[ohioWfan]

Good question. For me, the answer is easy.

Present all the information as theory, and not fact. Present supposition on the part of scientists as supposition, and not as hard and fast law.

In a word........tell the truth.

Don't say that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River over millions of years, as if there's no other opinion. Say that "most scientists think" that the Colorado River created the Grand Canyon. Don't present the evolution of man from ape as reality, but say "most scientists think" that man descended from animals.

That way, in a few years when the evolutionary 'facts' once again are refuted, as they have been repeatedly in the past, then you don't have to spend taxpayer's money, and buy all new signs for the exhibit. :)

Fair enough?

[JeffAtlanta]

Present all the information as theory, and not fact. Present supposition on the part of scientists as supposition, and not as hard and fast law.,

This statement displays a basic misunderstanding of the scientific meanings of the words "theory", "fact", and "law". Scientific theories do not graduate to become facts or laws - they are different totally different things. To that point, evolution is both a scientific fact and scientific theory.

The problem stems from the basic misunderstanding that layman have about the scientific method. From these threads, it appears that the anti-evolutionists think that scientists just guess at things and offer up opinions.

[Dimensio]

Don't say that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado River over millions of years, as if there's no other opinion. Say that "most scientists think" that the Colorado River created the Grand Canyon. Don't present the evolution of man from ape as reality, but say "most scientists think" that man descended from animals.

Great idea! And when we speak of gravitational attraction, we don't say that objects with mass attract one another in relation to their mass and relative distances, we preface that with "most scientists think". And we make sure to add the disclaimer "most scientists think" when speaking of a heliocentric solar system.

[RunningWolf]

Don't present the evolution of man from ape as reality, but say "most scientists think" that man descended from animals.

I believe that at some core level they don't trust it either, therefore the concept is always repulsed, even by them.

They talk about 'most scientists', but have you ever seen the words of a 'scientist' saying 'I descended from a line of apes'?

Wolf

[From many - one.]

Well, as you must have noticed by the other responses to your post on this, science oriented folk already know that every smidgen of every bit of every science is tentative.

The problem I see is that we are not anywhere nearly as aware as we should be that, since "scientists say" is considered to be a highly authoritative statement, we're asking the public to let us have it both ways without
explaining why we should.

Generally it works out ok, but, in the case of evolution, with many opposed on religious grounds, everything seems both more tentative and more dogmatic than it really is.

Since, in practice, we cannot put disclaimers on everything, and putting disclaimers on only some things makes them seem more tentative than they really are, perhaps you could suggest another alternative. My own first thought would be a public education program of some sort teaching how science really works, but that sounds expensive.

Another idea, closer to your suggestion, would be a flyer handed out when people enter a museum; the downside there being only fairly science oriented folk tend to go to science museums in the first place.

Are you game to comment on my comments on your comments on my comments? :-)