Education and evolution in Yankland

spinoza

Paz's ion
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
24,080
Location
Walking in a whisky wonderland.
Right now I see concerned Yank parents are suing a school board for trying to teach creationism alongside evolution. Despite the obvious idiocy of the school board - you don't see anyone trying to teach that the world is flat, do you? - the judge in question hasn't actually thrown the case out of court yet. There are even people saying that it could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Leaving aside the obvious question of why so much time is being wasted on something so easily solved, can someone please explain (1) how many appeals there are before this case gets referred to the Supreme Court, and (2) what happens if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case?
 
1) Most states have a three tiered judicial system: trial courts (could be split into municipal courts for minor cases and superior courts for major cases), mid-level appellate courts, and a state supreme court. Some states with small populations might not have an intermediate appellate court. After any trial verdict, the case could have a hearing at the appellate court, then if accepted, by the state supremes. Under certain circumstances, if the case concerns constitutional or federal issues, the case could then continue on to the US Supreme Court, although that court tends to deny review of over 90% of the cases sent its way. (certiorari semi-explained below)

If the case is filed in federal court and that court finds it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, it would go to trial in the federal district court. Any verdict there would be appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeal in which that federal district court resides. [I live in Fresno, which is part of the federal Eastern District of California, which is within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals]. From there, again, the losing party might file of writ of certiorari asking the US Supremes to hear the case. Four of the nine justices must agree to hear the case in order for certiorari to be granted [called "the rule of four"].

2) If the US Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the decision of the last court to rule on the matter stands--whether that be the state supreme court or the federal court of appeals.
 
FresnoBob said:
1) Most states have a three tiered judicial system: trial courts (could be split into municipal courts for minor cases and superior courts for major cases), mid-level appellate courts, and a state supreme court. Some states with small populations might not have an intermediate appellate court. After any trial verdict, the case could have a hearing at the appellate court, then if accepted, by the state supremes. Under certain circumstances, if the case concerns constitutional or federal issues, the case could then continue on to the US Supreme Court, although that court tends to deny review of over 90% of the cases sent its way. (certiorari semi-explained below)

If the case is filed in federal court and that court finds it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, it would go to trial in the federal district court. Any verdict there would be appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeal in which that federal district court resides. [I live in Fresno, which is part of the federal Eastern District of California, which is within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals]. From there, again, the losing party might file of writ of certiorari asking the US Supremes to hear the case. Four of the nine justices must agree to hear the case in order for certiorari to be granted [called "the rule of four"].

2) If the US Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the decision of the last court to rule on the matter stands--whether that be the state supreme court or the federal court of appeals.
Click to expand...


Suit was filed in Pennsylvania in federal court. So theoretically, does that mean that it would have to go through 2 appeals, then get referred to the Supreme Court?

Is the separation of church and state applicable here?
 
it's easy.. demand that FSMism be taught along creationism, they both make as much sense

then everyone one would be blessed by his noodly appendage
 
Kristjan said:
it's easy.. demand that FSMism be taught along creationism, they both make as much sense

then everyone one would be blessed by his noodly appendage
Click to expand...

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster

250px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg
 
spinoza said:
Suit was filed in Pennsylvania in federal court. So theoretically, does that mean that it would have to go through 2 appeals, then get referred to the Supreme Court?

Is the separation of church and state applicable here?
Click to expand...

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, so the district court must have found some "federal question" allowing the trial to proceed there rather than in the state court, as there shouldn't be any diversity jurisdiction as, one would believe, both the parents and the school district should be in Pennsylvania.
Any verdict or final (appealable) decision by the district court judge would then go to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Usually, an appeals panel consists of three judges. Occasionally, however, the Court of Appeal will follow that up with an "en banc" hearing, in which, essentially, all judges of the Court of Appeal hear argument and reach a decision (usually with a significant dissent) on an issue.
After any such alppellate ruling by the Third District, the case would be ripe for a writ of cert to the Supremes, although I doubt that court wishes to hear argument at this time.

As far as separation of church and state, that's a somewhat muddled area and it is the argument of the proponents of "intelligent design/creationism" that their position is not one of "religion" but of an alternate "scientific" theory that addresses holes, omissions, and problem areas left unexplained by Darwinian evolutionary theory.

The defendants in the case you describe, therefore, are claiming not to be propounding religion, but [pseudo]science, while the plantiffs are clearly arguing that the addition of creationist/i.d. to the curriculum is merely a front for forbidden evangelical Christian literalism to be introduced into the classroom, at tax payer expense, in the guise of something else. That is merely one of the issues the court will have to decide. The court will also be hearing expert testimony from a variety of scientists on the validity of the creationist theories ( :wenger: ) and the claims made by creationists against evolution to determine if it is, in fact "science."

When all is said and done, I expect the district court to find that the teaching of creationism is NOT required nor demonstrably scientifically based, the Third Circuit will affirm that decision, and the US Supreme Court will deny certiorari.
 
FresnoBob said:
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, so the district court must have found some "federal question" allowing the trial to proceed there rather than in the state court, as there shouldn't be any diversity jurisdiction as, one would believe, both the parents and the school district should be in Pennsylvania.
Any verdict or final (appealable) decision by the district court judge would then go to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Usually, an appeals panel consists of three judges. Occasionally, however, the Court of Appeal will follow that up with an "en banc" hearing, in which, essentially, all judges of the Court of Appeal hear argument and reach a decision (usually with a significant dissent) on an issue.
After any such alppellate ruling by the Third District, the case would be ripe for a writ of cert to the Supremes, although I doubt that court wishes to hear argument at this time.

As far as separation of church and state, that's a somewhat muddled area and it is the argument of the proponents of "intelligent design/creationism" that their position is not one of "religion" but of an alternate "scientific" theory that addresses holes, omissions, and problem areas left unexplained by Darwinian evolutionary theory.

The defendants in the case you describe, therefore, are claiming not to be propounding religion, but [pseudo]science, while the plantiffs are clearly arguing that the addition of creationist/i.d. to the curriculum is merely a front for forbidden evangelical Christian literalism to be introduced into the classroom, at tax payer expense, in the guise of something else. That is merely one of the issues the court will have to decide. The court will also be hearing expert testimony from a variety of scientists on the validity of the creationist theories ( :wenger: ) and the claims made by creationists against evolution to determine if it is, in fact "science."

When all is said and done, I expect the district court to find that the teaching of creationism is NOT required nor demonstrably scientifically based, the Third Circuit will affirm that decision, and the US Supreme Court will deny certiorari.
Click to expand...



Fresno arent you being a bit Myopic? The current makeup of the supreme court certainly lend credence to the possibility that creationism/intelligent design theory may in fact be given the same weight as evolution.

I for one dont have any issues with a healthy debate between the two. Im just not sure it should be done in the public schools.
 
manufanatic said:
Fresno arent you being a bit Myopic? The current makeup of the supreme court certainly lend credence to the possibility that creationism/intelligent design theory may in fact be given the same weight as evolution.

I for one dont have any issues with a healthy debate between the two. Im just not sure it should be done in the public schools.
Click to expand...

More Supreme Court scaremongering, imho.

They didn't even rule on the Newdow case a couple of years ago, relying on a technicality so they didn't have to reach the merits and declare the pledge constitutional or not.

You think they will touch this with a ten foot pole?

And I am strongly against creationism being taught in schools. If a college aged kid wants to take a class about religion and religious doctrines, or a history of Evolution or something, fine. But 10 year olds are in no position to make their own informed choices about religion.
 
spinoza said:
Leaving aside the obvious question of why so much time is being wasted on something so easily solved, can someone please explain
Click to expand...

This whole entire issue makes zero sense....my best guess is it a distraction put out to dissuade people from being interested in the news. The Christian Right believe they are owed favors for helping with the Bush re-election and it would seem the 'idiot yank poilticians' are willing to appease them by not saying how rediculous it is to even consider. With things like the war and increasing fuel prices and a full on assault agianst basic rights through the various Patriot Acts....it serves as an excellent distraction. This issue is among serveral others that people just throw up their hands and say 'feck it, I'm not gunna waste my time with politics or the news'. I meet people like that all the time. It's a tool of control. Not a real issue.

And God knows why the yank media hasn't done anything to squash this silliness....or maybe God doesn't know. Who the fek knows.
 
LABOB said:
This whole entire issue makes zero sense....my best guess is it a distraction put out to dissuade people from being interested in the news. The Christian Right believe they are owed favors for helping with the Bush re-election and it would seem the 'idiot yank poilticians' are willing to appease them by not saying how rediculous it is to even consider. With things like the war and increasing fuel prices and a full on assault agianst basic rights through the various Patriot Acts....it serves as an excellent distraction. This issue is among serveral others that people just throw up their hands and say 'feck it, I'm not gunna waste my time with politics or the news'. I meet people like that all the time. It's a tool of control. Not a real issue.

And God knows why the yank media hasn't done anything to squash this silliness....or maybe God doesn't know. Who the fek knows.
Click to expand...

Bill O'Reilly knows, that's for sure.
 
manufanatic said:
Fresno arent you being a bit Myopic? The current makeup of the supreme court certainly lend credence to the possibility that creationism/intelligent design theory may in fact be given the same weight as evolution.

I for one dont have any issues with a healthy debate between the two. Im just not sure it should be done in the public schools.
Click to expand...

I think you are being myopic. Being appointed by a Republican president doesn't automatically make one an evangelical, Bible-believing zealot insistent on literal interpretation of the New King James, NIV, or some other contemporary translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the 4 Gospels, and a collection of letters that were written in ancient Greek or Aramaic on the description of the beginnings of the Earth as described in Genesis 1:1 to 2:24. The current makeup of the Supreme Court is (thankfully) short on Southern Baptists, while Jews and Episcopalians, neither noted for their commitment to creationist drivel, are "over-represented."
 
As I was saying...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9729036/#storyContinued

This whole entire thing is nothing more than a distraction. Where is the arguement as to why creationism should share the curriculum?

Other than the Karl Rove approach of attacking a position as being a position, creationism has absolutely no foundation of theory or fact. Wherein theory is a compilation of fact which leeds to an educated estimate of condition.

Anyhow....the trial in PA started today and all MSNBC has to show for it is a professor that agrees with creationism. How fecked up is that...as if the media isn't controlled by the govt.
 
LABOB said:
As I was saying...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9729036/#storyContinued

This whole entire thing is nothing more than a distraction. Where is the arguement as to why creationism should share the curriculum?

Other than the Karl Rove approach of attacking a position as being a position, creationism has absolutely no foundation of theory or fact. Wherein theory is a compilation of fact which leeds to an educated estimate of condition.

Anyhow....the trial in PA started today and all MSNBC has to show for it is a professor that agrees with creationism. How fecked up is that...as if the media isn't controlled by the govt.
Click to expand...

Beltway Bob--I understand your distain for creationist (Amen Brothers) "science," but fail to understand how covering the only witness currently testifying (for the Dover School Board) constitutes "government control of the media [which, incidently, I don't subscribe to either]. I have no evidence that the US government, of the folks in Harrisburg, PA, for that matter, have any vested interest in the outcome of this lawsuit.

For a good critique of Dr. Michael Behe (the Lehigh prof who espouses "intelligent design," much to the chagrin of his fellow tenured profs in the biology department there, try this New Yorker article from May 30, 2005.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact
 
LABOB said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9729036/#storyContinued

Anyhow....the trial in PA started today and all MSNBC has to show for it is a professor that agrees with creationism. How fecked up is that...as if the media isn't controlled by the govt.
Click to expand...

Bob, If you read what you attached (the first sentence), you would realize that the article deals with the professor becaused he was the first witness called by the School Board in the current trial. The professor has nothing at all to do with MSNBC. It's a commentary about the professor's testimony.

Just to let you know what will happen when the other side calls its witnesses, not surprisingly, MSNBC will report on the theory of evolution as fostered by them.

You can now lower your irrational paranoia on this issue.
 
FresnoBob said:
I have no evidence that the US government, of the folks in Harrisburg, PA, for that matter, have any vested interest in the outcome of this lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Are creationist / IDers generally to be found among the religious right that proclaims themselves to be Bush's power base?
 
spinoza said:
Are creationist / IDers generally to be found among the religious right that proclaims themselves to be Bush's power base?
Click to expand...

The executive branch of the federal government has no control over which district court judge gets the case. Nor have I seen information suggesting that the federal government, or the state, has come in on amicus for either side. Whether Genesis 1:1 to 2:25 is absolutely true, or Darwin was totally correct, or gaps in Darwinian evolution show that a superior intelligence [obviously not related to the school district] moved evolution to the current state, or we are actually a colony planted by aliens from a distant galaxy is a subject not all that many people are totally comfortable with or emotionally attached to as with say, aborting foetuses or frying convicted felons.

A "loss" at the district court level might help the evangelical right galvanize, especially if the judge was a Democratic appointment--to show the "anti-religion" slant of that party. :rolleyes: Still, I have no evidence that Dubya himself feels strongly on the issue and, not being up for reelection, would not benefit from the outcome, regardless of what it was.

Unlike abortion, I don't see creationism as one of the touchstones of the rightwingers that would be so important that conservative politicians would feel a need to speak out on the subject.
 
FresnoBob said:
The executive branch of the federal government has no control over which district court judge gets the case. Nor have I seen information suggesting that the federal government, or the state, has come in on amicus for either side. Whether Genesis 1:1 to 2:25 is absolutely true, or Darwin was totally correct, or gaps in Darwinian evolution show that a superior intelligence [obviously not related to the school district] moved evolution to the current state, or we are actually a colony planted by aliens from a distant galaxy is a subject not all that many people are totally comfortable with or emotionally attached to as with say, aborting foetuses or frying convicted felons.

A "loss" at the district court level might help the evangelical right galvanize, especially if the judge was a Democratic appointment--to show the "anti-religion" slant of that party. :rolleyes: Still, I have no evidence that Dubya himself feels strongly on the issue and, not being up for reelection, would not benefit from the outcome, regardless of what it was.

Unlike abortion, I don't see creationism as one of the touchstones of the rightwingers that would be so important that conservative politicians would feel a need to speak out on the subject.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of bollocks mate.

Just say it. . .without sounding like a twisty in and out type person.
 
Spoony said:
That's a lot of bollocks mate.

Just say it. . .without sounding like a twisty in and out type person.
Click to expand...

Okay, anybody who thinks that the national government or the state government will interfer or get involved in the lawsuit in an effort to gain recognition of creationism as a valid science is a complete f*ing idiot.
 
FresnoBob said:
Okay, anybody who thinks that the national government or the state government will interfer or get involved in the lawsuit in an effort to gain recognition of creationism as a valid science is a complete f*ing idiot.
Click to expand...
:nono:

How about this case being heard in the first place!

I thought the USA had been moving in a direction that discouraged frivillous lawsuits.

It's the appathy of politicians to step in and enforce the constitutional rights of separation of church and (state) public schools (poorly govt. funded institutions) that gives the appearance that they back the religious right.


And once again...where in god's name is the media when it comes to more probing questions as to how this could be happening.


Bob, would you be calling people idiots if they had been questioning a case that may mandate the use of the Koran in public schools?

and don't be twisting this around....the govt. has a responsiblity to protect it's public schools....at present they are not present! And that implicates them!
 
LABOB said:
:nono:

How about this case being heard in the first place!

I thought the USA had been moving in a direction that discouraged frivillous lawsuits.

It's the appathy of politicians to step in and enforce the constitutional rights of separation of church and (state) public schools (poorly govt. funded institutions) that gives the appearance that they back the religious right.


And once again...where in god's name is the media when it comes to more probing questions as to how this could be happening.
Click to expand...

Bobby--I don't know what you are babbling about. The United States government is not a party in this case, nor is the state of Pennsylvania. For reasons unknown to the rational mind, a majority of the members of the Dover Area School Board decided (bowed to pressure from a few parents) that before taking their class in biology, ninth graders needed a talk on "intelligent design." Parents of eight students sued the School Board to remove the requirement. Hence the lawsuit.

So:
1) that's why there is a lawsuit
2) I would assume that you, like me, believe that the plaintiffs should prevail, therefore this is not a frivilous law suit.
3) Are you suggesting that the US Attorney General check the curriculum of every local school district to insure that it's contents survive constitutional muster? That's more dangerous than the problem we are addressing. Do you really think we should jettison the seperation of powers and several hundred years of jurisprudence and have the presidentially appointed Attorney General decide issues of constitutionality that are not his job under the the statutes provided for by Article II section 2 of the Constitution.

The federal court, not the executive (Atty Gen) interprets the constitution, so the current law suit is HOW the federal government is able to review the decisions of local government and insure that First Amendment rights are protected.

4) In the general scheme of things, this trial might not get the media cover you want because it isn't viewed as significant as the hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters, doesn't involve Hollywood celebraties, isn't connected with Monday Night Football, and doesn't have a significant body count.
The American media is not controlled by the government, but by the buying public, and catering to the desires of the illiterati while keeping an eye out for the bottom line is what the dominant media outlets look at--be it the television/radio networks, the major newsmagazines, or the big city daily papers.
Maybe you just aren't looking in the right places for the conspiracy theory linking Dubya and Karl Rove to the creationists as part of an attempt to destroy the labor unions, create a state religion, disenfranchise all minorities, nuke Mecca, and undo the 22nd Amendment.
 
LABOB said:
Bob, would you be calling people idiots if they had been questioning a case that may mandate the use of the Koran in public schools?
Click to expand...

Beltway Bob--can you read? I have never supported the teaching of creationism in school. The people I am calling "idiots" are the school board members who made the teaching mandatory. Get a grip, man. Just because I don't share a paranoid view of current affairs doesn't mean I'm one of James Dobson's henchmen.
 
I understand you perspective....when it comes to issues from the right, it doesn't really bug you that much. But if it's some lady that gets millions for burning herself from a hot cup of McDonalds coffee, then you're all up in arms.

Do you have any idea how influencial the govt. is over the schools, tremendously. Congress and each of the states governers probably deal with public school issues on a weekly basis....and they do monitor ciriculum, strictly.

It's not just schools...how about your state prisons. They're probably both Federaly and state funded. Recently, I had a friend that worked as a SAP counselor (substance abuse program) who quit because of the manditory christian oriented substance being taught. Same thing....only it goes completely uncontested.
 
LABOB said:
It's the appathy of politicians to step in and enforce the constitutional rights of separation of church and (state) public schools (poorly govt. funded institutions) that gives the appearance that they back the religious right.


And once again...where in god's name is the media when it comes to more probing questions as to how this could be happening.


Bob, would you be calling people idiots if they had been questioning a case that may mandate the use of the Koran in public schools?
Click to expand...

Bob, just to be clear- public schools in the US are established under state law, not federal, and usually regulated in detail by local authorities. The bulk of the money for public schools comes from local taxation. The federal government has little or nothing to do with the schools.

The Creationism issue would probably only pop up in areas where a large percentage of the population hold that belief. But those are the people that are paying the builk of the school taxes and most likely some teachers and administrators in the schools also hold that belief.
 
LABOB said:
I understand you perspective....when it comes to issues from the right, it doesn't really bug you that much. But if it's some lady that gets millions for burning herself from a hot cup of McDonalds coffee, then you're all up in arms.

Do you have any idea how influencial the govt. is over the schools, tremendously. Congress and each of the states governers probably deal with public school issues on a weekly basis....and they do monitor ciriculum, strictly.

It's not just schools...how about your state prisons. They're probably both Federaly and state funded. Recently, I had a friend that worked as a SAP counselor (substance abuse program) who quit because of the manditory christian oriented substance being taught. Same thing....only it goes completely uncontested.
Click to expand...

Do you actually read what I write, or just assume you have a clue? I've given my opinion on creationism, and it isn't positive, but there is a way to deal with it, and establishing a dictatorship isn't the way. Let the injured party (and there is always an injured party) bring the lawsuit and the court will interpret and apply the law. You seem to have a problem with the idea that the proper method doesn't go fast enough for you or is missing the 100% guarantee that the issue will resolve your way.

As far as the old woman with the coffee burn--I don't go to McDonalds, so it wasn't my money she got. As if I really give a damn about personal injury lawsuits--that's not my field.


If someone has an issue with the 12 step programs at state prisons, there's this little thing called a lawsuit, and there are about 177 law schools in the country with students wanting to work a con law case, not to mention a boat load of profs, the ACLU, and several tens of thousands of attorneys (a hundred or so of whom I know) who would handle issues like that, even pro bono. Experience shows that something in the 12 step model is the most effective program for alcohol and drug abuse, although I, personally, don't see the need to cram Jesus down the prisoners' throats every third sentence.
Did you buddy ever do anything, or just bitch and leave, then complain because nothing was done?
 
Fres. I just want you to say the ID stuff is out of order. Just say it.

Makes you lot look really backward.
 
kennyj said:
The Creationism issue would probably only pop up in areas where a large percentage of the population hold that belief. But those are the people that are paying the builk of the school taxes and most likely some teachers and administrators in the schools also hold that belief.
Click to expand...

And you think that's perfectly fine?

You don't even have a clue as to how fecked up that is....just as fecked as are the kids are in Egypt that are taught islamic radical faith. You may think I'm getting carried away with this....but this is the direction we're headed here in the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.