Replies

Actually, I think their primary push has been to get the government schools to own up to the fact that 'evolution' is an unprovable hypothesis

The term "evolution" is often used to describe two hypotheses:

That plant and animal populations can change through the process of variation and selection.
That such changes are the source of all biodiversity on this planet.

The first is a sound theory which is amply supported by evidence. Indeed, certain types of evolution can be shown to have occurred within history; among micro-organisms, certain types can be shown to occur within days.

The second theory is much more speculative. It is unlikely that there could ever be evidence to completely support or debunk it, though there is little or no reason to regard it as anything other than an interesting theory which has enough inconsistencies with evidence to, at minimum, need refineemnt.

I think understanding the former type of evolution theory is important; it is a useful scientific theory which can be demonstrated through experiment, and has certain practical uses. The latter theory might be interesting to ponder, and should probably be taught as a theory, but students should be told that it is largely speculative.

The second theory is much more speculative. It is unlikely that there could ever be evidence to completely support or debunk it, though there is little or no reason to regard it as anything other than an interesting theory which has enough inconsistencies with evidence to, at minimum, need refineemnt.

It is much more than speculative. The comparative genetic data strongly supports common ancestry. How certain mutations were selected for remain to be elucidated, but these are details for the most part.

Re: Post 78

Hi Supercat,

I agree with you on both counts:

a) Natural variation is an observed fact - and accounts for inter-species/kind changes. Usually these result in reduced genetic information. An example of which is that all dogs are descended from one type of dog (possibly a wolf, or wolf-like ancestor), yet we have bred distinct looking critters ranging from Chihuahuas to St. Bernards. My only issue is to use the term, 'evolution', for these type of changes/adaptations - because that word has 'evolved' into a defacto definition relating to intra-kind leaps (e.g., dogs descending from a lizard).

2) And I also agree that 'macro-evolution' is an interesting hypothesis/story. Just like I find a lot of similar myths interesting, and thought provoking.