| Fla. educators to teach evolution as theory, not settled fact – On Deadline – USATODAY.com — Here we go again. From here it will trend towards alternative theories, then creation science, then the Bible as sole arbiter. |
Students in Florida must be taught that evolution is a theory and not a settled fact, according to standards that the State Board of Education just approved in Tallahasee.
“A panel of 68 experts, heavy with science teachers and scientists, drew up detailed, age-specific standards that described evolution as the basic ‘concept underlying all of biology.’ The standards said evolution was supported by ‘multiple forms of scientific evidence,'” The News-Press, a fellow Gannett paper, says. “In a series of public hearings, several conservative religious leaders and parents objected to evolution being ‘the’ accepted standard. The compromise language approved today cites ‘the scientific theory of evolution,’ making it officially a theory rather than a settled fact.”
I can see why people would be concerned about this, but I think this is a moot point.
Evolution is a theory, they are agreeing to call it what it is.
I strongly believe in Evolution, and I was always taught that it was a theory, because it is.
Evolution has never been a fact, there is, as far as I know, no way to prove it at the moment. This is due to the extent of time it takes to observe it.
I’m not a supporter of kreationism but evolution is a theory that has been supported so far by imperical evidence. This does not make it fact but good science fodder. 🙂
And religion is an Occult, not a Cult. That is the less tasty ones.
Well of course Evolution or as it should be called, “Origin of species through natural selection”, is a theory. A Theory backed up by a century of research and evidence.
Unlike “Creationism”, which is a hypothesis unsupported by any validated research or evidence.
I would love to see a scientific experiment carried out by creationists. What would they do – put some chemicals in a test tube and pray of the right result?
They really need to look up what the word Theory means.
I don’t understand why this is an issue or a story. It’s a theory. Get over it. People who proclaim that evolution shouldn’t be called a theory are just stupid.
What’s next, they will try to ban dinosaurs cause quite a few religious people over the years keep claiming dinosaurs never existed either.
#1 Said:
“Evolution has never been a fact, there is, as far as I know, no way to prove it at the moment. This is due to the extent of time it takes to observe it.”
Not so! Evolution is a fact that has been demonstrated many times.
“It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.”
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
What many people, even here, confuse is the difference between scientific theory and the colloquial common use of the word. A scientific theory requires proof, be testable, and reproducible. The plebeian definition means it only is an idea and does not need proof.
Well its every bit a theory and NOT a fact just as is the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of the round Earth.
C’mon–give the devil his due.
#1
#6 beat me to it. That species evolve is an observable fact. The “theory of evolution” is merely a scientific explanation that predicts how that fact occurs.
#8 Riddle me this…We have the Law of Gravity (Also known as the Theory of Gravity), and Laws of Physics. But we have the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of…this is not brandying semantics, but established Science.
(This is not to speak on the validity of Evolution one way or the other.)
There is both ignorant & intentional misinterpretation of the meaning of the word theory by many of the vocal creationists.
Yes- one meaning of theory is “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”
(wordnet.princeton.edu)
but the precise definition as applied in the context of evolution science is, “A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a ‘theory’ in science is called a hypothesis.” (whatislife.com)
I have no idea which is correct. What I find interesting is how the scientists believe in their view as strongly as the religious people and neither side has any proof to support their position.
Religious
In the beginning there was an ultimate being. Which created everything.
Science
In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded.
For all intents and purposes, a scientific “theory” is an established fact.
Anyone who does not understand that fails remedial science, and should not be allowed to graduate.
Which theory of evolution are they talking about?
Are they including punctuated equilibrium? Maybe steady-state evolution? Other variations?
Thinker- Interesting question…
The difference is that the law of gravity can be completely stated (mathematically, in it’s case) while the theory of evolution can continue to be refined by further research and experimentation.
In the first case, we may make further discoveries about gravitation, but the law will not change even thru refinement. In the latter case, our understanding of evolutionary details will continue to see refinement, but the fact of evolution will not be overturned.
#12 – of course you have no idea. You could correct your ignorance by following up on any of the suggestions made by folks, here. Instead, you larrup along within the confines of the arrogance of ignorance so proudly hailed by fools.
Get up on your hind legs, dude – and use this tool called the Interwebitubes for something more useful than MySpace.
Wander through http://www.edge.org some time. You can look up the big words.
hey, at least now they can use the word evolution. Before they had to couch it in terms like “change over time”. Looks like progress to me. Maybe they’re evolving up outta their swamps afterall
Be careful JCD: That kind of headline may surpass anything anti-Apple or sex-related to get your hitcounts up.
I think you’re right on: This is always how it starts.
#10–Thinker==thank you. I did not have a “ready” answer so I had to google. Turns out to be “history” as explained here:
hypothesis, law, theory:
http://tinyurl.com/239m5z
Keep those riddles coming.
It IS progress.
Believe me, this was a big defeat for the creationists.
I don’t understand why it isn’t the case that evolution is taught in biology class and creationism is created in Sunday school. If you don’t want to hear about evolution, then don’t sign up for biology. If you don’t want to learn about creationism, then don’t go to church. All those people complaining one way or the other aren’t going to the right place to learn.
jbenson2, you’ve got a good point there.
The Evolutionists are usually comming from a Materialist viewpoint, and is Empirical, denying the *involvement* of supernatural influence and involvment.
The Creationists (including Theistic Evolutionists) are not Materialists, and while not denying science per say, (Chemistry, Physics, Biology) see the hand of the supernatural, of God, in the world and universe around us.
They both would agree on the forces holding things together, but differ on how things got there. 🙂
So in the end, the two are somewhat non-sequitors. Like comparing apples and oranges in many ways.
#12–jbenson==what a trip:
Religious
In the beginning there was an ultimate being. Which created everything. ///// And science proves that then he waited 14 Billion years to create man in his own image and call that instantaneous.
Science
In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded. //// I think science does have pretty good data on what happened from nanoseconds after the universe began expanding–but that instant of creation AND what existed before that is the subject of conjecture or hypothesis.
Sad when you can only win an argument by misstating the other side’s pretty clear position and your own position makes no sense at all and is proven wrong every time an objective statement is made?///?? – – -Yes, indeed it is.
#7 – You’re absolutely correct of course, but you’re missing John’s real point in starting this thread. He had a nasty picture he wanted to use for something. 😉
#24–Well, that one in the middle sure is one ugly flat chested pregnant babe. Nasty indeed, but still wacky.
*sigh*
Evolution = fact. Biological constructs continually evolve.
Gravity = fact. We don’t fall of the Earth.
Law of Evolution = a hideously complex biochemical model describing mutation, regressive genes and all that.
Law of Gravity = a mathematical model of gravitational force, as in ye olde F=G*m1*m2/(r^2)
Theory of Evolution = explanation of the fact, usually in the simplified version we know as “natural selection.”
Theory of Gravity = explanation of the fact, which in the case of gravity is a big unknown at this point. Suggestions vary from strings to warped space-time to who-knows-what
Even if they only want to teach the “Theory of Evolution”, they still have to accept the fact that it explains.
*sigh*
Evolution = fact. Biological constructs continually evolve.
Gravity = fact. We don’t fall of the Earth.
Law of Evolution = a hideously complex biochemical model describing mutation, regressive genes and all that.
Law of Gravity = a mathematical model of gravitational force, as in ye olde F=G*m1*m2/(r^2)
Theory of Evolution = explanation of the fact, usually in the simplified version we know as “natural selection.”
Theory of Gravity = explanation of the fact, which in the case of gravity is a big unknown at this point. Suggestions vary from strings to warped space-time to who-knows-what
Even if they only want to teach the “Theory of Evolution”, they still have to accept the fact that it explains.
several conservative religious leaders and parents objected to evolution being ‘the’ accepted standard.
Well, there you go. These people are qualified to comment on and have influence over the FL science curriculum how, exactly? Obviously they know nothing about science, but they are scared.
Oh, and someone pointed out the laws of gravity and physics, and the theory of evolution. Throw a baseball and you can prove the first two. The latter is a little harder to demonstrate as proven. The NOVA (PBS) show on this subject is the slam-dunk for anyone interested, it blows the standard religious arguments out of the water, but they won’t ever stop arguing the same points anyway. I’ve lost the link to that show, darnit.
I don’t believe they are talking about evolution as a whole, but about the beginnings of man. Stating that both “created” and “evolved” are BOTH theories.
Something can be called a “scientific fact” even if it’s been though the scientific method can still not be considered an actual fact; whatever that really is since a “fact” is still subject to whatever evidence there may be (if any). It’s not really about the definition of what evolution is but what people define what a “fact” is.
All hypothesis are subject to be proven or disproven, even something that’s commonly seen as a fact is still open to disproval.
We interrupt this thread for this report…
Bible scholars have just discovered and carefully translated the very earliest tablets containing the creation story from the book of Genesis. These tablets are older than any previously known text and appear to be the actual first draft. Subsequent versions of the early Hebrew have always been translated as “In the beginning…” The most literal translation of this original draft turns out to be “Once upon a time” instead.
You’re now free to watch sports on Sunday morning.