Evolution: Theory or Fact. or Are there signs of intelligent design in Pennsylvania

[Pure]

A challenge for the bored, see below

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:27 p.m. ET Jan. 13, 2005

Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers:
Disclaimer questioning theory ruled unconstitutional

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6822028/


ATLANTA - A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution “a theory, not a fact,” saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.


“By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,” U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.

The stickers were put inside the books’ front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They 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.”

{{Challenge: Write a similar sticker to be applied to the Bible, when it's used in high schools. }}

“This is a great day for Cobb County students,” said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. “They’re going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma.”

In a statement, the school board said it was disappointed by the ruling and will decide whether to appeal. A board spokesman said no decision had been made on when, or if, the stickers would be removed.

“The textbook stickers are a reasonable and evenhanded guide to science instruction and encouraging students to be critical thinkers,” the board said.

2,000 complaints from parents
The stickers were added after more than 2,000 parents complained that the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life, such as the biblical story of creation.

Six parents and the American Civil Liberties Union then sued, contending the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state and unfairly singled out evolution from thousands of other scientific theories as suspect.

At a trial in federal court in November, the school system defended the stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism.

“Science and religion are related and they’re not mutually exclusive,” school district attorney Linwood Gunn said. “This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science.”

But the judge disagreed: “While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community.”

Battles around the country
The case is one of several battles waged around the country in recent years over what role evolution should play in the teaching of science.

Last year, Georgia’s education chief proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word “evolution” in favor of “changes over time.” The idea was dropped amid protests from teachers.

A school district in Dover, Pa., has been locked in a dispute over a requirement that science students be told about “intelligent design” — the concept that the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power.

====
Teachers, students can opt out of ‘intelligent design’

The Associated Press
Updated: 10:56 p.m. ET Jan. 7, 2005

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A school district that required science teachers to read a statement about alternatives to the theory of evolution decided Friday that teachers can choose not to read it, but their classes will still hear it.

Under the Dover Area School District’s temporary exemption, administrators will read the statement when science teachers object to doing so. Students can be excused from having to listen if their parents object, according to a letter posted on the school district’s Web site.

The district is believed to be the only one in the nation that required science teachers to mention “intelligent design” — a concept that holds the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power.The curriculum language originally approved by the school board in October said biology students must be “made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and other theories of evolution, including but not limited to intelligent design.”

In November, however, the board said teachers would read a statement on intelligent design. Seven teachers had protested the required reading, saying it would violate the state’s professional code for teachers.

Teachers' union satisfied
Tom Scott, an attorney representing the Pennsylvania State Education Association, said the teachers’ union was satisfied with the decision. He said teachers had objected because intelligent design “is not science.”“Unfortunately, the school board and the superintendent can put anything they want to in front of the students, but we are not going to be their messenger,” Scott said.

School officials declined to comment, citing a pending federal lawsuit filed by eight families over the science curriculum.“The Dover faculty have no right to opt out of a legal directive,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which is defending the school district. “Having said that, because there is pending litigation ... we are going to accommodate their request.”

Leaving class?
Only one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Tammy Kitzmiller, is the parent of a ninth-grade student who would be affected by the policy. Kitzmiller did not return a call seeking comment Friday, but in a deposition for the lawsuit, she said she didn’t want her daughter to have to leave class.“She shouldn’t need to be singled out of the classroom,” Kitzmiller said.

Civil-liberties groups allege intelligent design is merely a secular variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life. They maintain the Dover district’s curriculum mandate violates the constitutional separation of church and state

 

[shereads]

I'm unconvinced that the Theory of Gravity is the best explanation for why things fall down. I'd like to see some alternative theories.

 

[Pure]

Aristotle said things have a yearning to be in their proper place. For heavy objects, that's 'low' down.

Also, without appearing personal, some things fall down because they're drunk.

 

[thebullet]

As a Pennsylvanian who used to live abut 15 miles from Dover, this story makes me very proud.

Intelligent Design is merely recycled creationism.

We are living in a nation where the ruling faction (the far-right religious fanatics) are proud of their ignorance, pleased to follow blindly the teaching of know-nothing preachers.

Unless those of us who are left standing actually fight for our children and their future, this country is destined to become a third-world Christian version of Iran: a theocracy where ignorance is bliss.

Our children are already being dumbed down. This helps them blindly accept consumerism. We must not look too closely at this society that is being forced down our throats. We must not think.

Intellectuals are traitorous bleeding heart liberals.

America. What a country!

 

[Pure]

But you ignore the concession that the science-y types can step out of the classroom, if they bring a note from their godless parents. Who says the 'right' are not tolerant?

 

[cloudy]

I'm unconvinced that the Theory of Gravity is the best explanation for why things fall down. I'd like to see some alternative theories.

It's not gravity, the earth just sucks, that's all.

 

[thebullet]

Pure asked
Who says the right is not tolerant?

Oh, sure, tolerance has been inherent in right wing thinking going way back ---- NOT!.

If the right has learned anything, (and they've learned a lot about how to gather and preserve power), it is to take what you can get now and just keep applying the pressure, because you are sure to get the rest of what you want eventually.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Intelligent design isn't science. Nor is creationism. Neither conform to the basic tennets of science, neither are testable and thus neither are disprovable. Teah em in theology or philospophy class if you must, but they have no bearing on science.

Evolution is a theory. It seems the vast majority of those pressing for stickers, alternate lectures, etc. fail to grasp what the word theory means. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested to the point where it is seen as a viable answer. When new data comes out, the theory must explain it or must be adapted to explain it.

Saying it's not a proven theory is tantamount to showing your ignorance. A proven theory becomes a law, in as much as any theory can be proven.

Creation scientists are the worst kind of Con men. Intelligent design is the worst kind of con. They are both Hitleresque attempts to infiltate the sceintific system and destroy it from within. It is my feverent hope that when these people die, the God they come face to face with takes as dim a view of their deceptions as he does of the murders that come before him.

 

[CharleyH]

Intelligent design isn't science. Nor is creationism. Neither conform to the basic tennets of science, neither are testable and thus neither are disprovable. Teah em in theology or philospophy class if you must, but they have no bearing on science.

Evolution is a theory. It seems the vast majority of those pressing for stickers, alternate lectures, etc. fail to grasp what the word theory means. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested to the point where it is seen as a viable answer. When new data comes out, the theory must explain it or must be adapted to explain it.

Saying it's not a proven theory is tantamount to showing your ignorance. A proven theory becomes a law, in as much as any theory can be proven.

Creation scientists are the worst kind of Con men. Intelligent design is the worst kind of con. They are both Hitleresque attempts to infiltate the sceintific system and destroy it from within. It is my feverent hope that when these people die, the God they come face to face with takes as dim a view of their deceptions as he does of the murders that come before him.

Any theory can be disproved. Ergo Einstein, ergo Hawking. And hence, even principles and laws can be disproven. We are only as smart as the generation we live in. (theory - mine ) The next will prove us all lackies!

 

[Guest]

It's not gravity, the earth just sucks, that's all.

Brilliant post, Cloudy. P.

 

[~photoguy~]

I'm unconvinced that the Theory of Gravity is the best explanation for why things fall down. I'd like to see some alternative theories.

I dont believe its a "Theory" ... its more of a "Law"

 

[Guest]

I dont believe its a "Theory" ... its more of a "Law"

You're right, Bruce. I've always been awed at the idea of the "laws of nature".

I geologist at Caltech once explained the differences to me among idea, theory, concept (in science), but I don't recall them now. Anyone?

Perdita

 

[CharleyH]

You're right, Bruce. I've always been awed at the idea of the "laws of nature".

I geologist at Caltech once explained the differences to me among idea, theory, concept (in science), but I don't recall them now. Anyone?

Perdita

Laws of nature? from which gender do we speak?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You're right, Bruce. I've always been awed at the idea of the "laws of nature".

I geologist at Caltech once explained the differences to me among idea, theory, concept (in science), but I don't recall them now. Anyone?

Perdita

An idea is a first step. Just an educated guess or in some cases, just a wild-assed guess.

A formally presented idea is a hypothesis. It's in a nutshell, a possible explanation.

A hypothesis, that has been rigorusly tested and still stands up, i.e. has not been disproven , becomes a theory.

A theory that stands up to close scruitiny becomes a law.

Note that any of these can move backwards. that is to say, if an observable or testable phenomena comes up that runs counter to even a law, the law becomes theory again and must be adjusted to fi the new details. An exception to this has been in the case of some natural law as it is applied to very small or very large phenomena. For example, gravity as we knw it begins to fail to predict at subatomic or macro galactic levels.

Concept I don't know about. I think it's a collection of theory and law that gives an explanation of a whole class of reactions.

 

[Guest]

Laws of nature? from which gender do we speak?

You're laughing at me, again. It's a metaphorical scientific expression, Ms. Canada. P.

 

[Guest]

Colly, that's it! Thanks, you sexy brain. P.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

A theory is 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.

A theory unto itself can never be proven, only disproven. As Colleen has already pointed out, after hypotheses are tested (and any theory can have an almost infinite number of hypotheses), the overall theory must account for them, expand or be cast aside. You can have multiple theories within the same paradigm (and pretty much always do). If you're interested in the differences, there's a book by Thomas Kuhn called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that isn't a bad read. And while hypothesis testing can never prove a theory true, it only takes one to show it false. Science is a cut-throat business.

In that regards, I don't think Evolutionary theory is any more "scientific" than "intelligent (cough) creationism." Evolution takes place over such a wide stretch of time, and its "success" can't be measured until well into the future, and so many other things change that trying to attribute all success to a particular mutation is almost impossible. But still, I believe Evolution to be correct, as the structure of it makes sense to me. Theological explanations don't make sense to me.

 

[rgraham666]

One thing not mentioned is that a theory has to have problem solving attributes.

The best one I know of is the planet Neptune.

When Uranus was discovered, there were odd perturbations in it's orbit. No one could explain them. It looked bad for Newton's theory.

Until someone got the bright idea that there might be a planet beyond Uranus. He did calculations using Newtonian physics, turned a telescope to the spot his figures told him, and discovered Neptune.

One major weakness in 'intelligent design' is the unspoken assumption that the intelligence must be God. The backers don't mention God per se, because that would make 'intelligent design' part of religion, but it's a given.

However, since the Christian God isn't mentioned, any God can be used. Krishna maybe? Or Amateratsu?

I would love to hear someone bring this up in a debate over whether or not 'intelligent design' should be included in a science classroom.

 

[cloudy]

Brilliant post, Cloudy. P.

I just couldn't resist.

 

[thebullet]

Colly wrote that evolution is a theory, but it is the concept behind all biological research. Evolution is a fact. What is still in the theory stage, as I understand it, is the method through which evolution functions.

Darwin's Theory was not that evolution existed. Rather, his theory concerned the mechanism of how evolution worked, which he termed natural selection.

The mere term 'theory of evolution' has given the right wing religious fanatics the opening they need to offer an alternative theory. Of course, their 'theory' has nothing to do with science and everything to do with their perverted little religion.

Some guy once said "Religion is the opiate of the masses". At least he got that one right.

 

[Penelope Street]

The biggest problem with explaining intelligent design (et.al) is explaining what designed the alleged designer before he/she/it did the aformentioned designing.

 

[Pure]

Evil said,

In that regards, I don't think Evolutionary theory is any more "scientific" than "intelligent (cough) creationism." Evolution takes place over such a wide stretch of time, and its "success" can't be measured until well into the future, and so many other things change that trying to attribute all success to a particular mutation is almost impossible. But still, I believe Evolution to be correct,

I don't think you first statement is defensible. Lots of scientific accounts involve long spans of time, e.g., geology, and astronomy.

Likewise, I'd say an account of the origin of the universe from a 'big bang.' is a theory. It's more scientific than Genesis, since it leads to predictions. (Einstein, I believe, once rejected it, but changed in the face of evidence.) That's a mark of science.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101accel.html

Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant (not to be confused with the Hubble Constant) usually symbolized by the greek letter "lambda"
as a mathematical fix to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract. Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to stop the expansion. Friedmann, a Russian mathematician, realized that this was an unstable fix, like balancing a pencil on its point, and proposed an expanding universe model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological constant term as his "greatest mistake".

Further, by looking a fast breeders like fruit flies, one CAN examine mutation, selection, etc.

It's odd that you say that "Evolution" is correct (not specifying any theory, such as neoDarwinian), having put it on the same footing as Genesis. Genesis too, in your view, is equally 'correct', no?

 

[Evil Alpaca]

Evil said,

In that regards, I don't think Evolutionary theory is any more "scientific" than "intelligent (cough) creationism." Evolution takes place over such a wide stretch of time, and its "success" can't be measured until well into the future, and so many other things change that trying to attribute all success to a particular mutation is almost impossible. But still, I believe Evolution to be correct,

I don't think you first statement is defensible. Lots of scientific accounts involve long spans of time, e.g., geology, and astronomy.

Likewise, I'd say an account of the origin of the universe from a 'big bang.' is a theory. It's more scientific than Genesis, since it leads to predictions. (Einstein, I believe, once rejected it, but changed in the face of evidence. That's a mark of science.

It's odd that you say that "Evolution" is correct (not specifying any theory, such as neoDarwinian), having put it on the same footing as Genesis. Genesis too, in your view, is equally 'correct', no?

Actually, I said that I believe it is correct. I make no claims about what the truth is, as doing so would be arrogant. Big difference. It's just that the theory of evolution makes sense to me, and I'm willing to believe it for that reason. Theological constructs tend to want to attribute some kind of will and order to the universe which I find unneccessary.

Things like geology and astronomy involve aspects of the world that we can actually test and measure. How does one measure evolution? Admittedly, time itself may not have been the best measure as to the worth of a science, but how do you ultimately determine if evolution in any variation was correct? I don't think you can, and the lack of testability.

I'm quite willing to admit when I'm wrong, but I have a fairly high threshold before allowing to acknowledge something as "truth."

 

[thebullet]

Evil said:
In that regards, I don't think Evolutionary theory is any more "scientific" than "intelligent (cough) creationism." Evolution takes place over such a wide stretch of time, and its "success" can't be measured until well into the future, and so many other things change that trying to attribute all success to a particular mutation is almost impossible. But still, I believe Evolution to be correct,

What Evil said is inaccurate. Evil, perhaps your thinking should evolve. While you claim that evolution is not 'scientific', the science of biology revolves around it. Explain that to me if you would.

And evolution does not require a long period of time to occur. A species does not evolve slowly over time. Rather, evolution apparently occurs in fits and starts. A species can go a very long time with little or no change, and then in the apparent wink of an eye can evolve into something entirely new (or fail to evolve and disappear). A changing environment or a move to a different environmental locale can 'motivate' the evolution of a species. However, a rapidly changing environment is more likely to overwhelm most species and drive them into extinction.

Check out the Galapagos Islands to essentially see evolution in action. Because of a lack of predators and an extremely varied environment in a small area, various species have evolved to fill various specific niches. There are, for example, 13 different species of finch, all evolved from a single species.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

For the record, I asked a couple of biology professor friends of mine about this and they're of the opinion that "Biology" doesn't revolve around anything except the basic principle that life is able to be predicted and influenced (and hardly relies on Evolusion being true to assert facts about the mating patterns of sharks, for instance); evolution is a theory, and a good one, that doesn't explain absolutely everything; and science that can't be disproven isn't necessarily bad science (Popperian "science" isn't the end-all-be-all of all scientific theory or practice).

Food for thought.

If we're to talk about these things, we should be aware of all the opinions, no?