Scope's Revenge

[cyd]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/

Federal judge rules that anti-evolution stickers in textbooks violates the Establishment Clause. "The distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolution movement, and that was exactly what parents in Cobb County did in this case," he wrote.

"By adopting this specific language, even if at the direction of counsel, the Cobb County School Board appears to have sided with these religiously motivated individuals."

The sticker, he said, sends "a message that the school board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and creationists."

"The school board has effectively improperly entangled itself with religion by appearing to take a position," Cooper wrote. "Therefore, the sticker must be removed from all of the textbooks into which it has been placed."

[Avhiennda]

Weee!!!

[Pathos]

I just posted this on the Rogues board. It astounds me. I'm an atheist and I don't get it. The sticker reads:

"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."

What's the problem with that? It sounds pretty positive to me. Evolution IS a theory. If anything it just proves to me that we (humanity in general) will NEVER get along. We'll ALWAYS argue about something!!! :roll:

[Eric McTavish]

-x-post-

I read somewhere that the sticker was in conjunction with allowing the "theory" of creation to be taught alongside evolution in the science class. Science already teaches what is and is not a theory why do you need a sticker informing you a science book contains theories???
I see this as a way to attempt the introduction of Creationism when another method failed.

[Neadods]

I don't get it. [snip] What's the problem with that? It sounds pretty positive to me. Evolution IS a theory.

Two things, mainly.

1) Evolution is a fact, as far as science is concerned. You can test hypothesis with it, make predictions, create testing experiments, and watch it in a lab. You can even watch it outside the lab - every animal or plant breeder relies on genetics and evolution to maintain and improve their stock. Doctors and medical companies in particular have had to hustle to stay ahead of the evolutionary curve of microbes, which are self-selecting within three generations (ours, not theirs) to be penicillin resistant.

The only reason it is still called "the theory of evolution" is because in scientific terminology, it cannot be completely absolutely proven. But in these terms, gravity is also a theory, not a fact - however, you don't have people sticking warning notes in textbooks saying that gravity "should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Nor the theory of relativity. Nor the string theory. Nor (etc.)

As the Swarthmore parody sticker said, "The [original sticker] author hopes to confuse you into equating scientific theory with cockamamie theory"

2) Life in general should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. Yet only evolution is singled out by the sticker. The effect is to cast doubt on that section of the textbook. And to what purpose? Specifically to open the door for the competing hypothesis of Creationism aka Intelligent Design - which is not advanced by any biological, paleolontological, etc. scientist. It is advanced only by those who wish to get "equal time" for their "theory" - which is religiously based (violating the Establishment Clause) and which does not allow for hypothesis, predictions, experiments, or testing (violating the scientific method).

This is not scientific endeavor, or even a call for further research, it is indoctrination.

Nea

It plays on the fact that most people in the general populace, including students who haven't really learned true science, use the conventional meaning of the word "theory" as opposed to the scientific meaning.

In science, things go from vague idea, to concrete explanation, to theory (once its been determined that one can make predictions based on that theory and the predictions hold true under testable conditions). Newton's Gravity (the *mutual* attraction of masses) is still a theory in the scientific sense, even as much as he called it a "law" at the time.

However, by playing on that word, it can lead students to misappropriately doubt the validity of Evolution by Natural Selection as an explanation for the origin of the species living today.

That in itself is one of the other creationist tacts -- playing on the phrase "origins of life", which is a subject for cosmology and plantary geologists and chemists (the assemblage of carbon-atoms into self-replicating forms under the right conditions). This matter is irrelevant to Darwin and Evolution (and biology at the high-school level and most collegiate biology degrees -- and even so, there are signs that going from proteins to RNA/DNA went through evolutionary stages, too).

Evolution concerns how the species that currently live on this planet, and those that are now extinct, came into being from prior species through a process of mutation, genetic isolation, punctuated equilibrium (if you accept Gould's hypothesis), and natural selection due to geologic, climate, and astronomical changes in the earth over time.

quotes from pandasthumb.org commentators:

"The problem is that the disclaimer gives the students an excuse to ignore evolution. Given the poor coverage of evolution in Georgia’s biology curricula, they cannot be expected to be knowledgable enough to critically evaluate it. Only an anti-evolutionist would think that high-school education equips someone to critically analyze the unifying concept of modern biology."
...
"Both your question and the textbook sticker are poorly worded in several respects, similar to “are you still beating your wife?”. First, scientific evidence is not the same as mathematical proof. No scientific statement about the actual world can/will ever be on the same level as a proven mathematical tautology. Second, evolution does not regard the ultimate origin of living things — it concerns “origins” only insofar as biological novelties (including new species) have occurred since the origin of life. Third, yes, evolution is a scientific fact. It is both fact and theory. It is as much a fact as the theory that the earth is round, as the theory that electrons are negatively charged, as the theory that fusion of hydrogen -> helium drives solar radiation. All “facts” in science are strictly and formally theories or hypotheses that have been so well corroborated by evidence that scientists now take them as assumptions. This most certainly applies to many aspects of evolutionary theory, such as universal common descent."
...
"Evolution is one of the best, if not the best, examples of how the scientific method works. Darwin, a religious man though that is immaterial here, observed a set of facts….differentiation of similar species in differing locations and different species performing the same functions in different locations. After much work, he developed a theory in which these facts were consistant. This was the basis of his publication on the origin of the species. In my opinion, every single student in the US should get this lesson in elementary school as one can’t understand science unless one understands how theories are developed. There is no better example of this development.

Charles Darwin would hardly recognize evolutionary theory today as the one he originated, but that doesn’t make it wrong, it simply means that as more observations take place, the theory has to grow to accomodate them.

If a scientific theory fails to account for an apparent contradiction, it gets thrown out and a new one is developed. That’s how science works. The theory of relativity was persuasively demonstrated at the end of World War 2, but its successor, quantum mechanical theory, was never really accepted by Einstein. It doesn’t mean that relativity was wrong (E still equals MC^2), but other theories had to develop to account for logical inconsistencies in relativity.

As a previous poster pointed out, mathematical proofs stay proven; they don’t change. Howver theories, even the theory of evolution, evolve and this needs to be part of everyone’s science education."
...
"It is asking them to disregard the version best supported by the scientific evidence long before they have had a chance to see that evidence and make a reasoned judgement on the merits. They won’t see enough of that evidence in HS biology anyway (they are not doing research, nor even how to do research) so the statement should be deferred until it is proper: PhD programs."

[daBaroness]

I dunno, but my thinking has always been that the Biblical story of creation is a theory or parable (because who was actually around at the time to document the authenticity of what was written years later?), whereas evolution is a theory with more than a little scientific evidence that tends to substantiate it.

Now personally, I believe universal principles are universal principals - laws of physics and other scientific laws substantiate and reinforce my personal belief that we are first and foremost spiritual beings having a physical experience and (again for me) spirit equals a type of energy.

So spiritual = science to me.

I know many, many people take the Bible, the Torah and the Q'uran literally. I never have personally and I love the analogy I once heard from a Unity pastor ... that these books, in addition to being great pieces of literature and historical documentation are like roadmaps to life. Just as you would probably consult a map when going on a journey to a new and unknown destination - so people of faith consult these sacred books to help guide them on life's journey. Some choose the superhighway, some the scenic route, and still others make their way along some bumpy roads, detours and dead-ends before they reach their destinations. The choice of which route to take is symbolic of free will.

I kinda like that.

"The choice of which route to take is symbolic of free will. "

The problem is these are the same people who can't rectifiy "free will" with "omnipotent diety". If God knows everything, where is "choice"?

Thus, the Calvinistic attitude of predestination by "God's Will" that the presbyterians and many evangelicals support in their doctrine. They limit their own lives, by their own choice, not realizing that's exactly what they've done since they chose to keep "choice" out of their mindset.

I reject that attitude wholeheartedly, of course.