Ga. Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed

[corksean]

ATLANTA (AP) - A federal judge on Thursday ordered the removal of stickers placed in high school biology textbooks that call evolution ``a theory, not a fact,'' saying they were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The disclaimers were put in the books by school officials in suburban Cobb County in 2002.

``Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling others they are political insids 44-page ruling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4730889,00.html

[Be Brave]

1. Geez, these evolutionists are giving the word "theory" a bad name. n/t

[renaissanceguy]

111. I don't think you understand.

The sticker is the first step to removing evolution entirely from textbooks, replacing it with a religious creationism.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14746026

[Be Brave]

119. I did understand the news first time I read it. n/t

[BOHICA06]

2. Nothing factually wrong with the sticker -

From the Story:

"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."

The motivation might be questioned but the statement appears true.

[derby378]

3. Gravity and relativity are also "theories" (n/t)

[0007]

54. Gravity is a myth, the world sucks! (taken from emad's comment)

Contrary to popular opinion, Einstein did not invent relativity. Galileo preceded him. Aristotle had proposed that moving objects (on the Earth) had a natural tendency to slow down and stop. Who can dispute Einstein, Galileo or Aristotle? I'll tell ya' who! It is folks that refuse to try understand what these men were saying and invented from their own imagination what they gleaned from their bible.

[struggle4progress]

146. Give 'em a whole slew of textbook stickers:

"Remember that gravity is only a theory."
"Some people don't believe the Copernican theory."
"It is important to realize that atoms may not really exist."
"Some doctors continue to use traditional Aristotelian ideas about the four bodily humors."

[DrWeird]

4. The sticker is false.

Evolution is a fact.

[Ravenseye]

86. In Fairness

It's 1/3 wrong.

"This textbook contains material on evolution."

True, cause well...it does.

"Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."

False, cause well...it's a theory but it's also a fact.

"This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

True, cause well....shouldn't we approach everything with an open mind, study it carefully, and critically consider it?

[trotsky]

102. Well, sure!

shouldn't we approach everything with an open mind, study it carefully, and critically consider it?

Then why don't those folks fight to put a sticker just like it in EVERY textbook?

ANSWER: They're not looking to study & analyze, they eventually want to get evolution banned. This is just a small first step.

[rocktivity]

138. DING DING DING! Trotsky, you're our grand prize winner!

...Then why don't those folks fight to put a sticker just like it in EVERY textbook?

Exactly! Why stop at just ONE scientific theory? Indeed, why stop at science?

"This textbook contains material on American slavery. Slavery was a theory, not a fact, regarding the inherent racial inequality of human beings..."

"This textbook contains material on the Mideast conflict. Land ownership is a theory, not a fact, regarding the inherent equality of Jewish and Muslim beings..."

"This textbook contains material on the presidency of George W. Bush. His election was a fantasy, not a fact, created by the forced repression of Democratic beings..."

"This textbook contains material on manifest destiny. It is a theory, not a fact, regarding the right of Americans to destroy any beings who got in the path of their westward expansion..."

"This textbook contains material on whether to use 'most important' or 'most importantly' It is a theory, not a fact, that 'most important' is proper, as it reflects upon the articulateness of English-speaking beings..."

And all the students would have to do is to make sure they "approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" it all!


rocknation

[jdj]

147. Since no one else pointed out that this is the Guardian yet, I will.

It's heartbreaking things like this have to be reported in the British press for us to get to read about them.

[trotsky]

7. No, the statement is 100% false.

Evolution is not a theory, evolution is an observed fact.

The exact mechanisms behind evolution are theorized, and right now the prevailing one is called natural selection.

But "evolution" simply means "the change in gene frequency in a given population over time."

And that is 100% pure fact.

[spunky]

17. Well, micro-evolution is a fact

We do know that gene frequencies change over time, however, MACRO-evolution, or the creation of new species has NOT been observed and is therefore still a theory.

[American Tragedy]

20. But the fact of microevolution implicitly validates macroevolution

[spunky]

No it doesn't.

Changes in allele frequency alone does not produce a new species. It may change the frequency of certain traits, but they are traits that already existed. You need NEW traits, i.e. mutation, or LOSS of traits trough some sort of genetic bottleneck to create a new species.

[DrWeird]

34. Microevolution includes new traits, mutations, and bottlenecks.

There is no real distinguishment between microevolution and macroevolution. It's a false Creationist dichotomy.

[spunky]

48. Yes there is.

Any number of events could make having a minor trait advantageous survival and reprodution. Under these circumstances, the allele(s) leading to that trait will likely become more common, thus the frequency of the allele increases. This does not have to lead to the evolution of a new species.

[DrWeird]

57. No, it doesn't have to

and there's nothing stopping it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. Most of a living being's genes are unused

Which means they can become useful if they start producing the right enzymes instead of useless ones. That's one way new traits can come up. Since I'm no microbiologist, I'm sure there others I overlooked.

[trogdor]

43. As does evolution's handiness in advancing biology in general.

If it were bogus, it wouldn't fit the rest of biological science as nicely. Surely, if something better came along, it would supplant evolution in the scientist's bag of clubs. Can you say the same for creation "science"?

[w4rma]

21. You can observe MACRO-evolution in fruit flies over a short period of time

They reproduce quickly and have short life cycles.

So yes, it is a fact.

[spunky]

27. Macro-evolution, the creation of a new species, is only fact

if someone has actually witnessed these fruitflies turn into a new species of fruitfly, incapable of mating with the previous species of fruitfly.

Perhaps this has been done and I am unaware of it, but I'd have to see a link to a scientific journal to believe it.

[DrWeird]

30. You're working with a phony definition of species.

Canis lupus and Canis familiaris are two distinct species, yet they can and will mate.

But since you seem to be doing little then rehashing standard Creationist propaganda, I doubt that a link to a scientific journal would do anything to sway you.

[spunky]

33. HAhaha, creationist propaganda.

That's pretty funny since I'm an atheist with a MA in Physical Anthropology.

[DrWeird]

35. Yeah, I'm the Queen of Uranus.

Nevertheless, you're spewing Creationist rhetoric, for what purpose I can't understand, and I'm discussing scientific fact.

[spunky]

40. So, if I don't see evolution as fact, then I spew creationist propaganda?

Thank god not everyone thinks like you or there would be no scientific debate. There are problems proving evolution. That's why its a theory. Just because I am willing to recognize these problems does not mean I am spewing creationist propaganda.

[yellowcanine]

44. No but the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are creationist

constructs - that is a fact. Evolutionary biologists make no such distinction.

[spunky]

46. I've not studied any evolutionary biology, but

physical anthropologists make the distinction. That's what I've studied.

[DrWeird]

51. There's also your Creationist definition of "species"

An awfully bad mistake for a physical anthropologist to make.

[spunky]

61. What are you talking about?

I said nothing there of species. I don't know how creationists define species. I use the biological concept of a species- a reproductive group. If two animals can mate, they are of the same species. They may be of different races, but they are the same species.

[American Tragedy]

62. Well, he's using the same definition of species that I was taught

in my bioanthropology classes by Ph.ds in the subject; not to say that I necessarily agree with his point.

[yellowcanine]

67. Evolutionary biologists talk about natural selection and speciation. No

need for the terms micro and macro. "Evolution" includes both processes at the same time.

[trotsky]

55. So what's your opinion, then?

If evolution is "just a theory," what explanation do YOU prefer to account for speciation & the diversity of life on earth? I am honestly curious.

[spunky]

64. I believe in evolution. I believe evolution explains the diversity

of life. That doesn't make it fact though.

Christians believe in God. That doesn't make him real.

[trotsky]

82. What would it take for you to acknowledge evolution as fact?

"Macro-evolution," as you (and creationists) call it is more technically known as speciation, and yes, it HAS been observed, in the laboratory as well as in nature - as pointed out in several posts on this thread which you have failed to address.

[spunky]

91. More than is in that talkorgin.com archive link

Plant evidence in that link:
All involves hybridization. I'm not sure I'd call hybridization "evolution" as such. Hybridization in the cases mentioned does not seem to imply, nor do the authors infer, that the new hybrid posses increased likelihood of reproductive success, nor does the hybridization seem to be the result of reproductive competition. I believe that reproductive competition and increased likelihood of reproductive success is an important part of evolution.

Animal evidence in that link:
The data discussed there seems to deal more with environments which lead to changes in mating practices. The one instance that created a "new species" could not be replicated. Thus that data certainly does much to explain the conditions under which evolution would occur, it does not prove evolution as such.

As to the question of what if would take for me to acknowledge evolution as a fact, I would have to say an observed case where competition for reproduction leads to individuals with certain genetic traits having greater success in reproduction than individuals without those traits. Over time this trait leads to a genetically distinct new species that cannot mate with the previous species.

[trotsky]

98. Your requirement

an observed case where competition for reproduction leads to individuals with certain genetic traits having greater success in reproduction than individuals without those traits.

Well, this part is simply a restatement of micro-evolution. You've already accepted it. You're halfway there - that's great!

Over time this trait leads to a genetically distinct new species that cannot mate with the previous species.

This is where you share ideology and/or beliefs very closely with creationists. You essentially want a documented case where an animal has an offspring, and that offspring cannot genetically mate with the generation just prior to it. Is that essentially correct?

[spunky]

103. No I don't mean it like that.

I totally understand that for the most part (punctuated equilibrium being an obvious exception) evolution is far more gradual than that.

I didn't like answering the question because I think that question is difficult to answer for ANY theory (i.e., when does it go from theory to fact?). I'm just a skeptic. I think that we should call theories theories. If we start calling those theories which we really want people to see as facts just because we want people to agree with us not the other side, then we abuse science. IMO.

To call something fact is to say it has been proven. We know EXACTLY why it happens, how it works etc. And I suppose we should be able to predict how it will operate in the future. (i.e. what changes will occur to a specific species given certain environmental conditions). We cannot do these things in the case of evolution, so I call it a theory.

What bothers me is that people seem to want to rush to call evolution "FACT" just so they can rub egg in the face of Creationists. And that's not what science is for. Rather than try to shove evolution down their throats as facts I'd much rather try to show them how evolution and a belief in God can go hand in hand (despite the fact that I'm atheist, I accept that others are not).

If we can show them that they need not dismiss evolution just because they believe in God then we've made a huge step. Most of the early evolutionists believed in God. I wish I had my old notes with me because my anthro professor went to great lengths to give students examples of people who reconciled belief in God with belief in evolution (and geological principals of the age of the world).

Finally if I sound like a creationist it is probably because I am a skeptic. I look at unknowns because they need to be answered. The Creationist seizes on those same unknowns in evolution because they want to disprove evolution.

[trotsky]

106. Hmm

You essentially secure your skepticism with a non-falsifiable proposition. "Show me observed speciation, and I'll accept it." Yet you admit speciation could take a very long period of time. So very long, in fact, that in 99.9999999% of cases you'll never stand a chance of seeing it in your human lifetime.

So despite speciation being observed in fruit flies and bacteria, you are limiting yourself to the cases that you seem to be assured can never be proven to you.

But what you're ignoring is, sometimes we don't need to directly observe something to know that it's true. Electrons, for instance. Gravity is another. (We don't directly observe gravity, only its effects.) When we look at the fossil record, there is undeniable evidence for speciation. The older the fossil, the simpler the lifeform. Species today are not found in the fossil record - but species resembling them are. Species having some characteristics of multiple species are also found. And this isn't even going into the evidence locked into the DNA of every living thing on the planet.

There is just no way to explain speciation (short of magical interference by a god or aliens or something) other than via the observed process of evolution.

[spunky]

108. I will say for the last time, I believe in evolution

I do not believe there is any other explanation. I just don't think its right to call it a fact. And no, by my definition, evolution will not be proven in MY lifetime. That doesn't mean that it won't be in the future. We have biologists observing pretty much every species on the planet. There will be proof someday.

I personally need direct observation. Take your gravity example. I agree because I believe in gravity. Were I taken to religious beliefs I could argue that God causes that which we call the effects of gravity. By your logic, that belief would be as valid, because in neither case is anything actually observed. The first person believes in the principles associated with the scientific notion of gravity. The second person believes in the principles associated with the notion of an omnipotent higher being.

But I don't want to split hairs. And that's what this thread has become. I believe in evolution but I believe that SOME people's motivations for calling evolution fact rather than theory are suspect.

[Ripley]

114. That's a weird thing.

I believe in evolution but I believe that SOME people's motivations for calling evolution fact rather than theory are suspect. Suspect?

The only reason the stickers were put on the books was to bend to the will of the local fundamentalists who do not believe in evolution. The sticker has nothing to do with splitting hairs and semantics. It was propaganda to reinforce to children: "Pssst! Even though these liberal teachers are gonna tell you that we come from monkeys...it's just a theory, so you never mind it and just remember what the Preacher man told you."

[spunky]

116. well duh.

But just because the creationists had ulterior motives doesn't mean the evolutionists don't as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.

[Ripley]

117. What ulterior motive do evolutionists have?

And since you believe in evolution, aren't you an evolutionist?

[spunky]

118. I mean the evolutionist who insist it be called a "fact"

As I said before in a previous post, there are people who would rather throw the scientific method to the wind and call evolution fact rather than theory because they want to stick it to the creationists. That's silly, immature and unscientific.

Yes, I am an evolutionist. The thing I keep banging my head against the brick wall about in this thread is that evolution is still a theory. Not a fact. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

[Orsino]

142. Evolution Observed

The evidence for evolution in the fossil record is so overwhelming that I think the distinction between well-supported theory and fact is not important in this case. The only alternative to biological evolution as an explanation is millions of separate "microcreation" events--and that way lies the death by a thousand cuts of Occam's Razor.

Evolution has occurred. If it's not a fact, then that word has no meaning. It only remains to determine the *mechanisms* responsible.

[yellowcanine]

100. How about allopolyploidy in plants ? - here you go.

Go to this link and read the section on the evolution of breadwheat. And see if you aren't convinced that modern bread wheat HAD to evolve from primitive wheats. We have the chromosomal evidence AND it was replicated in the laboratory. Check it out.

http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php

[spunky]

104. Interesting.

First, I'd like to point out that while they do argue that some say that evolution has been proven, they, as spokespeople for the Botanical Society do not go so far as to call evolution fact.

Again, that wheat question merely shows that hybridization happens. And yes that is speciation. Perhaps its evolution, but there is no argument that these new wheats are somehow more reproductively successful than the old ones. All it proves is that new species can occur in nature. Maybe I take evolution too literally, but I think that an important part of it is that it occurred as a result of reproductive stress-- the new species is successful where the old species could not be.

[yellowcanine]

109. It is not just hybridization. There was spontaneous doubling of

chromosomes also - modern bread wheat is a hexaploid, einkorn is diploid and emmer is quadraploid. You say that it proves that new species can occur in nature but somehow that is not good enough to be proof of evolution. Well then what is good enough? And who said the new species has to be more successful than the old species? It doesn't. They can exist side by side as long as they are not directly competing. They may be occupying slightly different niches. Look at Darwin's finches, for example. New species weren't necesarrily more successful - just able to exploit different niches.

[ashmanonar]

136. i think the use of these stickers...

denotes the problem that we've been having all along against fundies, which is their tendency to use phrasing or terms in the wrong way, and thus associate the wrong connotation with a term which formerly meant nothing bad.

while fact is a scientific definition, scientific theory isn't stating something that is a belief, but rather..."A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

fresh off Dictionary.com

thus, saying something is a theory isn't saying anything bad about it, but just saying that it is a way to explain a phenomena...

but when the fundies hijack the language, it's like we're in 1984...newspeak and all that...we need to get our language back, and make it mean what it really is supposed to mean.

[NuttyFluffers]

140. *sigh* stick to 1 freaking set of terms!!!!!!!

perhaps what you are talking about is Law. y'know, hypothesis, theory, law? theories are working ideas about certain phenomena, but supported by such a preponderance of FACT that the general idea is accepted as so solidly in the right direction as to be laughable to dismiss. it is a FACT that this theory works (worked and is working, too), but all the minor details aren't beyond exploration and experimentation. Law is inalterable fact and no longer necessitates experimentation and exploration. but, if some new observable, repeatable phenomena challenges a law then it may warrant extra exploration and experimentation, and maybe, just maybe, might weaken the Law into being considered a Theory -- and this only means there's still details to find and figure out.

but the *most important thing here* is TERMINOLOGY. scientific terminology is facing headlong into vernacular. theory in scientific terminology is something so surrounded in fact, so solidly constructed and having so little in the way of exploration and experimentation left as to be truth. it may not be "The Perfect Truth" (tm), but *nothing* in science's view is, not even Laws. theory in common-talk is a degenerative term that carries doubt, suspicion, disbelief -- what would be analogous in science terminology as a starting hypothesis. one comes from a tradition where nothing is "The Perfect Truth" (tm) and all must be explored, but through *huge* aggregation of FACTS a truthful statement can be asserted. the other comes from a flexible, linguistic tradition where the tools of communication are altered and molded to the needs of the communities it serves, sometimes those remolded tools can blind users to truth and facts.

ugh, can we make it a common courtesy that when technical talk happens people stick to the groundrules of jargon and not throw in vernacular misinterpretations?!

[American Tragedy]

52. Actually, that was revised a few years ago.

In recognition of the fact that dogs and wolves can mate and produce fertile offspring, which by definition makes them the same species, dogs are now identified as canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of canis lupus.

[DrWeird]

63. Irrelevant.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[soaky]

125. whoops

brain fart

[mutus_frutex]

80. "Macro-evolution" has been observed

And I hate that term, "Macro-evolution"..

It has been observed. I refer you to the following link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Observed Instances of Speciation

[Nalgenelover Snort]

99. You've obviously never heard of the apple maggot fly.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

This happens all the time. Anyone who took high school biology could tell you that.

Edit: Damn! Someone beat me to it.

[DrWeird]

22. Sure it has been observed.

It's in the fossil record.

[spunky]

29. Fossil record doesn't proove anything.

All the fossil record does is prove that species have changed over time. It does not, however, proove that one species is the product of a previous species. Yes this is implied, but implications are not sound enough for scientific investigation.

[DrWeird]

32. Of course it does.

Take the australophiticenes. You can clearly see the gradual change from a more ape-like creature to the modern day human. Transitional fossils abound.

[spunky]

36. Yes, you can see the gradual changes,

And that does IMPLY that each later form arose from the previous form, but that's still not proof. Anthropologists can even agree on a family tree of human evolution. Different individuals put the same species as branching from a different parent species.

I agree that the evidence is very strong, and I whole-heartedly believe in evolution, but it is not fact.

[trogdor]

58. At some point...

...you have to accept the implications as substitutes for fact. That is, we'll assume this to be the case until some better explanation comes along. This allows the scientist to make further progress while the implications are proven or disproven. I would say that the usefulness of the implications on evolution to biological science tends to prove, rather than disprove its status as 'fact' or a valid substitute for same.

I fail, however, to see the usefulness of trying to impress upon middle school kids the subtle difference between an inference supported by reams and reams of fact and a theory generally accepted as fact for the purposes of furthering scientific research.

I think that's what you just said, and few DU'ers will argue with me on this. The problem is, the explanation of the difference takes too long for the limited attention spans of the sort of feeble-minded folk who go 'all in' for fundamentalism, especially after they've been so thoroughly brainwashed by fundamentalist ministers.

[mutus_frutex]

87. For an atheist you believe a lot... :-P

You don't need to "believe" in evolution, you can read the scientific literature and you can even go and do the research for yourself if you want.

The family trees are a discontinous representation of a continous landscape. Therefore, they are inherently incorrect. They should be takan as just an schematic of the process. Creationists put so much weight on them that they become a problem.

[spunky]

93. I shouldn't have used the phrase family tree.

Sometimes I get lazy and want to type as little as possible. lol.

All I was trying to say was if experts can't agree on which species evolved into which species, then you can't say evolution is proven by the example of hominids. IMO.

[mutus_frutex]

105. Agree... I wouldn't have used the hominids examples either.

Not that I think it is not a good example of speciation, but things are so "fluid" in that area that you would have to retouch you example every time. Much better to think about whales, horses, etc, etc.

[Ripley]

38. Oh Lucy!

Wasn't she adorable?

[DrWeird]

56. I myself like the fossilized footprints.

in volcanic ash. They're walking side by side, hand in hand it appears given the placement of their feet, at one point they turn to watch the volcano, then continue along their way.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. Don't forget another big smoking gun

The complete absence of anything remotely human from a certain level DOWNWARD. Plenty of funky skeletons there (and plenty of depth, which means an enormous amount of time), but nothing human.

[ashmanonar]

135. for one thing...

fossil record is spotty, it's very hard to differentiate between different species by a single bone or few bones (which aren't actually bones, but stone in the form of bones)

and also, the fossil record is incomplete bc it takes an outstanding or "fantastic" event to cause fossilization (a mudslide, volcanic eruption, etc)...the body of a creature that is left out in the open will quickly deteriorate, and just turn to dust.

thus, fossilization only shows the species that were caught in a horrible accident or natural disaster...

[trotsky]

39. Sorry, you are wrong.

Observed Instances of Speciation (i.e., "Macro-evolution")
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[localroger]

60. Society Finches demonstrate macro-evolution

Society finches have been bred in captivity for at least
5,000 years, and they have much shorter reproductive
cycles than domestic mammals like dogs. (Birds also have
more, smaller chromosomes than mammals, so macroevolution
can be expected to require fewer generations.) And
Societies are now so far removed from the original finch
stock that they do not breed true with any known natural
species (they can hybridize about as effectively as other
bird species), nor is it entirely known which natural
species were used for the source stock to create them.

I'm not sure why Society Finches aren't brought up to
counter this straw man "never seen evolution" argument,
but I suspect it's because even most naturalists just
aren't that familiar with aviculture (the keeping and
husbandry of captive birds).

[havocmom]

73. How do you explain the variety of dog breeds?

Nature didn't do that alone. Man coaxed evolution along by choosing specific animals to breed thereby achieving certain genetic characteristics in their critters. Dogs, horses, cats, cows, poultry, all domesticated and bred for certain traits by us. I would think that would count as observation.

Also observed: the breeding of mules, oci-cats tiger/lion crosses and other side show human attempts at brining new species along the evolutionary path a bit faster than nature would have taken. Makes things VERY observable when breeders can change species withing a few breeding generations for the critters, all under the control and watchful eyes of humans.

[trotsky]

83. Dog breeds - a good example.

If one uses the traditional "creationist" definition of species, some breeds of dog would be considered a separate species. For instance, it is now impossible for a great dane to mate with a dachshund. Sure, they both have doggie DNA and you could breed them together using artificial insemination, but for all intents and purposes, they are now separate species of dog.

[The White Tree]

107. "Kismet" - Read my post right below yours

I was thinking the exact same thing. Yours wasn't there when I started mine. Occupational hazard of long posts I'm afraid.

[The White Tree]

88. Actually, that is how I believe Darwin formulated his ideas

about natural selection, the driving force of evolution. By comparing what he termed artificial selection among pigeon breeders and the breeders of dogs, he was able to postulate that the same mechanism would explain the differentiation of species in nature.

He called this Natural Selection.

It is an interesting point. Someone here said the definition a species was a reproductive group,but that's really just an idea that man created to provide a way of differentiating plants and animals.

For example, I have a miniature dachshund (weighs about 15 lbs. and my sister-in-law has a Labrador retriever (weighs about 80 lbs.? but is quite large). The possibility of these two dogs breeding naturally is very remote because of the physical limitations that my dog has (sorry boy). If a population of dachshunds and a population of Labrador retrievers was stranded on an island somewhere that had enough rabbits and deer to sustain both populations, would there be an instance where they ever commingled genetic material. If not how how long and what would make them unable to genetically breed.

Most cross-combination (I don't know what the actual term is) species (mules, Tiglons) I believe are sterile. So something must have happened that caused these species genes to be incompatible with each other from one requirement of natural selection - their offspring would not be able to produce a further generation. One could theorize that since these species are phenotypically still very similar (they have many physical characteristics in common) yet genetically incapable of breeding surviving offspring that they are in fact distinct species of animals that have evolved due to natural selection. The question then really becomes not whether they evolved but how they evolved, when, and what could have caused it to happen. This question very likely can only be answered speculatively for most species. This also explains why you can't just take a fruit fly and breed it into a different species of fruit fly a) do we really know what a different species is and b) do we know what factors cause a species to become another species to be able to duplicate and/or observe it.

That being said does it really matter whether evolution is a fact or a theory?

[mutus_frutex]

74. Wrong.

The distinction between Micro- and Macro-evolution is blurry, a clear line between them can not be drawn. Macro-evolution might be a simple accumulation of Micro-events, it might also correspond to a mechanism that works at a different level. It has been suggested that the evolutionary process is quasi-chaotic, i.e. the accumulation of unnoticeable Micro-events cascades into very noticeable and fast Macro-events.

[Ferretherder]

120. Actually, evolution, on the macro scale, HAS been observed.

I don't recall the specific time period, but I believe it was around the end of the Victorian age, in England. The Industrial Revolution was still in full swing, and most of the larger cities and their surrounding countryside were covered in thick, spotty soot deposits generated by the coal burning steam engines that ran the vast complex of mills and foundries. Scientists of the time noticed that a moth that was indigenous to the region for as long as anyone could remember - a moth that was completely WHITE - slowly EVOLVED to include BLACK SPOTS all over its body, to more effectively camouflage itself when resting on any of the myriad of surfaces on which it would lite....surfaces once pristine and natural in appearance, NOW COVERED IN BLACK SPOTS from the smokestacks of the time period!

If I can find a link, I'll post it. This is from memory - was in one of my paleontology books from years past.

[American Tragedy]

45. To be precise, there are several identified mechanisms behind evolution

Natural selection usually causes the most rapid and dramatic evolution, but it is definitely not the only process involved.

Evolution can occur as a result of gene flow, when genes are transferred from one population to another. Losses or additions can change gene pool frequencies even if there are no other evolutionary mechanisms operating.

It can also result from a random change in the gene pool of a small population. Genetic drift can result in genetic traits being lost from a population or becoming widespread in a population without respect to the survival or reproductive value of the alleles involved.

Obviously mutation can create very extreme changes, though it usually doesn't effect long-term evolution of a species, with the exception of microorganisms like bacteria or viruses.

Finally, my favorite, artificial selection. Very simple. Look at your dog, then take a look at a photograph of a wolf. Though they are technically the same species, human-engineered non-random mating has produced an astounding array of phenotypes. When applied to humans, it is infamously known as eugenics.

Sorry to give yall a dissertation. I'm in a class on biodiversity and evolution, so I've got it on my mind.

[BOSSHOG]

11. Yes, the material should be approached with an open mind,

studied carefully and critically considered - by close minded right wing morons who don't KNOW anything but choose to live their lives BELIEVING. The cobb county christians would burn such textbooks and put the teachers in ovens if it weren't for the omnipresent liberals and their whiny insistance on constutional liberties and the nasty publicity that would inevitably materialize. Damn that constitution.

[SaveElmer]

12. Evolution is a theory like...

The Earth is Round is a theory...it is as close to fact as is possible in science.

[spunky]

18. No, that's a fact, observable (and observed) from space n/t

(edited to add comma)

[DrWeird]

19. So is evolution.

It's both a fact and observable.

[spunky]

23. Who has witness speciation? n/t

[DrWeird]

25. Scientists.

There have been a number of new species observed. Plenty of bacteria, some insects, and if I remember correctly, at least on species of lizard. That's in the wild. Plenty more examples in the laboratory.

But you probably wouldn't know that from a standard Creationist education.

[Terran]

97. Question: how would anyone know

if speciation had occured in nature recently (as opposed to the laboratory)? If someone discovers a "new" species of lizard or insect, how do they know for sure that the species had simply never before been observed and recorded? Such could happen quite easily.

I'm not challenging you, I'm just very curious to know if there *is* some way to know.

[jukes]

37. i smell the mixt stench

of brimstone & whetstone!

:evilfrown:

[alarimer]

121. It happens on time scales longer than the human life

So of course no one has seen it exactly. You have a semantic argument over the word "fact". The popular use of the word theory as applied to evolution is incorrect. It implies that it is somehow unproven when, in fact, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence comes from the fossil record, which is admittedly incomplete, but also from genetics. It is as close to fact as anything in science (plate tectonics or gravity).

[yellowcanine]

53. How about the atomic theory? You can't see atoms, yet few would

dispute their existence. Why? Because the data are overwhelming and we can make predictions about atoms and test those predictions. So too with evolution. (not micro or macro - just evolution)

[DrWeird]

65. You can see atoms.

But of course you're right.

There was some nutjob in here the other day saying HIV doesn't exist because you can't see it with an optical microscope.

[yellowcanine]

68. I should probably have said subatomic structure.

[DrWeird]

71. Eh.

Here's some electrons in a box.



I got your point though.

[yellowcanine]

78. That looks like the circle of widgets at the base of a pendulum - for the

pendulum to knock over as the earth rotates. Or a Salvador Dali painting.

[DrWeird]

81. No, it's a scanning tunneling micrograph...

Of atoms arranged in an ellipse on a metal surface. The "waves" inside the "quantum corral" as it is called are the waveforms of electrons, just as you'd see from the "particle in a box" problems from standard introductory quantum physics course.

That's not an illustration. It's an actual image.

[yellowcanine]

90. I want to see protons and neutrons or it is still "just a theory." Heh.

edit:
Not to mention quarks.

[DrWeird]

92. Behold.

[yellowcanine]

101. Dang you Weird I am losing my faith here and you just don't care.

We are made of Legos and nothing you can say will make me believe otherwise because that is what it says in my sanctified translation of the Holy Bible.

[American Tragedy]

75. Yeah, good luck finding a fuckin VIRUS on an optical microscope

HIV denialists would be hilarious if they weren't borderline dangerous.

[denverbill]

24. Do they put 'Gravity is a Theory, not a fact' on their physics books?

If not, why not?

[jukes]

31. it's just unecessary

which narrows those questions on motivation down to the unacceptable.
pulpits shd be begging folks to accept their dubious moralities, not dictating subject matter to teachers. *actual* teachers.

[mutus_frutex]

72. Theory AND fact

Yes, it is wrong. Evolution is both Theory and Fact.

[The White Tree]

79. The statement my be factually true but why is it needed?

Maybe they should put in the forward, contents, introduction or even a sticker on the cover of the book the following statement:

This textbook contains material on biological science. Science contains theories and facts regarding living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

By focusing on only one aspect of biology and or science they do a diservice to mankind by conveying that everything else in the book is absolute unequivical fact that should not be subject to careful consideration.

[KansDem]

85. "open mind, studied carefully and critically considered"

Now THAT'S a tall order in contemporary America!

[hyphenate]

115. That's not completely accurate

The "theory" of evolution is not a "theory" as much as it is a scientific methodology. As the radical religious right would have it, they're trying to equate evolution with faith-based, literal interpretation of biblical references. In fact, for those who are better educated but still holding faith, there is a definitely correlation in most minds that an "omnipotent God" could and likely would have used evolution to formulate and carry out his plans for people on this planet.

These people who forced the stickers in the first place are, as with most fundies, trying to replace science with religion. That's one of the reason why you will find a lot of homeschooling among Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists--they don't want their children to be taught different aspects of science, including evolution. I used to think that was a sin to take science away from these children, but then I realized we're going to need people to serve french fries and clean floors in the future as well as highly trained engineers and medical professionals.

[Az]

124. Not quite

Evolution happens. In that it is a fact. Our explanation of it and understanding of it are theories. Same as with gravity. Its there. But our understanding of it is still growing.

[SmokingJacket]

126. Everything should be studied with an open mind.

Picking out evolution as the ONLY thing that should be questioned and putting it on a STICKER is ludicrous.

It's sort of like me wearing a tee-shirt that says, "I'm not ashamed of being white." Well... it's TRUE, I'm not! But the IMPLICATION is that I'm a racist.

The implication is that evolution is different from the other "theories" of science -- but it isn't.

[Ouabache]

130. Evolution is a theory about MORE than just the ORIGIN of living things

isn't it?

[PassingFair]

143. Fabulous...let's put the same sticker on every Bible.

n/t

[ashmanonar]

148. unfortunately...

the bible's statement (to be factual) would be something like "this book contains millenias-old hearsay and conjecture, not fact. this material should be read with a closed mind and no regard for opposing opinions, and blindly accepted as divine truth. any critical consideration of this material will be cause for ejection from the church."

:evilgrin:

[RubyDuby in GA]

5. See Pennsylvania

Don't mess with the professionals. We're the original evolutionary dumbasses. You're at most a #2 wannabee....

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

49. Oh ya,

We've got idiots too but we don't let them breed. We tell them 'God chose for you to be barren and invitro would therefore be wrong'...keeps their numbers down.

[spunky]

6. Hooray!

I sooo bitched about that when I first heard it. It goes back to what I said in the other creationism thread. EVERYTHING in that book is technically "theory." All the sticker does is insinuate that Evolution is somehow more theoretical or less believable than the other theories.

[GeorgeBushytail]

8. god is also a theory

[DrWeird]

9. No, he's a hypothesis, a supposition.

Theories need to have at least some evidence behind them.

[freedom_to_read]

14. none of the above

he's a belief. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain observable facts or reproducable events. "god" is something that by definition cannot be observed or reproduced. Hence his existence must be a matter of faith, not logic.

The serious attempt to provide a rational proof of the existence of God pretty much died out in the 17th century. Thanks Hume!

[VegasWolf]

42. You mean after St. Augustine's arguments for the existence of God

were completely refuted.

[yellowcanine]

69. "God" is a "propositional truth". We believe in her because we believe in

her. Yes, a belief.

[alarimer]

123. It can't be tested

A hypothesis is something that can be tested and falsified. Since we can't prove that there isn't a god, god is not a testable hypothesis. I find it interesting that in science you can never prove anything, you can only disprove things. The theory of evolution has not yet been disproven; all the evidence so far is in its favor.

[bowens43]

13. no, god isn't a theory.

A theory has to meet certain criteria. There is no 'god theory' that meets this criteria.

[Ripley]

10. So a Red State rectified the situation while Blue States

Ohio and Pennsylvania are going forward with plans to teach ID side by side evolution in science class?

Funny, that.

[Sgent]

16. I followed this

while it was going through court -- over at internet infidels.

Cobb county provided one of the worst defenses possible, so its not really a good test (but we still won). The Discovery Institute and other fundies were running away from this one.

One important note: The textbook has an entire chapter about the scientific method, theories, and how the same are developed. It is of course applicable to all scientific endevors.

[DemBones DemBones]

129. It was only ONE county in Georgia, too, and we have many counties,

too many, if you ask me.

[daleo]

15. Everything in a science text is a theory

Yes, gravity is a fact, but the theory that explains it is a theory (e.g. general theory of relativity, which has plenty of empirical support). The same is true of evolution, which is also a theory with plenty of empirical support. A "sticker" like this is unnecessary, as it is implicit in the study of science itself.

Hume even argued that gravity isn't necessarily a fact - it just so happens that things falling to the ground always happen right after things are "let go of". That is more or less my one sentence understanding of his critique of causality.

[DrWeird]

28. No offense.

But of all the places to bring up philosophy of science, I think that in this particular debate it's really not helpful.

[daleo]

84. No offense taken

It's never far from my mind, though. Since the debate is about whether stickering a science book with the label "X is a theory" is a valid thing to do, I can't see why it isn't relevant. Although, it may not be helpful in resolving a political or religious debate, as it does introduce a certain ambiguity.

[DrWeird]

96. Consider a sex ed class.

A fundamentalist wants to avoid teaching about condoms, or to teach that condoms don't prevent contraction of HIV. Then a teacher, justifiably outraged, says yes we should teach about condoms because they can prevent the spread of HIV. And then somebody with a BA in philosophy comes along and starts talking about the philosophical nature of prevention, and if condoms are really a theory, or if a tree wearing a condom in a forest with no HIV positive person around...

There's a point to philosophy, but it's just not helpful in this kind of thing.

[daleo]

110. But this isn't a sex ed class

This is an internet discussion group, which is a pretty good forum for discussing philosophy, in a practical sense.

I think the problem here is the expression "oh that's just a theory", as if that somehow means it isn't really in any sense valid. I grant you that fundamentalists will push this kind of language, with its only slightly veiled agenda.

Perhaps middle school is too early for people to grasp these subtleties, but I think the more intelligent members of a class would get the idea. I do think there is a danger in emphasizing the notion that such and such scientific theory (especially evolution) is a "fact" in the every day sense of the term. That danger is that fundamentalists will latch on to new observational evidence that doesn't fit precisely with current theory, and claim that disproves the theory, because "you said it was a fact".

By the way, I certainly don't have any problem accepting that evolution is a very well established theory. And I would hate to contemplate a God (as literalists do) that chose to arrange the natural world that way that it is, with all its strife, pain, and suffering, if he/she/it had a choice of a different way. I think religious people themselves undermine their position when they do so.

[CottonBear]

26. This is the only good news for GA dems this week.

In other news: the republicans have completely taken over the State Assembly. One of their first actions was to change the rules so that Democrats can never again passs any legislation. They are proceeding full steam ahead with plans to restrict abortion rights, desecrate the environment and post the 10 commandments everywhere. I can hardly believe that just a few years ago this was a Democratic State. I am sick.

[mainer]

41. DISCOVER: New computer program proves evolution works!

This must be giving creationists conniptions. A computer program is able to recreate evolutionary processes!

(I posted this on a topic over in Discussion.)

It's the cover story in February's edition of DISCOVER Magazine.

The online edition isn't up yet. I subscribe to the magazine, and in a nutshell, the article is about scientists at Michigan State University who have been running a computer program called "Avida", which allows researchers to track the birth, life, and death of generation after generation of digital organisms, to test the theory of evolution.

The result: Darwin is proven correct.

A quote:

"When the Avida team published their first results on the evolution of complexity in 2003, they were inundated with emails from creationists. Their work hit a nerve in the anti-evolution movement and hit it hard. A popular claim of creationists is that life shows signs of intelligent design, especially in its complexity. They argue that complex things could have never evolved, because they don't work unless all their parts are in place. But as scientist Adami points out, if creationists were right, then Avida wouldn't be able to produce complex digital organisms... 'What we show is that there are irreducibly complex things AND they can evolve,' says Adami...

"The Avida team makes their software freely available on the internet, and creationists have downloaded it over and over again in hopes of finding a fatal flaw. While they've uncovered a few minor glitches, (scientist) Ofria says the creationists have yet to find anything serious. 'We literally have an army of thousands of unpaid bug testers,' he says. 'What more could you want?'"

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

77. I'll have to get that copy of DISCOVER magazine.

Also, the Nov 2004 issue of National Geographic was titled, 'Was Darwin Wrong'. The inside article starts with one word in giant letters: NO!!!! Another great read.

[VegasWolf]

47. Humm, seems like GA textbooks could be seen as "evolving" n/t

[NYC]

66. Hurray for the removal of the stickers.

These people should be forced to reimburse the taxpayers.

"``Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the sticker conveys an impermissible message..."

[zbdent]

70. Georgia residents up in arms about all those uppity intellectuals

with all their "learnin'".

Apparently, they feel that showing off that you have an IQ is a hate crime.

[VegasWolf]

76. I'm sure that they have an IQ, it's just probably in the low 100's. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

131. Where did you get that idea? The article doesn't say that.

A lot of people in Georgia -- and most other states -- believe God created earth and think that rules out evolution. Making fun of them never does convince them, though.

[Benhurst]

89. How in God's name are they supposed to be able to

thump their Bibles, pick their noses, and remove the stickers at the same time?

The damn judge must be a carpetbagger.

[Freebird12004]

94. oops

I'm from Georgia ... but East Point knew better

[LibertyorDeath]

95. Good there's already to many Americans willing to embrace

the "Magical" thinking of creationism over Hard Scientific Fact.

Fortunately I live in Canada where this Faith based creationism\intelligent design tale is seen for what it is. A religious belief to help people maintain their faith.

Where I come from people that argue seriously that the World was created
6 to 10 thousands years ago are viewed as unstable personality types.

[hyphenate]

112. A Point for Science!

And a strike against those idiots who want to replace science and fact with myth and religious zeal. Perhaps there is hope for reality after all.

[GoSolar]

113. Excellent!

Evolution is a fact.

[jsw_81]

122. Good

Georgia is finally moving into the 18th century.

[Cats Against Frist]

127. How about this?

We give them their sticker, and we also give them prayer, and before every single invocation they have to say "The existence of God is a THEORY, not a FACT, and should be questioned and approached with an open mind."

Do you think they'd go for that?

****Sorry, just read that God is not a "theory." How about, "unproven belief that appears disproportionately in people who buy Thomas Kinkade paintings."

[genieroze]

128. I disagree with the judge on they reason for the ruling, not necessarily

the verdict. How does "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." endorse religion?

The reason I agree with the judge is that the school board really should leave the teaching to the teachers and the textbooks, and the curriculum to the state, not rewrite it or comment by putting stickers in books. If they have a problem then the board should contact the state and complain about the books in question.

[jsw_81]

132. Why?

Because it's obvious that the creationists singled out evolution because it (in their view) conflicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible. If you're familiar with the Lemon Test as handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, you'd know that it is ILLEGAL for any government -- including school boards -- to endorse or become entangled with religion. And that's exactly what the board did.

Keeping these stickers in the books would be like putting stickers on history textbooks that say: "The Holocaust is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" even though 99.9 percent of historians believe that the Holocaust was real; a similar percentage of biologists support the theory of evolution. Now do you see why scientists are so up in arms about all of this?

And everyone needs to understand that the scientific term 'theory' does NOT mean the same thing as the word 'theory' that is used in everyday language; it does not mean "guess" or "idea." The fact that so many people in this country -- including Democrats -- misunderstand this is what makes this "controversy" so incredibly maddening. Bush's America is awash in ignorance and stupidity, and unless we turn the tide (by stopping the religious right, for example) we will see our once proud nation sink into a new Dark Age.

We *cannot* let that happen.

[genieroze]

137. Why? because the sticker didn't mention religion, a few parents

did. Using the separation of church and state example in this case is like hitting an ant with a mallet. The judge could have just said you can't go against the state standards for teaching science and be done with it. Keep your opinions to yourself unless a student asks for it and don't rewrite the science books. This is the wrong fight for separation of church and state.

[moobu2]

145. I sincerely believe that

The more the fundies persist with this, no matter what name they disguise it under, i.e. creationism, intelligent design or rare earth.. the more it will hurt them in the end.

Science and reason is not a threat to religion, it is a threat to fundamentalist, but not religion.

[Sgent]

141. Did you actually read

The 44 page opinion?

He went through in meticulous detail every single possible reason for accepting/rejecting "the sticker". Obviously he was preparing for a possible (probable?) appeal.

The question comes down to:

Would a well informed person reconize the sticker as being entagled with religion?

The answer is yes. The sticker got tossed.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

133. This week's cover of Time: " Does God Want Us to be Happy?"

Faith-based democracy gives us the Gropenfuhrer.

[jsw_81]

134. Sad how national news magazines just assume that "god" exists

I guess the 10-15 million secular Americans just don't count in Murka. :shrug:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

139. 'Faith' or lack of evidence serves criminals well on every single level.

Which is why the propaganda matrix know as the mainstream media is continuing to stage the Dominionist 'revival' meeting which allies the Chosen Few with the Master Race and portrays it as the embodiment of 'American Virtue.'

1) It feeds the notion of the Divine Right of Kings to eliminate the US Constitution.

2) It feeds the authoritarian personality which is at the core of fascism receptivity. Lords, kings, fuhrers are all the same guy.

3) It feeds the dominance of women because their brains are different from men's, less prone to violence and groupthink which reflects in polling.

4) It feeds the scam of the oil wars waged under cover of the Crusades.

5) It feeds ignorance, self-rightousness, and tribalism.

6) It feeds the notion that violence produces justice.

7) It feeds the idea that it is normal to suffer horribly because it is God's will and it will all be ok when you die.

8) It feeds the idea that destroying the environment is a good thing because it will bring on Armageddon.

9) It feeds the idea that atrocities of 'biblical proportion' is a sign of Armageddon and America's role is like that of 'Indiana Jones' saving the world. It grows harder and harder for Americans to discern fact from fiction like Ronald Reagan claiming to have fought WWII when all he did was make propaganda film.

10)It feeds the divide-and-conquer tactic of the red/blue state meme which Orwellifies the class war between rich and poor into being between good and evil like 'Star Wars.' "Use the force, Luke."

11) It feeds the idea that pleasure and sex are bad for you while violence and suffering are good for you.

Putting warning labels on anything acts as an 'early scorning system' which suggests the thing MAY BE BAD FOR YOU, like tobacco or curse words in music. Ask Tipper Gore. Frank Zappa had to go to Washington to remind Senators the First Amendment was not fair game for their wives to play with.

The ruse of promoting skepticism and critical thought to discredit science and promote superstition is classic Orwellification used to deny global warming for a long time by experts like Rush Limbaugh. There are many worried scientists who see their own cherished critical skepticism being weaponized into denying whether anything is REALLY knowable, sort of a faith-based nihilism reversing intellectual progress of our species.

"Maybe God is making the polar ice caps disappear before our eyes as a test for pride to see who accepts science and should go to hell?"(sarcasm)

Gods-dammit-all!
THIS IS A SECULAR HUMANIST NATION FOUNDED ON THE REALITY-BASED AGREEMENTS CALLED THE US CONSTITUION, NOT THE BIBLE.

TAKING AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION USING AN ANCIENT BOOK OF RANDOMLY CONTRADICTING SUPERSTITIONS ILLUSTRATES *EXACTLY* WHY THIS NATION IS SCHIZOPHRENIC AND PSCHOPATHICALLY KILLING PEOPLE BY THE MILLIONS.

Christianity is schizophrenic for so many reasons but especially due to forming a hierarchical structure called 'the church' to spread the word of egalitarianism in 'God's eyes.' The medium denies the message.

This is 'all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.'

If only there were a way to seperate the teachings of a very kind and wise man named Jesus from the rest of the Bible the way Thomas Jefferson did, we would all be safer and happier...

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
--Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
-- Thomas Paine

"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking."
-- Henry Louis Mencken

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.
If that is granted, all else follows."
--George Orwell in 1984

And to show how science-denial leads to the Theocratic Fascism we now live under, here are the words of deist Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the Torquemada of Washington DC-

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/scalia.htm
(God's Justice and Ours 2002)

"The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible."
>>
"Besides being less likely to regard death as an utterly cataclysmic punishment, the Christian is also more likely to regard punishment in general as deserved."
>>
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."
-- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

"Casuistry caseates."
--JohnOneillsMemory

This is your brain. This is your brain on the Bible. Any questions?

[Montanan]

144. Stay in public education system and fight, or bail for children's good?

Even when the fundies "lose" a battle over textbook stickers, they win small victories as some parents choose to opt out of a system which, by its very nature, is subject to such divisive and wasteful political battles.

The fundie strategy is to control public education by any means, be it overtly through school board elections, or in more subtle ways such as endlessly contriving irritating ploys, which degrade the quality of education and eventually drive thinking families to send their children to private schools.

Stay in the system and fight, or opt out? This is a tough question for parents, I think.