Posted on 11/08/2004 6:32:21 PM PST by Still Thinking
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A warning sticker in suburban Atlanta science textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact" was challenged in court Monday as an unlawful promotion of religion.
The disclaimer was adopted by Cobb County school officials in 2002 after hundreds of parents signed a petition criticizing the textbooks for treating evolution as fact without discussing alternate theories, including creationism.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Not exactly. You're saying that a theory is the end of the scientific method. That's not correct. The scientific method is a cycle where you propose a theory, conduct experiments to prove that theory, observe the results, and base a conclusion on those results, often leading to a new theory. A problem is that we're not really even sure where life came from. So, it's hard to determine if all life comes from a common origination, especially with the fact of extinction.
Another way of saying it: Evolution is a fact and a theory.
As has been said before, micro-evolution has been observed, and is accepted by most as a fact. But macro-evolution has never been observed, and can not be tested, at least not at this point.
Let's face it. Although science is supposed to be completely open-minded, open to new ideas, but most lay people get upset when something opposes their view of the world. Somewhere around here, I've got a physics text that assures me that it's impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light, and that electrons are absolutely the smallest particle in existance. At the time, that was the best theory, and assumed to be correct. But it wasn't.
I think suing a school district calling a theory a "theory" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and I was partially educated by the Kansas City, MO school district.
Mark
I don't remember evolution being taught at any time while I was in junior high and high school (80-86). I had biology and chemistry in high school, but it was all the basics. There was never any talk about evolution. The only thing I remember hearing about evolution is my biology teacher saying that she believed it.
Further, what good is evolution to a high school student? What are they going to do with it? It sure comes in handy when designing web pages, or space shuttles. /sarcasm
I think it's clearly a case of indoctrinating kids to the idea that there is no reason for their existence, that they can do whatever feels good, and there is no absolute authority.
Are you sure about that? I've long thought that the theory of evolution, and the discrepancies between micro and macro-evolution are something like Newtonian physics and Quantum physics, where both are totally seperate and foreign to each other, yet each explains what happens in "its own universe." And there needs to be another, underlying theory to unite them.
Mark
Nice attempt to spin it. But the text itself undoubtedly calls evolution a theory. So what's the purpose of the label? Don't be coy. We both know that the sponsors of the label, being unable to get their "creation science" into the schools, want to brand the text as bogus. That's what the suit is all about. Everyone knows it.
To me, it seems more like a bunch of people who are looking for a reason to get their panties in a wad.
Mark
Ask your father, the physicist, if theories are ever proven. All a theory can do is survive tests. Period. Or if it flunks, it's disproven. But a theory is never absolutely proven. Evolution is always taught as a theory. A theory that explains the observed fact of evolution.
It requires no subtlty. The label is a frontal assault on a science text, by people who want "creation science" in the schools. I know you understand this.
What I'm saying is that I'm willing to take (macro) evolution theory on faith, since that seems to be the best that we've got, even though there's a lot that can't be explained. But that I would not be suprised if or when a new theory comes about to clear up the loose ends.
Mark
Another point, facts are input to theories. Theories don't grow up to be facts. A law is a statement of some regularity of observation. It can be wrong, but if it states a regularity then it's a law.
The people who write idiotic disclaimers like the one in Georgia promote confusion over the relationship of hypothesis, fact, and law in science.
As has been said before, micro-evolution has been observed, and is accepted by most as a fact. But macro-evolution has never been observed, and can not be tested, at least not at this point.
Let's face it.
OK, let's do face it. Everything you've said so far is wrong. Utterly, laughably wrong.
Creationists only accepted microevolution when it became obvious that it was being observed every time a disease mutated. There is a vast library of evidence for microevolution. Here's a high-level summary of the multiple independent lines of evidence. It's very high level, but even such an overview is a long read. The typical mantra-chanting luddite on these crevo threads reacts to it by saying he doesn't have time to read all that and then goes back to saying that there is no evidence for macroevolution.
Well, I had a biology teacher in 9th grade who flat out said that evolution was a proven fact. That we had, in fact, evolved from apes.
Although the text book used the term "theory of evolution," the gist was that it wasn't a theory.
Mark
Macro- is lots of micro-. There is one mechanism, the mechanism of micro-. You're just chanting mantras here. Are you thumbing prayer beads as well?
He wasn't wrong. It is a fact that evolution has happened. There is a theory of evolution to explain the fact.
Evolution is a fact and a theory. (Laurence Moran version.)
Evolution as Fact and Theory. (Stephen Jay Gould version.)
so what did Dennis Kucinich evolve from?
"Macroevolution" was meant. That's what the link supports. Macroevolution and the common descent of all life on Earth.
In all likelihood, your teacher was a poorly-educated, unionized government employee, who never had any serious scientific education. She kept a chapter or two ahead of the class, and probably did her best. But she's hardly an authority on much of anything. I repeat: theories aren't proven. But the theory of evolution has an amazing track record of being supported by tons of facts. And there are no facts that contradict it. There is nothing else that explains the data. Except miracle, but (although it's certainly a possibility) it's not a testable, scientific explanation.
Planaria?
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.