"That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.
Not the "LAW" of evolution."
Agreed.
Teach it as a theory, and don't incorporate it as a law, like Webster's seems to, and like so many of our HS graduates believe.
"and like so many of our HS graduates believe."
So many HS students belive all sorts of things, and it's not the fault of the subject being taught- it's the fault of either the teachers or the students.
When I learned about evolution, I understood it's a theory.
Anybody with half a brain should know that when things that can't be replicated firsthand - say, evolution or the formation of the planets and solar systems - that they are the prevailing theories based on our knowledge of the universe, the laws of physics, and the things we have been able to observe from collected evidence.
And I've never heard to evolution advanced as anything other than the "theory of evolution".
Not the "LAW" of evolution."
Agreed.
Teach it as a theory, and don't incorporate it as a law, like Webster's seems to, and like so many of our HS graduates believe.
Do you know what a scientific theory is? Laws are Theories, and Laws that have been disproven are taught in HS science classes. And no theory in any science has ever been proven. Netwons laws of motion are a perfect example. They have been disproven, yet they are still taught. Since you claim to be learned in science, can you tell me why?