Decision in Cobb, County: Disclaimer Stickers Must Go

As is appropriate, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that the evolution disclaimers being used in Cobb County, Georgia, are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and must be removed. Religious critics of evolution weep in anguish, but scientists are pleased that this judge saw through the creationist rhetoric.

MSNBC reports:

“This is a great day for Cobb County students,” said attorney Michael Manely, who represented parents who brought the suit. “They’re going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma.” ... “The Cobb County school board is doing more than accommodating religion,” Manely had argued during the trial. “They are promoting religious dogma to all students.” ... The stickers 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.”

Cooper's opinion reads, in part:

Evolution is the only theory mentioned in the Sticker, and there is no sticker placed in textbooks related to any other theory, topic, or subject covered in the Cobb County School District's curriculum. However, there are other scientific topics taught that have religious implications, such as theories of gravity, relativity, and Galilean heliocentrism.

[T]he Sticker appears to have the purpose of furthering critical thinking because it tells students to approach the material on evolution with an open mind, to study it carefully, and to give it critical consideration. The other language on the Sticker, which states that evolution is a theory and not a fact, somewhat undermines the goal of critical thinking by predetermining that students should think of evolution as a theory when many in the scientific community would argue that evolution is factual in some respects...

Plaintiffs urge that encouraging students to critically consider only evolution suggests that the School Board's asserted purpose of promoting critical thinking is a sham. However, evolution is the only theory of origin being taught in Cobb County classrooms. Thus, it makes sense that the School Board is not suggesting that students critically consider other theories of origin [...] the Court does not believe that the promotion of critical thinking is the Sticker's main purpose. Rather, the chief purpose of the Sticker is to accommodate or reduce offense to those persons who hold beliefs that might be deemed inconsistent with the scientific theory of evolution....

In this case, the Court believes that an informed, reasonable observer would interpret the Sticker to convey a message of endorsement of religion. That is, the Sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the Sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders. This is particularly so in a case such as this one involving impressionable public school students who are likely to view the message on the Sticker as a union of church and state.

Timothy Sandefur comments:

Government may not soothe the irrational fears of the populace in ways that undermine constitutional restrictions. Consider, for example, the days of segregation. In the cases enforcing its decision in Brown v. Board of Ed., the Supreme Court repeatedly rejected appeals by school boards that tried to delay desegregation purportedly to prevent civil disorder. “Private biases,” the Court said in another race case, “may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect. ‘Public officials sworn to uphold the Constitution may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to the hypothetical effects of private racial prejudice that they assume to be both widely and deeply held.’” Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (quoting Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 260-61 (1971) (White, J., dissenting)). I’m not likening religion to segregation; I’m saying that I am unconvinced that merely reducing offense felt by some religious folks is a legitimate secular interest.

In addition, the Court notes that “encouraging the teaching of evolution as a theory rather than as a fact is one of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by anti-evolutionists with religious motivations.” (p. 35) These facts and more support the Court’s conclusion that a reasonable, informed observer would interpret the sticker as an endorsement of a religious viewpoint, and therefore a violation of Lemon’s part 2, and therefore a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Americans United says:

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, hailed the ruling. "This is a great decision with national significance," Lynn said. "These textbook disclaimers are part of a national campaign to undercut the teaching of evolution in public schools in accordance with fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Today' court decision will throw a major roadblock in the path of that crusade. Public schools may not be used to advance religious dogma, and the court has rightly upheld that principle"

The National Center for Science Education says:

Relying on the plaintiffs' arguments and testimony from Kenneth R. Miller -- the Brown University biology professor who is co-author of the textbook used in Cobb County's high school biology classes -- Cooper also observed that the disclaimer's phrase "[e]volution is a theory, not a fact" plays on the popular meaning of the term "theory," suggesting that evolution is questionable or speculative. The effect of doing so "has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life," Cooper writes, adding, "the Sticker appears to purposely leave to question whether evolution is an accepted or established theory in the scientific community."

Maggie Garrett, an ACLU of Georgia attorney who helped to argue the case, hailed the ruling in a press release from the ACLU: "The school district gave evolution second-class status among all scientific theories and, at the same time, gave advantage to a specific religious viewpoint that rejects evolution." But NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott warned, "Creationists don't go away; they just change their tactics. Although 'theory not fact' disclaimers have been deservedly quashed by the ruling in Selman, new disclaimers without that phrase can be anticipated. Expect to see antievolutionist strategies continue to evolve."

I don't really have anything to add to the above — you should follow the links to read more in-depth on the case. I think that a lot of creationists were hoping to win this case and the disappointment must really rankle. Too bad.

I wonder what David Mobley (who's still trying to defend "Intelligent" Design) thinks...

Read More:

• Evolution vs. Creationism
• Science vs. Religion
• What is Intelligent Design?
• What is Balanced Treatment?
• What is Science?