credibility at all to any creationist and/or *intelligent design* criticisms.

Thus one can reasonably assume that judges DO pay attention to weaknesses in scientific theories, and the scientific theory of evolution is no exception. Therefore it would seem incumbent upon those of us battling for good and true science instruction in the classroom NOT to make overblown assertions such as, "We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution."

While biology may have a good understanding of the PHENOTYPICAL aspects of mechanism, it would be folly to assert in court that we have a good understanding of its GENOTYPICAL aspects. In this respect modern synthetic theory right now is very much in flux.

Ps. Hi, MIke. Just noticed your post, and will read it carefully. ---Dylan

I'm a law student and have interned at the Circuit Court level (2d Circuit) (which is where this is headed on appeal). Colin is correct. Appellate courts have the power to reverse decisions by the trial court on legal questions but cannot consider new facts. The appellate court can reverse the trial court's decision if the trial court if it determines that the trial court was "clearly erroneous" in its fact finding, or "abused its discretion". But it cannot call new witnesses, for instance, or hear further testimony. It generally employs a 'de novo' standard of review for legal questions (which essentially means that it asks itself the same legal question the trial court was forced to consider - here, the question would be whether, given the facts the trial court had to consider, the sticker violated the establishment clause). But because the appellate court has to grant such deference to the trial court on the facts (again, b/c this was a bench trial), the appellate court has very little room to say "well, that's not what that fact indicate to me" - unless they decide that the trial court was 'clearly erroneous' or 'abused its discretion'. Which is a much tougher argument to make. Often, the applicable standard of review is an argument in itself - the appellant will argue for a less deferential standard while the appellee will argue for a stricter, more narrow standard.

At the Circuit level, there are generally 3 judges (unless the entire Circuit sits 'en banc' - usually reserved for very close questions of law) who sit. Both parties submit briefs to the Court far in advance of the oral arguments, so the sitting judges usually have their mind made up one way or the other before oral arguments are even heard. And while Corbin is correct - not every case is argued orally, I can almost guarantee that this case will be. The cases that aren't argued orally are generally ordinary, pro se, prisoner habeas petitions - cases with more easily determined outcomes, for whatever reason. High profile cases, or cases where there will likely be a split decision, are argued orally. Calendar clerks usually assign between 5 and 12 minutes (for each side) for oral arguments at the Circuit level.

Judges are assigned randomly to each case, and neither the petitioners nor respondents know who those judges will be until that day.

So what grounds will the appeal be on? I'm not sure, as that would require an assload of reading that I've not a lot of time for, but I believe that where the opinion strays from the path laid down by opinions prior is in the amount of evidence it considered. In its opinion, the trial court spoke of the controversy itself as being determinative of the what effect the sticker might have on students. Many judges would not have cast so wide a net in considering the effect a tiny sticker might have. But as Scrivner's Error pointed out, the court wisely recognized an inordinate amount of "outside variables" in the "'laboratory' of representative politics", whereas most judges would not.

I agree with the judge and Scrivener's Error - a controversy such as this one can hardly be looked at in isolation. And that is an especially true in matters involving ID. ID is being pushed specifically for its "I Can't Believe it's Not Religion" qualities - Creationism stripped of every element that courts have stated violates the establishment clause, with pseudo-science added to distract from any religious 'aftertaste'. But it takes very little poking around before the true agenda becomes absurdly apparent. Cooper, in his opinion, poked around and called it like it is.

And this is why the DI has been making disgruntled noises lately. They are and have been far more adept at stripping religious elements from the theory than the clumsy attempts of a few school boards. These school boards may ruin things for DI, who are waiting for 'the perfect case' at the perfect time.

And if the Dover trial goes anything like the Cobb County trial, the Dover school board is going to lose for the same reasons that Cobb County lost - a simple prodding will jar loose dozens of examples of a religious agenda behind the curtain. And in Dover, the DI has far more to lose, since ID is being introduced specifically, unlike in Georgia.

Point No. 3 here is significant in that it is the ONLY scientific criticism of evolution mentioned in the entire ruling. This in spite of the fact that he gives no credibility at all to any creationist and/or *intelligent design* criticisms.

— Dylan Thomas

Scott, thanks for posting your interesting comments about the appeal process. I look forward to reading more from you.

Reed A. Cartwright,

The context of judge Cooper's "mechanism" statement is "evidence in the record and the testimony from witnesses with science backgrounds, including the co-author of one of the textbooks into which the Sticker was placed and the Defendants' own witness, Dr. Stickle."

Cartwright: "I suspect that the judge is refering here to the numerious statements made by witnesses at the trial that there exists a healthy debate in evolutionary biology about the relative importance of the mechanisms of evolution."

Not precisely. One of the witnesses against the evolutionary position and in favor of the ID-creationist position was a Dr. Stickle, who, judge Cooper said, also criticized evolution theory's relatively poor understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution.

Dr. Stickle's testimony thus constitutes "enemy" corroboration of what scientist-researcher Mike S. posted here: that "for most mechanisms our understanding is not very good."

Not precisely. One of the witnesses against the evolutionary position and in favor of the ID-creationist position was a Dr. Stickle, who, judge Cooper said, also criticized evolution theory's relatively poor understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution.

— Dylan Thomas

Hey Dylan, did you check PubMed or Lexis yet?

Cartwright: "LOL.  Sorry, but I was in the courtroom when Stickle testified."

But I was present at Creation itself.

Great White,

If I'd had my gluteus kicked, I'd have lashed out too.

Mr. Pilutik is right, DI is probably sweating the Dover case a lot. Think of the barrels they're over: Should they stick to their guns, and file an amicus consistent with their claim that there is nothing to teach in high schools yet, and so the school's policy should be shot down? Or do they go against their press releases and support the teaching of ID?

If they support the teaching of ID, do they expose themselves to serious analysis by stating a hypothesis that may lead to theory, or do they weasel as usual, claiming that ID is an X-Files case, with the truth "out there?"

It's probably a sin, but I do enjoy their squirming. It's a minor sin, I'm sure.

"Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution."

---Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, The Talk.Origins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

"It is important to note that Darwin's book 'The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' did two things. It summarized all of the evidence in favor of the idea that all organisms have descended with modification from a common ancestor, and thus built a strong case for evolution. In addition Darwin advocated natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. That part of Darwin's book is now considered to be so overwhelmingly demonstrated that is is often referred to as the FACT of evolution. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated.

"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient."

---Laurence Moran, "The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution," http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

"Epistemological considerations. There is no reason to think we have a complete understanding of the operation of the genes. There are central areas of genetics, such as the question of how genes build bodies, that are still very poorly understood. It is also implausible that we have a full understanding even of those genetic processes for which we have highly specified models and vast amounts of experimental data supporting these models; this limitation is simply due to the inherent limitations in the activity of knowledge (see No Final Theory: Science as Perception). Such chronic incompleteness is a reason to be open to the discovery of new levels of order in the operation of the genes in ontogeny and under natural selection, to improved definitions of the scope of current models, and to a clarification of the mechanisms at work.

"Current debate. There are various grounds on which to question aspects of the current evolutionary model, and a lively debate persists today. Evolution is in principle hard to model precisely, since the changes it describes usually takes place over time periods that are inaccessible to human beings. Consider the related situation in astronomy. Changes in the movement of the stars are slow, and until very recently were too slow to be detected within the lifetime of an individual. However, with the help of a continuous series of observations dating back to the fifth century BC, Copernicus was able to formulate a detailed model that fit two thousand years of data. Unfortunately, in the case of biology, two thousand years of continuous observation would in most cases reveal very little. We must thus rely in indirect evidence, such as fossil remains and systematic structural similarities and differences in living forms. This evidence leaves room for a variety of possible interpretations of past events, and thus of the mechanisms of change that underlie them. I can examine only a few focal points of contention."

---Francis F. Steen, "Evolutionary Theory: A theory of changes in organic design through controlled random mutations and contingent selection," Communication Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Evolution.html

If I'd had my gluteus kicked, I'd have lashed out too.

Great White,

Here, take these little white caps. The nice man over there (the one in the white smock) calls them antipsychodelusionals. And soon, veeery sooon, eeeverything will be all right.

"[D]iversity is a direct and inevitable outcome of speciation, the process whereby a single species evolves into two or more distinct ones. The conditions required to initiate, promote, and complete the speciation process are still poorly understood and hence controversial. To resolve this problem, a major effort has been made in recent years to examine the biological and genetic attributes of closely related taxa actively undergoing various degrees of differentiation. Three approaches are taken in these investigations: field, experimental, and theoretical. Significant advances have come from the analysis of the genetic variation and structure in natural populations. Many of these studies are of insects. For example the Hawaiian Drosophila, which have proliferated rapidly on the emerging islands of the archipelago, serve as an outstanding model system for examin- ing the relations among geographic isolation, population size, sexual selection, ...."

---"Evolution and Diversity," National Academy of Sciences (2004), http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309039274/html/260.html

"Biologists know little about the genetic mechanisms of speciation. Some think series of small changes in each subdivision gradually lead to speciation; others think there may be a few key genes that could change and confer reproductive isolation. (One famous biologist thinks most speciation events are caused by changes in internal symbionts. Most doubt this, however.)

"Populations of organisms are very complicated. It is likely that there are many ways speciation can occur. Thus, all of the above ideas may be correct, each in different circumstances."

---Fredric L. Rice, "Evolution Is One of the Most Powerful Theories Science Has Ever Known," The Skeptic Tank, http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/evolutwo.htm

We can't use the theory of gravity to predict the size and distribution of masses of planets in the solar system. Does this mean that the theory of gravity is in crisis? Similarly we can't explain lots of historical evolution down to the minutest level. The theory of evolution by means of mutation, selection, drift and extinction doesn't explain every event in detail but the history of life is entirely consistent with this theory.

"Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. "

Actually, this is a pretty good analogy, because we don't really understand the "mechanisms" of gravity, either. General relativity describes various gravitational observations very well, but we don't understand the details of how the gravitational force is carried. The search for grand unified theory, or GUT, which incorporates both gravity and quantum mechanics is a hot area of physics. But nobody questions the reality of gravity. Perhaps it is too technical for the general public, but it seems like a good comparison for biologists to make.

The theory of evolution by means of mutation, selection, drift and extinction doesn't explain every event in detail but the history of life is entirely consistent with this theory.

— euan

Correction regarding the Dylan Thomas post above quoting "Fredric L. Rice" - "Evolution Is One of the Most Powerful Theories Science Has Ever Known" -

Fredric Rice is merely the host of the site where the article appears. Chris Colby is the author of the article.

Correction: "Fredric Rice is merely the host of the site where the article appears. Chris Colby is the author of the article."

My bad. Fredric Rice must be an unintentional plaigerist, not giving Colby credit.

Mike S.: Dylan was not arguing (I think) that evolution is inconsistent with the history of life (or more precisely, the observations we can make about the history of life).  He was questioning the claim that we have a good understanding of the mechanisms of evolution."

You've got my position down cold, Mike.

The conditions required to initiate, promote, and complete the speciation process are still poorly understood and hence controversial,"

Thanks for the "stuff," Great White. I've pondered it.

PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed

"A congenital atresia of the bulbo-membranous urethra had been reported. The atresia extended for 1.5 cm. It presented early in the neonatal period with major dilatation of the upper urinary tracts. After a preliminary urinary diversion, the surgical repair through the perineum was done at the age of 18 months. Such cases are not seen frequently. This atresia must be differentiated from posterior urethral valves type III, and from other stenoses either iatrogenic, traumatic, or inflammatory. The partial atresia is the only type compatible with life. It may be presented in two forms: annular constriction or extended stenosis. THE MECHANISM OF EVOLUTION IS NOT VERY CLEAR: it is either due to a bad resorption of the urogenital membrane or a defect in the embryogenesis of the urethral tube. Treatment differs according to the site and extent of the lesion simple dilatation, internal urethrotomy, or urethroplasty in one or several stages can be done."

---Dodat H, Sellem C, Pouillaude JM, Bouvier R, Takvorian P., "Extensive congenital stenosis of the bulbo-membranous urethra in a child. Apropos of a case discovered in a newborn infant," Chir Pediatr. 1987;28(2):125-8. PMID: 3621390 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3621390&dopt=Abstract

PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed PubMed

Gosh. I hope that's sarcasm, Dylan.

Heh heh heh

Abstract: Plant parasites can often employ more than one host species, and show intra-specific variation in host use. A central question in evolutionary biology is how such variation originates and is maintained, and under which conditions it may lead to host-race formation and speciation. In phytopathogenic fungi, host specialisation is well documented, BUT THE UNDERLYING EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISMS ARE POORLY UNDERSTOOD. Aim of this project is to study such mechanisms explicity, with emphasis on the role of vector behaviour and mating system variation in the pathogen. As a model system, we investigate strains of an insect-vectored, host sterilising fungus, Microbotyrum violaceum, in sympatric populations of two of its host species, Silene alba and S. dioica.

Title: Host specialization and mating system variation in the vector-borne fungal plant pathogen Microbotryum violaceum

Period: early 1996 - end of 2001

Status: completed

Dissertation: Yes

Financier: NWO Council for Earth and Life

Sciences
Secretariat: NIOO Centre for Terrestrial Ecology - CTE

Doctoral/PhD student: Drs. P. van Putten

Project leader: Dr. A. Biere

Supervisor: Prof.dr. J.M.M. van Damme

Research theme 3: The ecology and evolution of plant-pathogen interactions

http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/en/oi/nod/onderzoek/OND1252714/

Our understanding of all of the above is surely better than "good" for the purposes of explaining evolution to any high school student who may never take another biology class in his life. And remember: it is the robustness of evolutionary biological principles as they are taught at the high school level that are at issue here, not the details of evolution-related questions at the level they are addressed by Ph.D. scientists. It should go without saying that there are an infinite number of questions to be asked about any branch of science. And it should go without saying that terms like "good" are relative. So I wonder when Dylan questions the "claim" that we have a "good" understanding of the "mechanisms" of "evolution", what exactly is he referring to? In particular, for the reasons I alluded to above, the terms "good" and "evolution" seem to cry out for definition in order for any "questioning" of the abovementioned "claim" to have any point.

Dylan,

In leiu of spamming the comments in this post with abstracts, how about you actually read the papers you are finding on pubmed?

Any further off topic comments will get the comments closed.

"We confine our remarks to the applicability of the BSC [biologic species concept] to birds, a group with obvious and easily studied reproductive isolating mechanisms. WE WITHHOLD JUDGMENT ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF BSC FOR THE MULTITUDE OF NON-AVIAN ORGANISMS WHOSE REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATING MECHANISMS ARE EITHER POORLY UNDERSTOOD OF UNKNOWN (E.G., MARINE INVERTEBRATES) or whose breeding systems are diverse and complex (e.g., plants). That reservation notwithstanding, we believe that the essence of the BSC --- both from a philosophical and practical standpoint --- is unassailably superior for the treatment of avian species. Therefore, we disagree with Cracraft (1983), McKitrick and Zink (1988), and Zink (1996), who intimate that the supposed popularity of the PSC [phylogenetic species concept] among workers on other groups of organisms is reason to apply it to birds. Flocks may follow errant shepherds."

---Johnson, N.K., Remsen Jr., J.V. & Cicero, C. 1999. "Resolution of the debate over species concepts in ornithology: a new comprehensive biologic species concept." In: Adams, N.J. & Slotow, R.H. (eds) Proc. 22 Int. Omithol. Congr., Durban: 1470- 1482. Johannesburg, South Africa

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ccicero/reprints/IOC1999.spconcepts.pdf

Peace to one and all. Bye.