Federal Judge Rules: To Recognize Evolution as a Theory is Unconstitutional

An incredible demonstration of religious intolerance came in today’s decision of a Federal judge in Atlanta regarding how the theory of evolution can be described in textbooks (also see the report at the Christian Post). Since 2002, science textbooks in Cobb County schools (a northern suburb of Atlanta) have had stickers attached to them with these words: “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.” That seems like a reasonable way to respect the predominantly Christian community and to put a scientifically fair disclaimer regarding the limits of scientific knowledge. But for some people of the atheist faith, it is anathema to even question their claims about the nonexistence of God, or to leave open the possibility that a Creator might exist.

U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper felt that stating that (non-theistic) evolution is “a theory, not a fact” is somehow an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. “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,” the judge opined.

This kind of judicial abuse does not demand another amendment to the Constitution to fix. There are already Constitutional means to restraining an over-zealous judiciary, not to mention the ability to impeach those who abuse their office. What Judge Cooper has done is to take a dramatic step toward the obvious goal of the atheist jihad movement: to establish a state religion of atheism, to interfere in the free exercise of other faiths, and to restrict the freedom of speech for those with other views (you, Christian infidels).

“You want to question our absolute faith in godless creation, and leave open the possibility of a Creator? And you want to do that with a scientifically accurate sticker on a textbook? Good heavens – that might let some deluded Christian infidels maintain their faith in God! This is unconstitutional, my primitive Georgia rednecks! You may not say that our beliefs on the origin of life are only a “theory,” and someday soon, when our fundamentalist atheist state is fully empowered and we have completely separated all remnants of the church from our state, you won’t even be allowed to think that.”

Nice to see those judges standing up for the Constitution.

Say, Judge Cooper, I’d be happy to help remove any unwanted religious material you might have been unwittingly given in your business dealings with infidel Christians. You know, all those slips of green paper in your wallet with the unconstitutional endorsement of God printed on them – promoting not just His existence, but advocating trust in Him. Far more dangerous than textbook stickers! That’s got to go, too. (It certainly will – I predict we’ll have modified our currency and coins to remove reference to God within the next decade.)


Author: Jeff Lindsay

5 thoughts on “Federal Judge Rules: To Recognize Evolution as a Theory is Unconstitutional

  1. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if that were to happen, Jeff. I fear for my children, and I’m not even a mother yet!

  2. I’m not sure the sticker is unconstitutional (and this may get appealed, depending upon funds) but it certainly was very unwise for the school district to do. Further it clearly is making a religious point, even if they are trying to do it in as innocuous fashion as possible. The big question to ask yourself is why the sticker is necessary and why they are putting it there. The whole issue about theory is misleading since everything in science is a theory.

  3. Clark’s got it. I don’t see the same people trying to put stickers on the science text, disclaiming every OTHER theory in the book (gravitational theory, quantum theory, number theory…). It’s pretty clear that the sticker was religiously motivated to single out one “theory” among the rest.

    And I’m really getting tired of hearing the “A theory, not a fact” line… In scientific terms, those aren’t opposites.

  4. Historical evolution is not a “scientific” theory. The “scientific model” engages a process which requires an idea to be testable by experimentation. One does not test history by experimentation.

    How much 1830 A.D. do you put in a test tube which how much New York soil, for how long, do determine whether it rained that year? The whole idea is obsurd. You don’t do “scientific” experiments for something like that. It’s far more sensible to find a record of rainfall or assume it rained and get on with life.

    There is so much extrapolation and assumption in what people pretend to be “science” that new pictures of what is sure to have been true of the past come out to contradict former ones fairly frequently.

    True science has brought about the finest, newest microscopes and much clearer understandings of cellular biology, bio-chemistry, and attendant understandings that chemical processes for creating cellular and subcellular structures and varied envitro chemical processes cannot be arranged by accident.

    The scientific process is good. That is why the once somewhat sensible sounding idea of evolution (as a source of life) has now been rendered utterly rediculous by that process.

    Evolution as a source of life? Fairytale. There’s nothing scientific about it.

  5. Gravity is still in the theory state even though it is widely excepted. People want proof of evolution but will fellow a higher power with nothing. There's islands that shows adaptation and failures. Turtles that could reproduce with eachother at one point no longer can because of change. this has happened since we've watch. There are faith base groups that could not disprove evolution so they created "intelligent design" knowing evolution can't be disproved. Its a theory because there is a few missing link but yearly we fill them up more and more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.