Evolution (or, here we go again)

[telkanuru]

Apparently a school district in a nice southern, god-fearing state wants to place a sticker that says "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" on their bio textbooks. People are suing to remove it. I of course think this competely correct. The word "theory" is too often thrown around by non-scientists who do not know what it means (I do not think it means what you think it means!). Why does accepted scientific thought need a disclaimer?

Your thoughts, please. Make them worthy of a response.

Lastly, never go in with a sicilian when death is on the line.

[geezer]

Evolution: the genetic transference of acquired characteristics.

That's it. Seditious isn't it!

[S. Hunter]

The case isn't valid, though the idea may be absurd. There are scientists out there who are not creationists would would argue that it is a THEORY as there is not 100% proof of it. If the school presented intelligent design as an alternative course, then it would violate seperation of church and state, but this can be aruged as a matter of scientif debate, and I doubt that the stickers will be removed. (BTW: Its a school district, not a state)

[Heraclita]

Did you know that the sticker is quoting what Darwin originally said about his own theory? he said it should be treated as a theory, not a fact and that if it was ever proved wrong, it should be dropped.

[telkanuru]

This is true. However, it has not yet been proven wrong, and there is no serious competeing theory; thus, there is no scientific debate on the issue. Thus, there is no reason for the stickers.

[mrbiggs]

A "theory" in scientific terminology refers to something that has been proven consistently by experimentation, and never disproven. Example: The Theory of Gravity.

Evolution has been experimentally proven, and whether or not you feel that humans were created that way, there is NO QUESTION that it is happening around us. And even if you don't beleive THAT, it's a handy way to describe nature, whether or not it's true.

This is why we need more Republic, less Democracy.

[Heraclita]

How has it been experimentally proven??????

[The Mormegil]

culture grown bacteria, viruses, stuff that you can get several hundred/thousand generations in a short period of time.

[Heraclita]

but it was grown using stuff that we already have right now, it wasnt grown from nothing like evolution says. Spontaneous generation says that it formed from NOTHING.

[mrbiggs]

but it was grown using stuff that we already have right now, it wasnt grown from nothing like evolution says. Spontaneous generation says that it formed from NOTHING.

That has not been observed, and odds are that it never will. As I said, you don't have to beleive that humans began with a lucky group of chemicals in a puddle somewhere. These school boards are trying to get rid of evolution completely, which is ridiculous.

Also, there have been SOME experiments which have shown how life could have come from chemicals. (Details: Scientists created conditions much like those of the early Earth, and several amino acids were detected, amino acids being bery basic to life. Not much yet, but a start.)

[telkanuru]

No, the theory of the creation of life said things were formed from atoms and molicules, not ex nihil. A biologist by the name of Yuri created conditions similar to those that existed shortly after the formation of our planet, and managed to create basic amino acids after a period of a few weeks. A full understanding of what a thing is happens to be a good idea if you intend to debate it.

[jeff]

Gravity - that's only a theory too...

IIRC, some state legislature in the great Mid-West (Indiana?) once passed a law declaring pi to be 3, since the irrational number was obviously wrong and just too darn confusing.

[ls14evar]

The thing that the creationist stick to is that we only can directly observe micro-evolution. Thats easy enough to prove and see. Drug resistant diseases are an example. What they have a problem with is MACRO evolution. IE saying we came from apes. Nevermind that culative micro changes can lead to macro changes on the scale of millions of years. But we cant directly observe it.

So yes, evolution is very much only a theory, but a very good one at that. Just like anything in science, you dont really ever prove anything. You create hypothsises that become theories, and eventually Laws.

[The0ne]

ahhhh, if only pi was 3, it really WOULD make life so much easier in math. . . Too bad facts stand in the way, but that doesn't stop some people i guess.

I think the problem with the stickers is that they are intended to degrade the students opinion of evolution. They should just teach the evidence behind the theory, and yes it is a theory, and let students decide for themselves.

Personally I would have no problem with teaching the students the christian creation myth as well, and in fact the Popol Vuh, and the creation myths of EVERY culture, and let the students decide. . . That's what free speech is all about!! Too bad that approach isn't feasible. . .

To summarize, I think that the school should not restrict the student's options in learning in any way, let them make up their own mind.

[telkanuru]

I have no problem with teaching other creation myths, as long as it's done in history, etc. but not in the science classroom

[Robert (2)]

but it was grown using stuff that we already have right now, it wasnt grown from nothing like evolution says. Spontaneous generation says that it formed from NOTHING.

Heraclita,

You don't seem to understand what the theory of evolution actually is. Evolution (the dominant interpretation of which is called the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis) is the belief that what is alive on this planet now is the modified descendants of what was alive in the past. It has nothing (absolutely nothing) to say about how life began. Theories of evolution are concerned only with life well after it has begun.

Robert

P.S And nobody actually knows how life began. Not even cutting edge scientists can do more than take a few intelligent guesses.

[Robert (2)]

I have no problem with teaching other creation myths, as long as it's done in history, etc. but not in the science classroom

Ahem... keep that out of history, where it does not actually belong. There is nothing wrong with explaining to someone why a particular explanation is no longer taken seriously.

So you might explain that the universe is 4500 years old (Christian creation myth), and that others believe it has always existed (steady state theory). And at the same time explain why (rock stratification, cosmic background radiation) both answers are considered inadequate and scientists prefer to think the universe is between 12 and 18 billion years old. There is nothing wrong with doing this in a science classroom.

Likewise there is nothing wrong with explaining Gods creation of the earth (Christian), alongside the belief that environment affects the seed line (18th century explanation of evolution), or group selection (popular with Huxley et al), and explaining why none of these theories are taken seriously any longer (fossils, genetics, games theory).

At the same time there is nothing wrong with admitting which elements of the theory are still very weak. For example there are good indications that evolution is much more complex than simply natural selection (involving symbiosis, lateral gene transfer, mutation, and even somatic effect on the seed line), or that we don't really understand the process of speciation (and are still testing competing hypothesis), and don't really have any clue how life began (all the tests referred to above tell us about how to generate amino acids from chemical, which is hugely important step, but tell us nothing about how you turn amino acids into cells).

Robert

[keith]

well it is a theory so the stickers are not incorrect.

... most attempts to get intelligent design into the curriculum have failed because they are nonsense (the theories that is) - they tend to involve lots of additional assumptions that don't make interpreting the observed phenomena any easier.

Best that can be said is that it accepts all of standard evolutionary theory with the additional observation that god waves his/her/their hands now and then.

[scrapinpeg]

The problem is this fixation on the word "theory." Often accompanied by the word "mere," when used by certain people in this debate.

In common parlance, "theory" is similar to supposition -- an unproved hypothesis.

But in scientific parlance, the word has a much more strict meaning. It is as close to the word "fact" that a scientist can get. It is not a mere hypothesis, but is an explanation of an observed phenomenon that has withstood rigorous scientific examination, and is generally accepted as fact. If new evidence arises that cannot be explained by the theory, then it of course it must be retooled.

When a scientist refers to the theory of evolution, that is much the same as saying the fact of evolution. The observable evidence is explained by evolution, the explanation has withstood rigorous challenges and is backed up by all new evidence as it arises, and is now accepted as fact. The details of the theory, with respect to how speciation happens for example, are still being developed.

People who insist on calling evolution a "mere" theory are either deliberately or ignorantly misusing the language.

[latenight]

I have never understood why one excludes the other.

I believe in evolution and the idea of God as "Prime Mover" that started the whole ball rolling.

As far as the Bibles much shorter timeline of events....well whose to say how long a "day" was to God. The Bible was given is a way to be understood by the people of the time.