Georgia Textbook Sticker Defended Weakly, Says Analyst
by Jim Brown
November 15, 2004
(AgapePress) - A federal trial wrapped up on Friday in a case that will determine whether a warning sticker in public school textbooks calling evolution "a theory, not a fact" violates the so-called separation of church and state.Schools in Cobb County, Georgia, put the disclaimers in biology texts after thousands of parents complained that the books presented evolution as truth without mentioning rival ideas about life's origin, such as intelligent design. (See Earlier Article) Parent Marjorie Rogers testified that while she does not want the Bible taught in school, intelligent design theory should be taught in addition to evolution.
"That's the whole thing," Rogers says. "I am not at all proposing that we exclude any information from the classroom. I want to open up the floodgates."
Legal analyst Seth Cooper with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute says Cobb County School District attorney Linwood Gunn has put on a weak defense by choosing to focus on parents' religious aversions to evolution and by arguing that the issue is about religious sensibilities and parents' free exercise of religion.
"We think that really misses the mark. What's most important and at stake here is not textbook stickers," Cooper states. "What's important is the continued academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the growing scientific controversy surrounding neo-Darwinian and chemical evolution."
The Discovery Institute analyst says the one witness Gunn put on the stand was not even a scientist. He adds that, in his opinion, Gunn "either threw the case on purpose, or he simply doesn't know what he was doing."
The lawsuit against the sticker disclaimer was brought originally by the American Civil Liberties Union. Cooper wonders why the ACLU does not want children to learn with an open mind. "Careful study and open-mindedness are part of good science education," he says. "The ACLU is wrong -- academic freedom should be protected."
But Cooper remains hopeful that even though the sticker did not receive a strong defense, the judge's decision in the case will align with a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found it is permissible to teach "scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories."
