Edward Sisson reviews the Cobb County appellate decision:
A fundamental problem with the Appellate decision is that it appears to accept an implicit assumption that Ã¢â‚¬Å“those who endorse evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â do so because they have made a rational, independent evaluation of the scientific data offered as evidence for its truth. But if, in fact, they endorse evolution because they have chosen to give unquestioning deference to science experts, it may be appropriate to treat their position as simply another religious position, rather than being a position divorced from religion. This may affect the application of the constitutional test, if it appears that the plaintiffs are in effect trying to support their own religious views by suppressing the Sticker. The court should take evidence as to the reasons why, prior to filing the lawsuit, the particular individual plaintiffs Ã¢â‚¬Å“endorsedÃ¢â‚¬Â evolution, rather than simply presume that their reasons for endorsing evolution were grounded in their science education. Surely plaintiffs who did not experience formal academic instruction in evolution should be questioned as to why they endorsed evolution prior to filing the lawsuit.