Posted on 12/19/2006 2:19:29 PM PST by Sopater
ATLANTA — A suburban school board that put stickers in high school science books saying evolution is "a theory, not a fact" abandoned its legal battle to keep them Tuesday after four years.
The Cobb County board agreed in federal court never to use a similar sticker or to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.
In return, the parents who sued over the stickers agreed to drop all legal action.
"We certainly think that it's a win not just for our clients but for all students in Cobb County and, really, all residents of Georgia," said Beth Littrell of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.
The school board placed the stickers inside the front cover of biology books in 2002 after a group of parents complained that evolution was being taught to the exclusion of other theories, including a literal reading of the biblical story of creation.
The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
A federal judge ordered the stickers removed in 2005, saying they amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. The school board appealed, but a federal appeals court sent the case back, saying it did not have enough information.
"We faced the distraction and expense of starting all over with more legal actions and another trial," said board chairwoman Teresa Plenge. "With this agreement, it is done and we now have a clean slate for the new year."
School board attorney Linwood Gunn said the agreement is not an admission that the stickers were unconstitutional. "The school board attempted to reach what they thought was a reasonable compromise," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I see. You can jump in late in a thread, refuse to read any more recent relevant posts, and just blast away. I'm a statist because you read post 5.
Tell ya what. I'll read early posts that you make on threads and ignore the latter ones because you're too damned lazy to actually read before posting.
Indeed it is good news. I live in Cobb County and have a child who will be entering the schools in a few years. It's nice to know that they will be teaching science, undiluted.
That's a good question. Since the "warning label" made a specific distinction between "theory" and "fact" or an "established fact," we can assume that at least the school board does not consider a "theory" to be an "established fact." I was taught (in science classes) that one can test a theory through various means, such as lab experiments, and they would either confirm the theory, or show it to be inadequate. Most theories have gone through some form of revision as experiments have proven or disproven the validity of the theory. Darwin's theory defies confirmation through experimentation. One can show from experiements with fruit flies that genetic changes take place, and that some changes or adaptations are harmful or beneficial, and to some extent the concept of "natural selection" has been established, but no amount of fruit fly experiments in a lab has ever produced something that wasn't a fruit fly -- the rise of a new specie, as Darwinist theory maintains. At best, the Darwinist explanation (or the neo-Darwinist explanation) of the rise and diversity of species, specifically the rise of higher forms from lower or simplier forms, is just that -- an explanation, and a spectulative one at that -- and not a demonstrated fact. Hence, the school board's sticker seems quite appropriate. But the ACLU, certain parents who seem to have a slavish devotion to naturalistic materialism, and pretty much all scientists who derive their incomes and professional prestige from Darwin's theory, believe, and (here's the kicker) would require us all to believe under the authority of a federal court order that Darwin's speculative explanation is an established fact.
Or, more accurately, "The Tried to Teach My Baby a 19th Century Mystery Religion Mascarading as Science."
The taxpayer can fund legal defense forever, and we routinely do in MANY cases.
The fact is that this lawsuit was going to be a loser for them under current constitutional law, and it wasn't a particularly good fact scenario to attempt to overturn constitutional law.
They did give taxpayers a break by not continuing to fight it further, but it's wrong to characterize as it a case where they ran out of money. They didn't.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.That's actually the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of a theory.
Many people refer to the "Theory of Evolution," in the common sense of "theory," as an unproven idea. Scientists, however, have a more restricted concept in mind when they use this term -- a theory is a well-tested idea, one that has been confirmed by a number of experiments or investigations. Thus the concept that most of us think of as the "Law of Gravity" is more technically known as the "Theory of Gravitation"; similarly, we could talk colloquially of the "Law of Evolution."The ToE is far from being "Law".
Science always wins over superstition when it's a fair fight. That's good news!!!
In scientific terms, a "theory" is a model or a description or explanation.
It doesn't presume to be a fact, and it's constantly open to revision based on new actual facts.
Using the layman's interpretation of "theory" to be the equivalent of "possible guess" is a semantic way of dissing the scientific process and what all scientific theories are.
Scientists would readily agree that a scientific theory is not a fact. Fact support theories, but they're two different concepts.
The sticker was a simplistic attempt to place scientific theory below actual fact, and that was dishonest. Facts lead to theories, not the other way around.
It really doesn't matter whether you can replicate evolution in a jar of fruit flies in two weeks. To argue against evolution using science as an argument is to be engaged full-time in rationalizing against the countless specimens in the fossil record, which generally involves believing all species on earth fit into an ark with one 18 inch window for ventilation.
It really comes down to a decision of whether you want to believe what you want to believe, or do you look at the facts and reach a conclusion based on them. I'd say that if you're spending your time trying to discount evidence, then you're headed toward believing what you want to believe.
How the hell is that an endorsement of Religion? Evolution is a theory, and there are other theories besides, Evolution and God. That above statement says nothing about religion or that life could change because an asteroid hits the earth, ask the dinos.
This statement is dishonest from start to finish.
1) It is promoted not to help kids understand science, but to undermine their trust in science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, thereby (it was hoped) promoting alternate ideas (read religion).
2) It is directed only at the theory of evolution, not at all scientific theories. Now, who is it that singles out evolution for special treatment (read religion).
3) They ask for "critical consideration," as if that's the fair thing to do. Teach the controversy! First, in evolutionary sciences, there is no controversy. Secondly, a test of the "fairness" of this sticker is whether a similar sticker should be placed on all science books, and whether a similar sticker should be placed on the bible. I mean, talking snakes? Perhaps talking snakes should be "critically considered" as well.
If you don't think what I am saying is accurate, how about an example.
jbwbubba was sober today.Perfectly true (I presume), but the implications are totally dishonest. So it is with this sticker. Good riddance.
Somehow the ACLU using the power of the judiciary to force on an unwilling public what they cannot gain any other way cannot be called a *fair fight*. It isn't *science* that's winning here; it's the American hating commie legal eagles who are winning and the battle their fighting is any hint of Christian values, morals, and beliefs in American public life. Leave the ACLU and judges out of it and then see what happens.
If it was in a science class, the grade should depend on whether the term paper was based on established science or reams of oft-rebutted and anti-science propaganda quote-mined from creationists websites.
Whatever you teach them that it is... Perhaps a "unifying concept", or a "Law". Many people refer to the "Theory of Evolution," in the common sense of "theory," as an unproven idea. Scientists, however, have a more restricted concept in mind when they use this term -- a theory is a well-tested idea, one that has been confirmed by a number of experiments or investigations...
The ToE is far from being "Law".
This might be a good place to post my list of definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
Scientifically, I am aware that there is more than ample evidence to prove evolution is a fact in the developments within a species, but I've seen no solid evidence to indicate it is anything more than a theory insofar as the occurrence of developments between species
Because that statement in the sticker is so off base, not just about evolution, but in terms of basic science. It's really, really messed up. First, there is no understanding what is meant by theory and what is meant by fact, and the heirarchial relationship between the two in the realm of science.
And to consider scientific subject critically, one must be well versed in the field. There are controversies in Evolution, just like ALL scientific theories, but those are at the forefront of research in those areas and are wauy above the heads of high school students and most high school teachers. And what creationists consider 'controversies' are largely gross misrepresentations of science or are outright lies. And there have been examples of new species evolving and were in PH's list o links and posted several times on other threads.
So you are basically anti-science? That's what that sticker infers based on your interpretation. And you are right. Theories in science can never, ever be proven. There isn't a single theory in any field of science that has been proven true. If you knew why, then you would show an understanding of science and the role of theories therein. As science advances , theories also evolve and adapt. That's what I like about science - as we learn more, our understanding advances. It is a very common misconception that answers from science are an absolute, unchanging truth. That being said, the only thing science can do is disprove. Thus far, evolution has not been scientifically falsified.
Science rests on an 'a priori' assumption of naturalism and is deliberately limited as a worldview. As such, it is an inferior position for judging reality as it considers only one possibility (that of naturalism).
It is unfortunate to see parents so uninformed about what science is and what it isn't that they automatically assume the 'scientific' perspective is superior when it is in fact, the inferior position.
This lack of critical-thinking skills is one of the unavoidable consequences of limiting acceptable worldviews to 'naturalist only'.
You are right, science is limited to that which can be observed.
On the other hand, we have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena.
Thanks, I'll stick with science. It doesn't seem that inferior a method for judging reality when one considers the alternatives.
Science does not disprove anything. Nor does it prove anything. It simply collects data and tries to determine if the data supports a theory or not. But this is inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning is not a proof.
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.