In 2002, a school in Georgia placed stickers in textbooks that contained material discussing evolution. These 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.”

On Thursday, a judge ruled these stickers violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means the government cannot support one religion over another. In the same way, they cannot, or should not, support no religion over religion. The government shouldn’t involve itself with religion.

As far as I know, macro-evolution cannot be scientifically proven. Since it cannot be proven, it is a theory, not a fact. The judge ruled that the addition of the stickers to the textbook supported a certain religious viewpoint — Christianity. He said, “The school board has effectively improperly entangled itself with religion by appearing to take a position.” The stickers are ambiguous! They don’t support any particular theory. They appear to take a position supporting critical thinking. Isn’t that something you’re supposed to learn in school?

The stickers support no theory or belief. The individuals who campaigned to have them introduced may have held one view, but that view does not show itself in the sticker.

By presenting evolution as the only option for the origin of life, an injustice is done to the student. Every other theory is ignored, and there are other theories. Shouldn’t several theories be presented to students, allowing them to exercise their own scientific analysis of which theory deserves acceptance or further exploration? By supporting and teaching only one theory, doesn’t the government, represented by the judge, pass judgement on religion, or no religion? Is that right?

Dan Jones

Senior

Mechanical Engineering