It may be wise to add a qualifier. As condorman pointed out to me, there is more than one way of viewing the Theory of Evolution. While a given theory may not necessarily involve a discussion or consideration of origins, under many circumstances it begs the question.
That is why the subject is of such deep concern, and that is why threads like this tend to generate much discussion, bringing in cosmology, and the other disciplines you mentioned.
Don't you think, if we were to take a basic high school biology or chemistry text book, a discussion of either evolution or creationism would detract from the academic results? That's one of the reasons I question whether this "disclaimer" idea is a good thing.
OTOH, If it were a textbook dedicated for the most part to "preaching" evolution, then I would think fairness demands that some emphasis be placed on the theorectical nature of evolutionism, and some air time given to competing theories with respect to what are perceived as natural processes.
At the same time, the skittishness of evolutionists whenever the subject of creationism is brought up has me wondering why they are so jumpy. They repeat this "creationism is not science" mantra so emphatically, dogmatically, and quickly it makes me wonder what exactly it is in the end that they fear. Are they that devoted to scientific integrity? Or is something else bugging them, like maybe they'll be faced with some ultimate truths they cannot bear to begin facing.
Not at all. The Theory of Evolution starts with the assumption that some form of simple, self-replicating life existed; it then proceeds to provide an explanatory framework as to how species derive from that. The theory in no way relies upon HOW that first life got there; whether it was via natural processes (abiogenesis), or was seeded by space Aliens, or was put their by the hand of God Almighty makes absolutely no difference to the Evolutionary model; it makes NO assumption whatsoever about it.
The analogy with Meterology is very apt. We can predict the weather without assuming anything about where moisture first came from. Meterology makes NO assumption about the origin of water, because it is irrelevant. The same is true of Evolution; the origin of first life is irrelevant to the theory.
Don't you think, if we were to take a basic high school biology or chemistry text book, a discussion of either evolution or creationism would detract from the academic results? That's one of the reasons I question whether this "disclaimer" idea is a good thing.
OTOH, If it were a textbook dedicated for the most part to "preaching" evolution, then I would think fairness demands that some emphasis be placed on the theorectical nature of evolutionism, and some air time given to competing theories with respect to what are perceived as natural processes.
Science education isn't about "fairness," it's about teaching the best current science we have available. All science theories are "just theories," so singling ONE out for "special treatment" (disclaimers) implies a connotation that THAT theory is somehow "different" from all others. There are currently no competing theories with evolution.
Creationism and ID are NOT scientific theories, no matter how much their proponents wish they were. There is no potential observation or discovery that can falsify Creationism; thus it fails the Popperian criteria for a scientific theory. Likewise ID "theory." OTOH, the classic falsification of Evolutionary Theory would be the discovery of widespread mammalian fossils in the Pre-Cambrian strata.
At the same time, the skittishness of evolutionists whenever the subject of creationism is brought up has me wondering why they are so jumpy. They repeat this "creationism is not science" mantra so emphatically, dogmatically, and quickly it makes me wonder what exactly it is in the end that they fear.
They fear science being pushed aside in favor of non-science.
Are they that devoted to scientific integrity? Or is something else bugging them, like maybe they'll be faced with some ultimate truths they cannot bear to begin facing.
If that were the case, then they would be trying to keep it out of ALL possible classes.... but they aren't. AFAIK, most evos are completely comfortable with religious ideas being taught in "Comparative Religions & Belief Systems" and similar classes.
One last point; time and resources are finite. We can't afford to teach every competing idea there is in the name of "fairness" or the kids will never learn the basics. We can't teach "ebonics" along side English grammar, astrology alongside Astronomy, Alchemy alongside Chemistry, Numerology alongside Math class, chiropractic "subluxation" theory alongside physiology, and so on....
We can only afford to teach what we think is the best current scientific theories, because there isn't enough time to teach the details of all the alternative ideas out there, "fairness" notwithstanding.
Perhaps we should give equal consideration to all theories -- that the earth once revolved around Saturn, for example.
I personally think a good approach would be to present the evidence in a historical context and present the thinking of the original people who found the evidence.
There are those in science who seem to have an engineering temperament -- let's get directly to the formulas and the cookboks -- and who see little value in arguing about belief systems. Then there are those who have no use for formulas and want to engage in storytelling. We have both types, and more, right here on this thread.