Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

New York Times ^ | August 24, 2006 | Cornelia Dean

[balch3]

Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.

The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. “There is no explanation for it being left off the list,” Ms. McLane said. “It has always been an eligible major.”

Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.

If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an eligible field.

“If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process,” he said.

That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of evolution.

One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified as having drawn attention to the matter.

[Elsie]

Workin' in a quote mine can ONLY be done by a Creationist.

Anything similar done by an Evo is known as posting valuable information with references.

(Just ask Itchy)

[Elsie]

The creationists (flame suit on) are just making FR look silly.

Let's get them banned!!

Then the REST of us will appear very wise!!

--EvoDude

[Liberal Classic]

Good post. Sadly, it will go over some people's heads.

In the same vein, here's a quote by famous British Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz (1872-1946):

God the Creator and Lord of the Universe, which is the work of his goodness and wisdom; and Man, made in His image, who is to hallow his week-day labors by the blessedness of Sabbath-rest -- such are the teachings of the Creation chapter. It's purpose is to reveal these teachings to the children of man -- and not to serve as a text book of astronomy, geology, or anthropology. Its object is not to teach scientific facts; but to proclaim highest religious truths respecting God, Man, and the Universe. The "conflict" between the fundamental realities of Religion and the established facts of Science, is seen to be unreal as the soon as Religion and Science each recognizes the true border of its domain.

[Elsie]

You can't pray a guy into ignorance.

However..

---

NIV 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
9. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
10. and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
11. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
12. and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

[freedumb2003]

I will help you out here.

When you post scripture on a Crevo thread as an argument, you lose the thread.

[freedumb2003]

But the converse, isn't.

Scripture isn't science. It isn't even argumentation.

It is just belief.

[freedumb2003]

Good post. Sadly, it will go over some people's heads.

Thanks. Clearly, it did.

Don't you know that if you can't quote scripture you can't be a good Christian (or Jew I guess)?

[Zeroisanumber]

Personally I am opposed to such federal grants to begin with, regardless of the subject matter, but if we're going to have them it's rather dense to exclude major branches of research.

I disagree, one of the few federal subsidies that I approve of is for science. Keeping our technology edge is an investment that's well worth making.

[Antonello]

Doesn't look like anything to get worked up about, being that no one really knows how this happened yet. Could just be a clerical error.

No pun intended?

[Dimensio]

Gravity is NOT a Theory...Gravity is a scientific law.

Please state the difference between "theory" and "law" as the two relate to science.

[freedumb2003]

Can't wait for the answer...

[Quark2005]

No pun intended?

No, actually (maybe a Freudian slip??)

[Quark2005]

An update on the story.

I'm standing (for now) by the opinion that it was an inadvertant omission (this sort of snafu happens sometimes).

[ml1954]

Also interesting that this was publicized through a leak once again.

Leak? You must have an interesting definition of 'leak' in this context. Was this a covert operation? Was it supposed to be protected from public disclosure because national security would be compromised? Is this something that the public should not he informed about because there might be a nationwide panic resulting in chaos?

[Dimensio]

In conclusion, the distinction is in the complexity of the idea, and certainly not a measure of uncertainty as is sometimes misconstrued by laypeople.

I do not believe that complexity is a defining trait. Rather, it is the type of statement. Laws can be described as definitions, while theories are explanation. As an example, the "law of gravity" defined the force known as gravity according to a mathematical equation. The "theory of gravity" -- more commonly known as "relativity theory" -- attempts to explain the cause of the force known as gravity.

[Virginia-American]

When you post scripture on a Crevo thread as an argument, you lose the thread.

I propose calling this "Godloses' Law"

[Doctor Stochastic]

Sixteen Pages of Number Nine Quotes

[Coyoteman]

You are discussing definitions for law, theory, etc.

Here are some definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread) I put together to help out:

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.

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.

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 8/21/06]