NCSE

Selman Appeal: Frequently Asked Questions

Timeline What did the Cobb County evolution disclaimer say?
The disclaimer, pasted in science textbooks in the Cobb County school district, reads:
"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."

What is at stake in the appeal?
If the Eleventh Circuit overturns the lower court decision, the Cobb County "warning label" would be considered constitutional, and the language of the label would likely be widely promoted by creationists in school districts across the country. If the decision is upheld, then it will set precendent for future cases dealing with antievolution policies in public schools. This would discourage school districts from employing the "evolution warning label" tactic in the future.

What's wrong with the disclaimer's language?
The phrase "evolution is a theory, not a fact" has been promoted by creationists for decades as a tactic to denigrate the scientific status of evolution. The phrase "evolution is a theory, not a fact" conveys the message that theories are merely unsupported guesses, much weaker than solid facts, and that the scientific theory of evolution is therefore just a nonfactual guess. This statement badly misleads biology students in three ways.

First, in science, the word "theory" does not mean "guess." Rather, a scientific theory is a well-tested, systematic explanation of facts. Scientific theories are well-supported and well-accepted. Second, the theory of evolution is among the most important, well-tested theories in all of science; it is as fundamental to biology as atomic theory is to chemistry, the germ theory of disease to medicine, or Einstein's theory of relativity to physics. Third, the sticker unjustly singles out evolution for skepticism among all of the scientific theories presented in science classrooms.

This may be bad science education, but why is it unconstitutional?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from establishing religion. In the Lemon decision, the U.S. Supreme Court devised a three-prong test to determine if a particular government policy was unconstitutional. Under Lemon, a government policy is unconstitutional if: (1) it has a primarily religious purpose, (2) it has a primarily religious effect, or (3) it excessively entangles the government and religion. A policy is unconstitutional if it fails the test of any prong.

Judge Cooper ruled that the disclaimer passed the test for prong 1, but failed for prongs 2 and 3. Cooper found that an informed, reasonable observer, aware of the history of creationist attempts to suppress evolution in public schools in Cobb County and across the country, would "interpret the Sticker to convey a message of endorsement of religion. That is, the Sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the Sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." Cooper added, "[b]y 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."

Why did the district court rule that the disclaimer passed the first prong of the Lemon test?
The Cobb County School District argued in part that the primary purpose of the disclaimer was to encourage critical thinking, a legitimate nonreligious purpose. Unfortunately for this argument, teaching biology students that evolution is just a guess actually misinforms them of the scientific status of evolution. Teaching misinformation does not encourage critical thinking, so Cooper correctly concluded that critical thinking was not an actual purpose of the policy. On the other hand, Judge Cooper did find that "the chief purpose of the Sticker is to accommodate or reduce offense to those persons who hold beliefs that might be deemed inconsistent with the scientific theory of evolution," and he ruled that this was a legitimate secular purpose.

However, in an amicus brief filed by civil liberties organizations, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and their co-signatories argue that this purpose is actually not a secular purpose, but a religious purpose. Weakening the science education of all public school students, in order to assuage the feelings of those that are creationists, is not a legitimate secular purpose. Consider an analogy: what if a public school taught that the roundness of the earth was just a guess, in order to reduce offense to students that had a religious belief that the earth was flat?

Where did the Cobb County evolution "warning label" come from?
The three sentences of the Cobb County evolution disclaimer are similar to sentences found in evolution warning labels passed by the Alabama State Board of Education in 1995 and 2001 (see the history of the Alabama evolution disclaimers at: http://www.alscience.org/disclaimer.html). Since 1995, Alabama has been the only state where evolution warning labels have been mandated in public school biology textbooks statewide. The Alabama evolution disclaimer was passed in 1995 after heavy promotion by the creationist Alabama Eagle Forum, which explicitly promoted it as an "Evolution Warning Label" (see "Evolution Warning Labels for Alabama Texts", Eagle Forum Education Reporter, December 1995, http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1995/dec95/biology.html). The Alabama evolution warning label has been progressively weakened; in 2001, much of the antievolution language was replaced with blander language, and in 2005 references to evolution being "controversial" were removed. The Alabama Attorney General has filed an amicus brief in support of the Cobb County School District appeal, on the grounds that even their current bland disclaimer will be in constitutional jeopardy if the verdict in Selman is upheld.

Why is this issue so hot right now?
Efforts to promote creationism/intelligent design, or to interfere with the teaching of evolution, are continuously in progress. However, the Selman case, and the general phenomenon of religiously-motivated antievolutionism, received a great deal of media attention in 2004-2005 due to the convergence of several factors. First, a lawsuit was filed in December 2004 that challenges the constitutionality of a Dover, Pennsylvania school district policy promoting "intelligent design," a repackaged form of creationism. Second, there has been an upsurge in fights about creationism and intelligent design at the local and state levels across the country. In 2005 alone, NCSE counted 12 state legislatures where attempts have been made to pass legislation that promoted intelligent design or antievolutionism. Third, the re-election of President George W. Bush brought wide media attention to the increased political strength and organization of conservative evangelicals in the United States. Conservative evangelicals are the primary supporters of creationism, intelligent design, and antievolutionism.

When is the appeal going to be decided?
Each side has filed briefs in the appeal. The United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit has tentatively scheduled a hearing for the week of December 12, 2005. A decision could take many months after the hearing.

Why is teaching evolution important?
Students will be expected to understand evolution in any college-level biology class. Depriving them of knowledge they will be expected to possess as they pursue further education is a disservice. Also, as our society becomes more dependent on science and technology, a scientifically literate public will become even more of a necessity. Because of evolution's central role in the life sciences, a proper understanding of this theory is essential for scientific literacy.

Where can I go for more information?
Contact the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). NCSE is the only organization in the country dedicating all its resources to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. We work with scientists, teachers, parents, clergy and citizens from diverse backgrounds on the grassroots level who are actively engaged in protecting evolution in the science curriculum and keeping creationism out. Our phone number is (510) 601-0179.

Visit our web site for more information; our URL is http://www.ncseweb.org/. Some links that we have found especially useful are listed below. NCSE is not responsible for off-site links.

Background information on evolution and intelligent design/creationism
The Creation/Evolution Continuum
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9213_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp

A good overview of "intelligent design" (offsite)
http://www.talkdesign.org/introfaq.html

Evolving Banners at the Discovery Institute
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8325_evolving_banners_at_the_discov_8_29_2002.asp

Leaked version of Wedge Document:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/crsc_wedge.html

(The "Wedge Document" is a strategic plan written by the Discovery Institute Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture written in the late 1990's. It was leaked onto the web, and widely noted that their two governing goals were "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies", and "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.")

The "Wedge Document": "So What?" -- Discovery Institute -- March 1, 2004
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20Responses&id=2101

Project Steve -- parody (but true) of the Discovery Institute list of 300 scientists doubting Darwin
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

NCSE Compilation on the so-called "Santorum Amendment"
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7202_ncse_compilation_on_santorum_a_6_13_2002.asp

Eight Major Court Decisions against Teaching Creationism as Science
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3747_8_major_court_decisions_agains_2_15_2001.asp

Voices for Evolution -- A long list of groups (scientific, religious, and civil liberty) opposed to creationist interference in evolution education
AAAS Board Resolution on "Intelligent Design Theory"
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

National Academy of Sciences on evolution and creationism/intelligent design
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/