Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional

An anonymous reader writes "MSNBC reports that a judge in Atlanta, GA has ruled that a sticker placed on all textbooks in Cobb County stating that 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact,' is unconstitutional, and ordered that all stickers be removed."

Comments

Thank God!

[ruhk]

Finally a bit of sense in the courts. :D

Re:Thank God!

[Em Ellel]

mod parent troll

Actually mod it funny due to subject "Thank god!"

-Em

Re:Thank God!

[Narchie Troll]

Evolution is a fact. It's been observed.

There are theories as to its mechanisms. Note I said "theory", not "hypothesis"; in general, a theory is the best you can do when describing a process in science. The common use of 'theory' to mean 'unproven concept' is not the way science uses it.

Re:Thank God!

[Botty]

Evolution is a fact. It's been observed.

You're confusing microevolution with macroevolution. I want to know who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.

Re:Thank God!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not clear to me what the sticker has to do with separation of church and state. The sticker made no reference to any religious beliefs, and only cautioned the reader to take the material with a grain of salt. This is *always* good advice: people should never blindly accept any theory as fact.

Furthermore, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, only the ways in which it has changed since it began. I have never heard a remotely plausible theory regarding the origin of life. People have not yet been able to create anything nearly as complex as a machine which can produce more of itself outside of laboratory conditions, and the idea that such machines just "happened" accidentally is far-fetched at best.

Don't get me wrong here - the notion that some all-seeing, all-knowing invisible superhero created life so that it could be fawned over is even more absurd. But just because we can't figure out how it started doesn't mean we should accept "it just happened by accident". Did VCRs also spontaneously arise out of the primordial soup? A VCR is a far far simpler device than a self-reproducing automaton...

Re:Thank God!

[Narchie Troll]

No, I'm not. I said "evolution." So did the sticker.

In addition, "monkeys turning into humans" is not evolution. For one, the theory is that humans evolved from apes. Apes aren't monkeys.

Second, the single theory that humans evolved from other primates is not the entirety of macroevolution, much less evolution. Throwing away tons of good science because you don't like the implication of a small portion is bad practice. Instead, try to excise that part in a reasonable fashion.

I've never read a biology textbook that didn't mention that the specific evolutionary paths mentioned therein were theoretical and subject to change. In the meantime, it's the job of the textbook authors to teach the prevailing scientific ideas.

By the way, macroevolution (speciation via evolution) has been observed in a number of cases. Those cases don't prove any other cases, but the process does occur.

Re:Thank God!

[Boronx]

If you throw out evolution, you have to throw out one of these ideas: the theory that an organisms devolopment is an expression of its genetic material, the theory that an organism inherits its genetic material, the theory that the genetic material is mutable.

Now, all of these are pretty hard to refute, but if they're all true then evolution has to logically follow.

Re:Thank God!

[Narchie Troll]

First, here and here is your information about macroevolution (a misnomer in itself).

Second, there's no such thing as being "between species". An organism is either in a given species or it isn't -- and the change of one species into another can happen instantly, or it can happen gradually. In any case, a change of species is so minor that it isn't easily observed in the fossil record.

You might want to look up "species". I think you have a misconception about what it means.

Re:Thank God!

[siriuskase]

The problem with the sticker is that it stated that a particular theory was not a fact. If they hadn't mentioned evolution, it wouldn't have been a "religious" issue.

I do think kids should learn the difference between a theory and a fact. It should be a normal part of the curriculum, when the word is first introduced, it should be properly defined with a good explanation of why scientists rely on some theories so much that they seem to be facts.

The word "theory" gets used too much as a synonym for hypothesis, fact, and wild speculation that I'm not surprised people get confused. Considering how much this word is used and misused, a proper lesson can be designed without any religous message that clarifies both religous and nonreligous discussions.

Re:Thank God!

[mike260]

And when my hope is gone and I've been wounded in the battle He is all the strength that I will ever need.

Best of luck with that mate, I'll be the one screaming "medic!" at the top of my lungs. Modern medicine may just be a theory but I reckon it's statistically a better bet than relying on His strength.

Now, who wants to start a campaign to sticker bibles? Kids should be aware that the contents of that book are just a theory, and a pretty poorly supported one at that...

Re:Thank God!

[Surazal]

And you, sir, have demonstrated the healthy way to view this skeptically.

It kind of reminds me of my favorite argument about the "Newton was Wrong" folks: No, he wasn't wrong. His equations were accurate to a certain point. If he had the ability to hurl apples to the ground at velocities comparable to light (and be able to measure the consequences), he would have certainly had the wherewithall to at least state "my basic theory breaks down at absurd velocities for some reason".

Back to the main point: I think it's irresponsible to equate religion and science. The two are literally antitheses of each other. Religion demands adherence without proof. Science demands adherence only with proof.

If things get somewhat heated I am tempted to say "there is no mention in the scriptures stating the Book of Genesis is a scientific paper." I haven't actually done so yet in conversation. I'm still waiting for the opportune moment. :^)

Re:Thank God!

[elmegil]

to impose a new religion on the kids.

Anyone with a clue here at all?

Apparently not you, since you can't distinguish science from religion.

Re:Thank God!

[TWX]

Furthermore, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, only the ways in which it has changed since it began. I have never heard a remotely plausible theory regarding the origin of life. People have not yet been able to create anything nearly as complex as a machine which can produce more of itself outside of laboratory conditions, and the idea that such machines just "happened" accidentally is far-fetched at best.

Scientists have, however, managed to zap at contained vats of chemicals that could be similar to the soup that was Earth's conditions before life and managed to get some very basic 'things' that could be the precursors to life as we know it. Unfortunately, they don't have millennia to continue to monitor and experiment on these vats of organic chemicals to see what actually happens to them.

I think that it's very plausible that amino acids and proteins, combined with a whole slew of other compounds came together and started to have different chemical reactions that built upon themselves leading to "life". Also, small, simple systems are easily mutated chemically at such a stage, so new variants would crop up in the process of dividing or chemically reacting, continuing the diversification. Over time pieces combine or split and grow in complexity, eventually joining into simple multicellular organisms, then further.

Re:Thank God!

[malfunct]

http://dict.die.net/fact/
Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

fact
n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or
events that have occurred; "first you must collect all
the facts of the case"
2: a statement or assertion of verified information about
something that is the case or has happened; "he supported
his argument with an impressive array of facts"
3: an event known to have happened or something known to have
existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of
the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses
are not facts"

I thought a definition would be useful here. The sticker is completely correct in stating that theory is not fact by all of the above definitions. I agree that the reason the sticker is on the books is definitely biased but the message itself is fairly neutral and fully accurate so far as I can tell. If they had stated that the theory of evolution was false or had been proven incorrect then they would be inaccurate and the sticker defintely should be removed. As it stands it is just a statement of common sense that should be practiced by any scientist.

Re:Thank God!

[Ted Williams' Frozen]

The idea that the Earth travels around the Sun is just part of the theory of Planetary Motion. Electrons are just part of Atomic Theory. If they don't exist, your computer doesn't work. Gravity is just a theory.

American Heritage Dictionary

theory n.

1. A set of statements or principals 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.

This is what scientists mean by a theory. Nothing in science is a fact. As more observations are made, theories can change, or new ones are developed.

Evolution Theory is accepted as the best explaination of what has been observed from any number of discipines. The sticker is incorrect in the usage of the word theory and should not be placed in the textbooks.

Should physics textbooks carry a sticker that gravity is just a theory also?

Re:Thank God!

[macdaddy]

Take that probability and then combine it with the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In all that time don't you think it would be possible for the right series of events to happen that would create life? In that time frame the Earth managed to create a working nuclear fission reactor at Oklo. Isn't it just as probable that life could also be created in that same time frame? The weaker life creations die out and the stronger survive, over and over and over and over again until 4.5billion years later we write about it on Slashdot. It's not that unlikely at all IMHO.

Re:Thank God!

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You're obviously not clear on ANY of the definitions, so I will be helpful and provide some, with examples.

Fact: Something that you observe to be true.
fact #1: when you drop a hammer, it falls to the ground
fact #2: a genetic sequence can change sufficiently to form a new species. Speciation has been observed more than once in the laboratory and in the wild, so this is a fact. Since we call this process 'evolution', that means evolution is a fact. Keep reading for more explanation of this.

Theory: An explanation of an observation
Theory #1: The theory of gravity is understood as a curvature in space, which explains why the hammer falls.
Theory #2: The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection explains how a population's genome can change over time.

Law: Not really related to any of the other definitions. It's just a mathematical relationship between two values.
Law #1: If you double the distance from a source of light, the brightness falls off proportionally to the square of the distance.
Law #2: (expressed as a formula) F=ma. Force equals mass times acceleration.

Please note that Evolution is a fact, and the theory is called the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. There are other theories of evolution, which have been disproved. A famous one is the theory of evolution through acquired characteristics, also known as Lamarkian evolution. It posited that species evolve by acquiring and retaining useful characteristics through use. Therefore, a giraffe would have longer necks if the previous generations stretched their necks to reach high leaves. This was the main theory that Darwin and others showed to be false.

Re:Thank God!

[MightyMartian]

How many textbooks on evolution have you actually read?

As to the sticker, it was nothing but a Fundementalist Christian attempt to foist a truly discredited bit of nonsense upon students. It's a victory for reason over religious mumbo-jumbo.

Re:Thank God!

[rainman_bc]

I want to know who on gods green earth OBSERVED monkeys turning into humans.

As opposed the highly probably theory of Noah's ark being beached and somehow the Kangaroos and Koalas all flew to Australia, and only Australia. Get real.

Or the even more likely theory of the tower of Babel where man all spoke the same language until they pissed off god by building an architectural improbability to get to a place where god [today] no longer really is? Yeah that makes way more sense than: man speaks different languages because the world is diverse and others have come up with different means to solve the communication issue.

Yeah, tower of Babel. Right. Good theories you believe in. Next you'll tell us it's an analogy and didn't really happen.

Grab a brain and think for yourself.

Re:Thank God!

[MightyMartian]

> As far as I know, no one has actually observed macroevolution.

Then I'm afraid, to be blunt, that you are essentially ignorant of a vast area of research.

Check out http://talkorigins.org. Let's see how open your mind truly is.

Re:Thank God!

[orangesquid]

Dogma sucks. Always. Regardless of who is eating or regurgitating it.

Going by from what I have found in my own research...

Evolution by itself *is* just a theory (a hypothesis with support). We have observed evolution: that is a fact. We have observed speciation by evolution: that is also a fact. We have oodles of historical information which suggests evolution occured, and which would allow for speciation to have occured: that is a fact, too. There is not an overwhelming amount of historical evidence that speciation by evolution *was* the dominant means for the creation of new species; in other words, there aren't colossal numbers of near-identical fossils with only very tiny intermediate changes. We have very few direct observations of any kind of rapid, sudden, severe evolutionm, which might explain historical speciation. It is quite likely that many, many fossils are lost; only a scant numbers of fossils will stay preserved this long. It is also quite likely that evolution happens much more quickly from severe natural disasters (if we see a few new species with much better adaptation of water from the recent tsunami, I will not be surprised).

Creationism by itself is *just* a hypothesis (a suggestion which would become a theory with adequate support). There is historical evidence of many things in the bible being true; however, that does not imply that the biblical story of creationism carries any weight. If someone could come up with data that would suggest that the immediate results of such a creation process are clearly present within the history of the early universe, creationism could qualify as a theory.

You have to be careful with calling something a "fact." There are very few general facts about evolution. One is, "We have observed evolution and speciation by evolution in controlled environments." Another is, "There is overwhelming historical evidence to suggest evolution and speciation have occured." Theories are never facts (except in pure mathematics), but facts can support theories, and theories can be used to design new experiments which will create more relevant facts.

I do not know, off of the top of my head, if the formal definition of evolution is worded like, "Small changes in organisms lead to adaptation to their environment" (implying always), or, "Small changes in organisms could lead to adaptation in their environment" (implying that this is a possibility, but not a requirement). The first is a theory stated as a law, the second is a theory stated as a possible explanation. I'm assuming that, when most people refer to evolution, they refer to the suggestion that evolution, as an explanation, ought to be taken as a law, based on the Wikipedia entry for Evolution, which states, 'The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.'

Creationism, as stated in the Bible, is very improbable. An all-powerful God could, of course, spontaneously create a Universe, complete with a history of dinosaurs, and complete with planets shooting away from each other as if there had once been a big bang; this suggests that, if the Universe is really only a few thousand years old, God has a great sense of humor.

However, if the creation story is intended to be a metaphor, then who cares? Comparing known scientific data with a literary metaphor means nothing, because a metaphor is just a literary device used to describe the nature of something else. Of course, some could argue that it is an inaccurate metaphor, because of the way we are interpreting our translation of the original Jewish text.

Re:Thank God!

[kurzweilfreak]

It's even more plausable than that if you consider that the vast majority of the young planet was covered in an OCEAN of primative chemicals, being struck by lightning all over the entire planet at incredible ratios of strikes/square mile, the fact that certain chemicals tend towards each other more than others, the idea that a chemical structure eventually arose that could create copies of itself isn't very far-fetched, especially considering the extreme lengths of time all these chemical reactions had to occur over and over again all over the planet.

Continue this by realizing that copying processes are not perfect, mistakes are made, and sometimes those mistakes can make a chemical structure that replicates itself in a different way with different chemicals that can still self-replicate the structure and you end up with different varieties of replicating structures competing for the same chemical resources.

Continue this by seeing that some of these self-replicating structures were able to combine with other chemicals for use as an "outer layer" that happened to protect the replication structure from damage by UV rays or other chemicals that would cause its deterioration. You begin to see the prototypes of what we call "cells".

Continue this all over the planet an inconceivable number of times for an inconceivable length of time and plausibility is certainly within grasp.

Re:Thank God!

[Citizen of Earth]

Evolution is a very slow process; we don't need to observe it to determine that its a fact.

We have observed evolution in action. The Bible doesn't mention anything about God creating a bunch of new, drug-resistant bacteria over the past 40 years, does it? The bacteria that survive our antibiotics have certain characteristics and mutations that allow them to survive and breed by natural selection for being fittest to survive in the environment in which they find themselves (our medicated bodies). And they breed like crazy, so their evolution is greatly accelerated compared to what we are used to.

Of course, what little the Bible says about the subject is so abstract that it can twisted to survive scientific enlightenment. This is evolution at work, also. Maybe God created all the animals simply by zapping some amino acids with lightning and let the rest be done by natural selection. Maybe he set it all in motion by creating the big bang so he could just phone in the rest.

Christ was actually quite set against organized religion; he got into his troubles for mocking the orthodoxy and telling people to make their spirituality an individual thing rather than kneeling in pews and chanting by rote. I think Christ would be quite appalled by the religion that carries his name.

While on the subject, the committee that formed the whole of the religious canon of Christianity did so from a narrow selection of letters written by fanatical cult members over three hundred years earlier. Christ's divinity was decided by a (non-unanimous) majority vote of the men present. Much of the body of the Bible was written in letters by a schizophrenic who was born a hundred years after Christ's death.

Religion is one of the better examples of evolution around. They all interbreed and mutate to survive their environment. Stoned any gays lately? Or adulterers?

Re:Thank God!

[tyler_larson]

This is bad. Very bad. Theories of evolution aside (I happen to agree with the text book, not the stikers), this decision is a direct and flagrant violation of the constitution.

The text of the message: "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." contains no endorsement or condemnation of any religion, religious belief, or religious practice. The statement itself cannot be deemed a violation of the required separation of church and state. Had the statement actually endorsed a creationist idea, the case would be very different.

The statement was added because of the compliants of the parents of the students who will be using those books. This behavior isn't unheard of--it happens every year with regards to sex ed and other "touchy" subjects that parents' children study in school. It's important that it wasn't the pastors, rabbis, or TV evangelists who pressured the school board, it was the parents. The sticker was a direct result of the desires of the actual members of that school district, not any religion or religious organization. Parents are totally within their rights to argue with the school board, regardless of their religion.

The judge in this case ruled the stickers unconstitutional because of the religion of the people who supported it. "Bah," you may say. But think about it. The judge took up against the "religious" side because the issue is sometimes a point of religious conflict. This is exactly the sort of behavior the constitution prohibits.

If you still don't see anything wrong with this picture, it's because you don't understand the meaning or purpose behind the separation of church and state. This amendment to the constitution was put in place forbid the government from oppressing any individual because of his religion. It is by considering atheism "yet another valid religious belief" that this religious protection is extended to them as well. And since athiesm is just another religion, it must be protected, but it cannot be favored. All religious beliefs, even the ones that don't call themselves "religious", must be given equal rights.

What's wrong with this case is that it's an example of a judge ruling for a religion (the atheists), and not because there was anything wrong with the stickers. They neither promoted nor condemned any religion--or lack thereof. They only questioned a scientific principle. And it's not unconstitutional to question a principle--no matter how wrong you may be. Rather, the judge ruled against the "religious" because of their religion. The ruling was made as if the judge believed atheism to be the official religion of the state, to be promoted at the expense of others.

If you're an athiest, you probably still don't see anything wrong with it. So how about this:

Let's say that instead the issue at hand is a geography book, written by Christians, that said that Saudi Arabia is an ugly place that the world could do without. Some local Muslims take offsense and get the school board to put a sticker on the book that says, "This book contains some statements about the value of certain locations that are based solely on the authors own taste, and which should be approached with an open mind."

In such a case, can a judge declare those stickers unconstitutional because they tend to support an idea which some Muslims see as a religious issue. The issue at stake isn't whether Saudi Arabia really is ugly or not. Likewise, the previous arguement isn't really about evolution. It's about the government taking sides on an issue just because a religion supports or opposes it.

Re:Thank God!

[AndyL]

"I'd have to say that most "Evolutionists" have as closed a mind as us "Jesus Freaks". "
The difference between science and religion is not that the scientists are supposed to consider every crazy, unsupported idea that comes down the pike.

The difference is that if the leading scientific theory is proven wrong then it is no longer the leading scientific theory.

Only religious types think that a "Belief" is something you have to decide early then never change.

Re:Thank God!

[Ra5pu7in]

That's funny, because the issue of Discover Magazine that arrived in my mailbox sometime in the last week says on the cover "Scientists at Michigan State Prove Evolution Works".

No surprise there. Every new biological discovery seems to be heralded in these magazines as "new proof of evolution" or "evolution at work". Even when other reputable scientists dispute the findings, or even if the proof turns out to only show that a specific test worked, these kinds of headlines show up.

Now that you know what the word "theory" actually means

Theory, the word, actually has multiple meanings - leading to much of the confusion. Take a look at Merriam-Webster. You'll find "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another", "abstract thought : SPECULATION", "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena", "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation", and "an unproved assumption" -- each of which puts a different flavor to the discussion. Notice that NONE of the definitions given implies that a theory is a fact. The closest ones state "plausible or scientifically acceptable" and "hypothesis assumed".

The important definitions of fact are "something that has actual existence" and "an actual occurence". Evolution is an assumed occurence based on the relationships between different life-forms. It doesn't ever point to an actual occurence - it points to two separate facts (actual fossils that can be dated) and infers an occurence between them. The actual occurence is not known - in fact, many books on evolution say "we don't know how this happened, but x evolved into y as you can see by ..." So how did evolution work? Some say radiation-damaged genes, others refer to chaos theory, others say that isn't important. That last is the most foolish, because what is the theory of evolution without an explanation of how it really works.

The key distinction the groups who pushed for those stickers are trying to make is that while many believe evolution "may, for all practical purposes, be treated as a fact", it is not a fact. To their dismay (though they will seldom admit this), this is equally true of their own theories (translate as religious beliefs). To everyone's dismay, this is the case with many things we believe to be fact. Einstein's theories are still just that - theories. Two thousand years from now humanity may learn that they were radically incomplete and our insistence on teaching them as fact prevented us from entering entire fields of knowledge.

==============

As a side note, I think this federal judge - if he actually claimed that the sticker attempted to inject religion into state materials - may have made it easier for this to be appealed. The sticker was written very carefully and makes no mention of religion. Nowhere does it mention the Bible, Christ, Christianity, creation, or anything religious. In fact, if you were to show that sticker to any person who knew nothing about the controversy here and that the opponents of evolution theory are religious, they wouldn't necessarily connect religion. They could suspect a renegade group of scientists. By calling the sticker religious the judge reveals a clear bias and picking of sides rather than an impartial consideration.

Re:Thank God!

[Moofie]

Maybe we shouldn't put stickers on textbooks that are explicitly designed to mislead, rather than educate.

I'd rather there be a whole chapter or two on critical, skeptical thinking. I think that'd be a much better use of all of our time.

Re:Thank God!

[Wavicle]

All it's saying is to keep an open mind that it's only an unproven idea

The verbage specifically states that evolution is not a fact. They don't know that it is not a fact. The sticker is playing games with semantics ("Oh we mean not a fact as in something is either a theory or a fact") but was clearly cleverly written such that it could easily be read as saying "Evolution is false."

Doesn't sound very open minded to me.

As far as I know, no one has actually observed macroevolution.

There have been several instances of observed speciation in plants and insects.

Re:Thank God!

[wass]

Religion demands adherence without proof. Science demands adherence only with proof.

Not universally. Western religions tend to demand adherence without proof (leaps of faith and such), but Eastern religions (and some Jewish mysticism) tend to be more philosophical and introspective. For example, in Zen Buddhism blindly adhering to written or taught dogma is typically shunned. Instead, the wealth of religious texts in these zen sects are to be taken merely as a "finger pointing to the moon". If you spend too much time looking at the finger, you'll lose sight of the moon.

Re:Thank God!

[thecsharppro]

Where is the physical evidence for the theory of common ancestry? Where are the missing links? In this particular case, evolution, in my opinion, flies in the face of science by ignoring some of the obvious missing pieces of evidence.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I came to my faith, not early on in my childhood, but much later in adulthood. Being agnostic most of my life and growing up with science in school, I was (and still am) very interested in things like astronomy and cosmology. Frankly, I see the beauty of God's work in the heavens every time I set up my telescope.

However, perhaps unlike many baptised-at-birth Christians who knew about the teachings of Jesus their whole life, I came to faith through my own search for answers to bigger questions. To me, it simply seems to impossible to think that the universe and all that's in it, including us, is the result of some random roll of the cosmic dice.

On the other hand, I see a certain parity between science and religion. I don't think they necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. Just like science can't explain the pre-big bang universe, it also can't explain the "Why am I here question?". If you can accept that science, when pursued in a truly unbiased way, helps to explain the physical universe and the phenomenon that we see in it, then it seems natural to me to think that religion is the way to explain the "Why am I here question?".

Re:Thank God!

[Wavicle]

The judge in this case ruled the stickers unconstitutional because of the religion of the people who supported it.

No, the judge in this case ruled the stickers unconstitutional because an attack directed at evolution in this manner, to any reasonably intelligent person, is an endorsement of religion. This was simply christian fundamentalists trying to play fast and loose with the rules.

They neither promoted nor condemned any religion--or lack thereof.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion, but it is not the conclusion the judge said he came to: "By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof"

If this were allowed to stand, we'd see them attacking all sorts of things that conflict with their interpretation of the bible:

Geology text: "This text book suggests that the rocky material of the mountains between arizona and utah are too hard to have had the Grand Canyon formed by all the floods of the last 10,000 years, which is a theory not a fact. Readers are asked to keep an open mind..."

Physics text: "This text book suggests that the half life of some radioactive materials found on earth, and the relative amounts of decay products found with them, indicate that they have been around for billions of years, which is a theory not a fact. Readers are asked to keep an open mind..."

Sometimes an attack on science that is popularly at odds with religion is an endorsement of religion. No matter how well you dress it up.

Re:Thank God!

[mrjb]

As opposed the highly probably theory of Noah's ark being beached and somehow the Kangaroos and Koalas all flew to Australia

Now c'mon. Everyone KNOWS kangaroos don't fly. They jumped there. As for the koalas, they didn't fly nor jump-- they haven't got the wings or legs for it. Obviously, they teleported. I saw it once in a cartoon, so it must be true.

Re:Thank God!

[HuguesT]

Of course there are facts in science.

For example the way apples fall from trees or the way planets revolve around the Sun are all facts. They happen, they can be observed. In fact these two facts are part of the more general phenomenon called gravitation. We observe that massive body attract each other.

On the other hand General Relativity (GRT) is the best theory of gravitation we have today. We already know that it is not a perfect theory, in particular that it is not compatible with other theories we have such as quantum theory (QT).

It is a fairly safe bet that at some point in the future either GRT or QT or both will be replaced with something more accurate.

Science is a process by which an explanation can be given for facts, more exactly *how* they proceed (and certainly not *why*, this is where religion and metaphysics come in). These explanations are called hypotheses in the beginning when they are born and then theories when they begin to get accepted, in particular when they happen to match observation up to a certain precision, and are useful to make predictions, i.e. predict future observations.

Re:Thank God!

[Trogre]

Please don't ever link to talkorigins.org when discussing open minds again.

Is is a site notorious for exaggeration and plain misinformation about such topics.

You might as well link to Microsoft's "Get the facts" campaign page to encourage open minded discussion about Linux.

Re:Thank God!

[ezeri]

Ohhhh! The children might actualy question evolution! They might listen to what these "christian nut jobs" have to say about it!

Seriously though, why is it such a horible thing to have an alternate view presented. Do you realy think these children can only handle one view, or that thay are completely incapable of making there own desisions on who they are going to believe. I mean after all, if evolution is so obviously the only possible answer, they shouldn't the evidence be able to speek for itself, why should it be above question and debate?

Re:Thank God!

[henni16]

Please.
The koalas were simply taking a nap in the kangaroos' bags.
You have to be resourceful if you have only one boat for that many animals!

Re:Thank God!

[Alsee]

never been found

You have been missinformed. Many example of speciation have been observed.

But even better than mere speciation is the absolutely facinating sub-catagory of ring species which have been found. Not merely a case of a single species diverging into two incompatible species over short timescales, but having the FULL range of intermediate forms available to study!

-

Re:Thank God!

[Alsee]

The belief that there is no god is obviously a belief of a religious nature. A religious belief. And under the constitution it rates full and equal protection.

And while you can quibble over the definition of "religion", I would say that atheism pretty well qualifies. It just doesn't have a formal organisation, and it's only tenet is that there is no god.

If you were to form some sort of organizied "church" for it it would indeed be tax exempt yada yada yada. Sure some people will scream and yell about it, but I have little doubt you can win in court.

And acknowleding that atheist belief is a religious belief is actually quite usefull in these chuch-and-state arguments. Prohibiting the government from meddling in religion, prohibiting the government from sticking god into the pledge, prohibiting the government from putting god on money, none of that is "making the government atheist" as they love to claim. Requiring the government to remain entirely silent on the issue of god is in no way promoting atheism. The government is just as prohibited from promoting the belief that there is not god as it is prohibited from promoting the belief in a god.

Taking "in god we trust" off of money is not athesist. Placing "trust money because there is no god" on money would be atheist. Obviously the "pro-religion" side is going to find the second quote unacceptable, and they are defenseless when you point out the fact that the first quote is no better than the second quote. If it is unacceptable for you to put one religious belief on money then it is equally unacceptable for them to put another religious belief on money.

-

This deserves the [HERO] tag

[WormholeFiend]

oh wait, this is isn't Fark

Equal time for plano-terrestrialism

[earthforce_1]

In the name of plano-terrestrialists everywhere, I demand that all globes, maps and atlases include a disclaimer stating that the idea of a round earth is only one of many possible theories.

Furthermore, we demand equal time in the classroom to discuss our alternative theories of geography.

Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism

[JanneM]

But then it's been proven that the world is round ... just keep walking in a straight line (making sure to learn how to walk on water and up vertical surfaces) and you can see for yourself.

Invisible magical blue-scaled lizard midgets. When anybody comes close to the edge, they will magically put them to sleep and run them to the opposite side of the disc in their secret network of extradimensional tunnels. once there, they reposition the person in exactly the same way they were, and wake them up.

Now, this is at least as convincing a theory as ID, with just as much evidence and falsifiability, and deserves all the same repsect and classroom time.

Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism

[earthforce_1]

Oh, forgot one:

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." -- First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23, 26

Here is biblical proof that pi is in fact exactly 3, which should be given equal time in high school math classes.

Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism

[victor_the_cleaner]

Actually I heard a story about a school district (in Georgia I think) that had a board member that said PI should be 3, since that is what the bible says.

Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism

[ars]

Um, you may not know this, but stuff that's made by man, even if described in the bible doesn't have anywhere near the reliability of stuff made by god.

There's a reason why this passage describes who made this.

And BTW for the clueless, you do imagine that someone actually measured this pot right? And recorded what he measured - it's not prophecy after all. The reason these measurements are recorded is that the pot was very think. One measurement was an inner measurement, and the other was an outer measurement.

Do the math, go look up how much a hand breadth is, and figure the inner diameter was 10 cubits minus a hand breadth. Then see how 30 cubits compares with what you calculate for the inner circumference - you'll find it's quite accurate.

Re:Equal time for plano-terrestrialism

[stephenhawking]

It's also been proven that evolution takes place, and is responsible for biodiversity on the planet earth.

Much like gravity, there are theories to describe evolution, and there's also the fact of evolution. Just as the effect of gravity is not in dispute, the process of evolution is not in dispute. There are multiple theories describing gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc., but apples will not stop falling to the earth while we decide which one is the most accurate.

Evolution has been observed, and the evidence in support of it is overwhelming. Modern biologists do not really debate whether evolution occurs or not, but are instead concerned with the mechanisms by which it does occur. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory, which means it is testable, can make predictions etc. In this regard, even scientific theories which are known to be wrong can still be useful. For instance, even though we know that Newton's theory of gravity is inferior to later theories, it is still accurate enough in it's predictions to guide spacecraft to Jupiter and beyond, and is very useful in these areas. So downplaying the importance of a MAJOR SCIENTIFIC theory like evolution is misleading to average people who apparently often have little understanding of how science works.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory. It starts by assuming that there is a creator, and in making such an assumption goes against the fundamental tenets of science. To suggest to our children that this psuedo-science garbage is a worthy alternative to evolution does them an incredible disservice.

Creationist?

[PuppiesOnAcid]

I'm not defending either side here...but how exactly does one call this a "creationist textbook sticker?" I've heard many evolutionists declare evolution as only theory and not fact as well...

Re:Creationist?

[Dimensio]

The motive is transparent by virtue of the fact that no one is asking for similar disclaimers for other theories, such as atomic theory, gravitational theory or germ theory.

If that weren't enough, a look at the groups behind the disclaimers should remove all doubt of motive.

Re:Creationist?

[IrresponsibleUseOfFr]

It is a "creationist textbook sticker" because Intelligent Design is just a secular telling of creationism. It supposes an intelligent creator which we have no scientific evidence for except circularly ourselves and our surroundings which is at best specious. Secondly, it has a huge flaw with "first cause" since everything must come from something more intelligent so supposedly "The Creator" was created from a more intelligent "Creator" and so forth. Third, it is wrong, because it is easy for us to concieve of cases where we muddle with our DNA to create more intelligent human beings (which I believe to be just a matter of time). This goes directly against the notion of intelligent design where beings can only create things less intelligent.

Evolution is a theory, but there is lots of evidence supporting it. We've observed "micro-evolution." What we haven't observed is "macro-evolution" but I guarantee that we'll know it when we see it. There is of course a problem with "first cause" but we exist so it has to be resolvable.

Evolution is a theory in the sense that relativity is a theory or the theory of an atom. We don't preface the theory of the atom with a sticker and we shouldn't do evolution either. Students should think critically about it, but evolution does not deserve any special doubt just because it happens to disagree with certain religious texts. But, what I'm really tired of is people trying to return us to the dark ages.

Re:Creationist?

[grammar fascist]

If that weren't enough, a look at the groups behind the disclaimers should remove all doubt of motive.

The problem is that both sides of this debate muddy the waters.

First, it seems that most biology textbooks never claim that their conjectures on the origin of life (not origin of species, which evolution claims) are only conjectures. They also never talk about how, as theories go, evolution (as the origin of species) is pretty weak. It does a decent job at explaining things, but has anyone seen it make a real prediction? Hmm... And some, in their haste to tell "their side," never mention unresolved issues with evolution, such as fossil record biases and the homochirality of certain molecules...

Then, the other side won't entertain any idea that doesn't jive with their interpretation of the Bible. And when they discover an unresolved issue with evolution, they attack it with glee. They escalate the problem up to lawyers and politicians, who generally couldn't tell a proof from a theory from a fact from a conjecture...and you get crap attempts at compromise like the sticker in the front of the book.

Personally, I'd just like to see more intellectual honesty in the textbooks - but too many scientists unfortunately have an agenda as much as the religionists do.

Re:Creationist?

[Unordained]

... and then I read stories from space.com (through my handy-dandy slashdot sidebar) and every single article quotes some scientist or other (and sometimes several) making a point of saying that whatever was just said is only a "lead" or "partial evidence" or "theory" ...

People just need to be more honest in general, really. The problem is that science is, by definition, only about theories -- that's just how it works. If we want to be "fair", then every textbook that tries to tackle the history of anything will have to include every single point of view, including swords being dipped into pre-existing seas to form islands. And there's no truly objective way for us to pick just a few and drop the rest of these "theories".

The distinctive factor in science is self-testing. If you find out your theory doesn't fit the facts, then it doesn't fit the facts and you need to start over or adjust. You may come out with some really nasty functions by the end, but so long as they fit the facts (past/present/future,) they're as good as any other theory. We just prefer simpler ones, by custom. Science is about making models that fit the facts, and revising those models when they're obviously wrong (which does depend on observation, which admittedly is a gray area.) Religion doesn't change to match available data points; it simply declares them wrong/invalid/misinterpreted until you can't prove religion wrong.

My brother, my girlfriend, and I went to a baptist church meeting in oklahoma one weekday night to hear a talk to the local congregation about evolution. We'd gotten the flyer, figured it could be fun -- and we were pretty much unemployed with nothing better to do than get free entertainment. The guy was attempting to prove the science was always false because it sometimes changed its mind to fit the facts -- because it couldn't guarantee it was true from the get-go, it was forever wrong. Somehow, that didn't keep him from using pseudo-scientific evidence to prove his other points (about how the T-Rex could never have existed because he would have tripped and killed himself the moment he tried to walk) and asked the congregation to give him money so he could rescue dinosaur skeletons from museums to add to his collection (end purpose unknown.)

Why do we pick current scientific sources only for schools? Because it's the only self-correcting source of theories available. We can even present multiple scientific theories simultaneously in the classroom -- the point isn't that they're different and therefore cover all "beliefs" without offending anyone, but that they're more-or-less equally-valid (though rarely perfect) interpretations of available facts presented within the context of peer review. It's a given that they're all theories -- and that's precisely why they're in textbooks for schools, and religious beliefs aren't. It's a lot like the arguments for open-source: it's not that it's perfect or absolutely true, it's that it's in a context that lets it evolve toward perfection rather than dogmatic dictatorship. Change and uncertainty are good things; we need to be honest about it, yes, absolutely, but we need to recognize a good thing when we see it too.

Re:Creationist?

[EEBaum]

Philosophically, we don't know anything is truly fact unless we're the ones who set the original rules. (a la 1+1=2 in our symbolic numbering system)

While it has no scientific basis and is incredibly, extremely, stupidly unlikely, it is possible that what we describe as general relativity is actually caused by tiny mystical invisible wooden garden gnomes who wind magical clocks 1/10^50 times smaller than a proton.

General relativity is, however, supported by a breadth of scientific research that confirms trends and common occurrences, and is therefore accepted. However, it cannot be philosophically declared as truly fact.

If tomorrow the speed of light slowed to 5 m/s, and gravity stopped working on compact discs, we would have to reevaluate our best held theories to account for the possibility that general relatively simply happened to fit very well until now. A forthcoming emmissary from the mystical garden gnomes may lend support to an alternate theory.

You may say "But the speed of light won't slow down tomorrow, and compact discs won't stop paying attention to gravity, silly fool!" I would likely agree with you. However, I ask, "How do we know for sure?" Technically, we're working entirely on observations.

My extremely roundabout and probably poorly-worded point is this: We are working entirely on observations in an open system. Science allows us to come up with theories that are "as good as" fact, and may in fact hold true for 100% of our experiments. Those explanations that work consistently are kept, and the inconsistent ones are tossed.

Consider the extremely remote possibility that the world was actually created in 1823 by hyperintelligent shades of the color blue. Consider that history books, dinosaur bones, Prague, and John Quincy Adams are all originated from phenomenally good simulations. Stupidly improbable, and I agree it's an idiotic theory, but hey, you weren't there to know!

The real issue, in my opinion, is an obsession with language. The word "fact," meaning that it is and always will be completely and utterly THE WAY THINGS ARE, is bandied about very freely, when philosophically it almost never applies. "We're 99.99999999999999999999999% confident that it's a fact" would be more appropriate, but I suppose it's considerably more cumbersome to write.

Re:Creationist?

[caudron]

it has a huge flaw with "first cause" since everything must come from something more intelligent so supposedly "The Creator" was created from a more intelligent "Creator" and so forth.

Well, don't take this as disagreement, becuase I agree with you that, while still a theory, evolution is the best one we have to explain the facts in hand and it shouldn't be singled out as particularly suspect, but... ...The Intelllgent Design people aren't that easy to dismiss. The idea behind intelligent design (heck, behind many claims of God entirely!) is not that there is an infinite track of more intelligent causes to the effects we see in the world around us, but rather they take the basic scientificly accepted principle that effects have causes and follow that logic to it's end. To wit:

1) Effects have causes
2) No effect can cause itself
3) Every effect, therefore is caused by something other than itself
4) A causal chain cannot stretch back infinitely in time
5) There must, therefore be a First Cause that, itself, had no preceding cause
6) God uniquely answers the cosmological question by being the Uncaused First Cause
7) God, therefore, exists and created all that is.

That logic is valid, so long as we accept two things. First, that they are naming the first cause "God", and second that the underlying assumption is that there is not a causal chain that stretches back infinitely in time.

We cannot deny them their first choice (to call the first cause "God") because it isn't like we have a better name for it. And if we deny them their second assumption, then we are still left with a substantial question:

Why is there something instead of nothing?

If the universe can be said to stretch back infinitely in time, then we should ask why the universe need exist at all. There is still a substantial "Why?" left to explain.

If we follow that train of logic, then God's role is not as initiator of the universe, but as sustainer and creator in a sense that we simply cannot understand. We assume a creation time when we speak of creation, but if the universe stretches back infinitely and God created it, then there is no "When?" question we can ask, but we are left with a timeless, spiritual act of creation that is incomprehensible to me...not incredulous, just incomprehensible.

In short, the Intelligent Design people have not set themselves up to fall quite so easily. While misguided, their argument is not so ridiculous as the media would like it to be...unlike strict Creationists, whose claims are patently ridiculous and disprovable with the scant evidence we already have in hand.

Disclaimer: I am one of those Christians (i.e., most of us) who thinks that evolution seems like a solid theory and doesn't see how it shakes our religious foundation to allow science to do it's job.

Re:Creationist?

[bamberg]

There are, of course, numerous flaws with the ID argument.

1) Effects have causes

Error: They are assuming that life is an "effect", in other words assuming their conclusion, that it has a cause.

2) No effect can cause itself

Error: This is a definitional question. If "effect" is defined as "something that is caused by something else" then this is trivially true, but unimportant. Also, the IDers contradict this point later.

3) Every effect, therefore is caused by something other than itself

If 2 were true, this would be true. However....

4) A causal chain cannot stretch back infinitely in time

Error: This is nothing more than an assumption (as you pointed out in your message).

5) There must, therefore be a First Cause that, itself, had no preceding cause

Error: This contradicts point 2.

6) God uniquely answers the cosmological question by being the Uncaused First Cause

Error: Only for a sufficiently broad (i.e. defective) definition of "God". I don't know many religionists who would claim their god has no consciousness, intelligence or will. But there's nothing saying that a "first cause" has to be conscious, intelligent or willful.

7) God, therefore, exists and created all that is.

This is stated as the final conclusion but the real final conclusion that the overwhelming majority of IDers hold is that this "God" is the christian god and the universe was created as described in the bible. The IDers just gloss over that bit even though they have no way at all to make that connection.

In short, the Intelligent Design people have not set themselves up to fall quite so easily. While misguided, their argument is not so ridiculous as the media would like it to be...unlike strict Creationists, whose claims are patently ridiculous and disprovable with the scant evidence we already have in hand.

I would say that they still fall pretty easily. But the main reason that ID isn't taught in science classes is that it isn't science. There's no disprovable theory being made here. No observations are made, no experiments run. It's just fantasy. And in the U.S. it's just creationism by another name.

Disclaimer: I am one of those Christians (i.e., most of us) who thinks that evolution seems like a solid theory and doesn't see how it shakes our religious foundation to allow science to do it's job.

This is not an unreasonable position for a christian to take since the Theory of Evolution doesn't say that the process couldn't have been kicked off by some entity. The Theory contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible but there are so many problems with a literal interpetation of the bible that Evolution is the least of an inerrantist's worries.

theory...

[AmigaAvenger]

ok, it's a theory, I think most of slashdot agrees on that one. now do we need warning stickers on every text book that contains a theory! science books would take on an entire new meaning. half the pages would contain the stickers for the remaining half of the book, containing the forbidden 'theories'

Dear Creationists

[aendeuryu]

Dear Creationists,

We'll put these stickers on our science textbooks when you put "God's existence is a theory, not a fact" on your bibles.

Re:Dear Creationists

[GryMor]

Err, thats not particularly usefull. Better to say:

Dear Creationists,

We'll put these stickers on our science textbooks when you put "God's existance is an untestable hypothesis that can never rise to the level of validity of a theory. Belief that 'God' created the universe is as demonstratable and testable as 'invisible pink elephants' created the universe."

Re:Dear Creationists

[tfoss]

'invisible pink elephants' created the universe.

Wait, if they're invisible, how can they be pink?

(;

-Ted

so, how is creationism taught anyways?

[k4_pacific]

Teacher: Class, today we are going to study Creation. A long time ago, God, who cannot be quantified or proven to exist or not to exist, created life using supernatural powers that cannot be explained by science.

Student: Will this be on the test?

Teacher: Will what be on the test?

Re:so, how is creationism taught anyways?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

There's no need to teach creationism. As a half-creationist myself, I wouldn't agree with anything like what you said.

Simply state, validly, that evolution seems to fit with the facts as science is best capable of recording it, and that there are some failures which we cannot explain yet but which alternative theories, including creationism might possibly explain. If you start teaching creationism, you're teaching religion, and that should be kept out of public schools.

Anything that, as you say, cannot be explained by science has no place on a science test.

The fundamental problem here is an impression of science as truth. I don't normally like to attack truth, but often what we're using the word for is a scientific construct -- what would have happened assuming that things behaved rationally. Such a belief is a rational belief. Yet if you believe in God, you must believe that He can throw things off. Other arguments (another can of worms which I don't want to get into now, especially not on Slashdot; if you're really interested, get a copy of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity) argue for believing in the existence of a God. Besides, science admits that spontaneous generation happened in the past -- otherwise, whence did life evolve in the first place? Creationism, in its most fundamental form, is that a Sentience caused that first spontaneous generation.

BTW: people who take Genesis 1 literally should be regarded with about as much truth as you give to Scientologists. Sure, it might be true, but as much evidence as supports the rest of fundamental Christian beliefs supports a non-literal interpretation.

Re:so, how is creationism taught anyways?

[zephc]

spontanious generation?

You mean simple amino acids creating more complex ones, and taking a billion years to figure out the cool trick of replicating itself? No need for an invisible hand, just blind, drunken* inevitability. Though I wouldn't quite call it spontanious, unless you're speaking in geological timeframes.

*Metaphorically speaking.

Re:so, how is creationism taught anyways?

[jfengel]

Do a web search on irreducible complexity.

The idea of irreducible complexity is scientifically valid: if you could find a structure which could not have evolved, that's proof that evolution is wrong. That's why evolution is a scientific theory: it proposes tests which it could fail.

Creationists (like the grandparent post) cite certain examples: the eye (there are an awful lot of pieces, and it's hard to see how a less-complex eye could exist to evolve into an eye without first being selected against); the bacterial flagellum (another rather complex piece from which it's hard to imagine the immediate evolutionary precursor).

The examples strike me as extremely strained. There are very few of them repeated over and over. They always apply to soft tissues, so the fossil record is poor. Every time we look at hard tissues, the evolutionary trace is clear.

Despite the complexity of these systems, it still seems that with enough effort we will eventually uncover how they did evolve, perhaps once we have sequenced the genomes of creatures along the evolutionary path. It certainly seems premature to throw out a very successful theory on the basis of this evidence.

But the evidence is there, waiting for you to explain it. Don't dismiss the challenger; know his argument and refute it.

Re:so, how is creationism taught anyways?

[jfengel]

I just want a word with the guy who came up with the term "intelligent designer". If I'd designed this thing I'd have been fired. The design sucks. I've already had to repair one serious failure on my knee (which doesn't come with a warranty, natch, so it's out-of-pocket). And my own eyes have never worked properly; I've had to work with a miserable hack using third-party lenses.

"Intelligent design" my ass. Write up a textbook on "crappy design theory" and I'll buy it.

Re:Yay!

[Em Ellel]

+1 for creationism!

Read it carefuly, actually it is -1 Creationism. They are ruling creationist's stickers unconstitutional, though wierdly enough part of me feels like it is also "-1 Free Speech". :-/ I am kinda split if it is a good thing to make "keep open mind" stickers unconstitutional.

-Em

The Lemov Test

[alphakappa]

For those who might cite the First Amendment: The judge based his decision on the test established by the SC in the Lemov vs. Kurtzman:

Under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion.

Since putting the sticker violated rules (2) and (3), it was deemed to be unconstitutional.

Re:The Lemov Test

[firewood]

Since putting the sticker violated rules (2) and (3), it was deemed to be unconstitutional.

Removing the sticker also violates rule (2) and (3). How are you supposed to believe that the Great Pumpkin poofed the world into being atop the Giant Turtle with all the public schools forcing these scientific theories down your throat as absolute fact.

Only by stating the evolution (or creationism) is merely a strongly (weakly) supported scientific theory, are we Great Pumkin worshippers not inhibited in holding our silly beliefs, and thus entangling the schools into endorsing atheism or agnosticism.

Re:The Lemov Test

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Of course since the Patriot Act breaks the 4th and 6th amendments ... and you dumbass americans have not overthrown your government in response to stealing those rights from you ... as it is your responsibility to do so ... the fact that the damn sticker may have violated the first amendment really doesnt matter.

Your constituition has already been rendered meaningless.

Re:The Lemov Test

[devnullkac]

The Patriot Act does not, of course, break the 4th or 6th amendments, though it may be incompatible with them. One of the many strengths of the United States Constitution is that it provides for a resolution to this kind of problem that is well short of overthrowing the government, specifically, appealling court decisions which involve the Patriot Act until a court is reached which has the scope to rule on that compatibility. Our responsibility, which we do not take lightly, is to avail ourselves of the remedies which exist under law before discarding law in favor of outright revolution.

A lesser nation might have devolved into chaos following a court ruling that decided a tight presidential race. But in the US, those that disagreed with the decision value the consitutional process too much to discard it when the outcome isn't to their liking.

Re: What?

[Theatetus]

Well, when they put similar notices in Physics textbooks that gravity is a theory, not a proven fact, I'll stop complaining.

Re:Interesting...

[jimhill]

This space doesn't permit the degree of mockery your post deserves, alas.

The difference between evolution as a scientific theory and ID as a "We're a theory, too, really!" is that evolution derives from observation and application of the scientific method and will be changed as more data becomes available. ID, on the other hand, is derived from a book written with the advice of an invisible friend in the sky and will resist with all its might new data -- like observed evolution.

PDF of complete decision

[alphakappa]

can be found here.

Re:Interesting...

[k4_pacific]

Creationism works like this. God is infinite. Therefore, to represent God, we will use an infinite series:
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + .... = 0

1 - 1 = 0, so logically it follows that:
(1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ... = 0

Removing the parentheses:
1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + .... = 0

Adding new parentheses:
1 + ( -1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ... = 0

Simplifying:
1 = 0

Thus, God can create the universe out of nothing.

QED

God could not be reached for comment.

Re:Interesting...

[Spyffe]

Wrong.

Creationism is a theory that is unprovable except by the appearance of a "supreme being," which is documented only by ancient and contradictory sources. It is speculation.

Evolution is testable. Carbon-dating, empirical observation, archaeology, and genetics all indicate that evolution has taken place from more primitive forms of life to those seen today. It is a theory.

The term theory has been coopted by religious fundamentalists, and twisted it to mean something it's not. Good science is based on weeding viable theories from speculation.

Re: What?

[Scrameustache]

The statement on the front of the book, whether motivated by religion or not, is completley true. Evolution IS a theory, and not a fact.

Then I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.

Re:Interesting...

[XorNand]

Oh Jeez... not this shit again. "Theory", as used in science, is not the same thing as "wild ass guess" (as the word is used in common usage). The difference between a theory and a law is that a law can be absolutely proven, a theory cannot. But just because evolution cannot be proven with absolute certainity, does not mean it is scientifically solid.

Re:Interesting...

[mr. marbles]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.

Re: What?

[Theatetus]

Gravity is accepted by probably about 99.9999999999% of the world. Evolution is accepted by a minority of the world.

Oh, science is a democracy now? I'm supposed to let the mouth-breathing, troglodytic masses who can't be bothered to learn what an allele is have a say in the science education in public schools? Why does the fact that a large portion of the world is too stupid / lazy / superstitious to learn about evolution matter to you?

2000 lawsuit-threatening parents

[Migraineman]

Seems that the "vocal special interest group" mentality was at work here. 2000 parents bitched that the book contained "evolution" and needed a warning label. The school district attempted to dodge what probably would have become a (cl)ass-action lawsuit. They seem to have made matters worse, garnering national attention.

They had a flaming bag of dogshit tossed on their doorstep, and they made a choice as to which foot to stomp with. If they'd decided to do nothing, they get sued. If they put the current sticker in, they get sued (albeit by a different group.) If they changed the wording to say something like "all religion is theory, as is evolution; decide for yourself" they'd get sued too. A better solution would have been to show the bitching parents the door, and remind them that they can always home-school the little hellions if the parents don't like the public school curriculum. At least then the school district could have stood up in the courtroom (for the inevitable lawsuit) and maintained that "we will not endorse religion; any of them." A lawsuit was pretty much inevitable. I don't think they chose the right one, though.

ICR - Institute for Creation Research

[genrader]

Institute for Creation Research, check it out.

analogous != equivalent

[aendeuryu]

By that logic, you are declaring Evolution a religion...

I'm doing no such thing. You're confusing analogy with equivalence.

My point is that Christianity (specifically, Creationistic Christianity) is going outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour by trying to intrude on other disciplines. If the converse were done to them and their bibles, hopefully they could see the error in their ways.

Unlikely, though. Christianity's biggest problem, as Joseph Campbell pointed out, was that for Christians it's more important to believe the existence of Jesus, Adam and Eve, Satan, etc. than it is to understand the meaningful significance behind them.

How can America ignore the evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at what these brilliant scientists of tomorrow have discovered

1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"

One of my personal favorites

2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.

(P.S. that site is for real)

Re:How can America ignore the evidence?

[Shrei]

Well Thats not the worst part of that site, i don't like to be OT, but this deserve a mention, look at this part of the site:

However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.
But is this really such a shock? Lets look for a moment at Apple Computers. Founded by long haired hippies, this company has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values"2. But there are even darker undertones to this company than most are aware of. Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple3 by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness4. This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different". We have to ask ourselves: "think different than whom or what?" The disturbing answer is that they want us to think different than our Christian upbringing, to reject all the values that we have been taught and to heed not the message of the Lord Jesus Christ!

I really don't like the way they refer to open source, i dont care about it to be communist or not, but the way they say it is intended to scare people away, and they dont see the benefits for us the community.
and if you continue reading, you will find this:

It appears we have entered a terrible new phase in the Evolutionism propaganda campaign that Apple Computers has been waging. Apple has just announced the "eMac", a Macintosh computer designed specifically to smuggle Darwinism into our schools! According to their propagandistic sloganeering, the "e" in "eMac" ostensibly stands for "education", although it should be obvious to readers by now that it's really a cryptic tipping of the hat to their true agenda: "Evolutionism". However, this isn't the only thing hiding behind this choice of moniker; according to my research, the name eMac is also a referrence to "Emacs", a program that is a standard-bearer for the Communistic Open Source movement mentioned above and whose mascot is some sort of effeminate-looking, horned devil-man. Is there no end to this tangled web of evil?

i don't know about you, but i found this extremely disturbing. I know that part of that site is old, like 2002, even so, they are not convincing young people, they are convincing someone's parents.

Re:How can America ignore the evidence?

[djplurvert]

That site is CLEARLY satire....navigate your way to the jesus anti-fornication thong" to convince yourself.

I'd bet money it's the same people who do landover baptist church which, btw, is ALSO funny as hell.

Re:"Creationist"?

[thefirelane]

How is this "creationist"? Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and as with all scientific theories, should be presented as such.

You realize "Electricity" is a theory right? The reason this was thrown out, was because it was a deliberate attempt to confuse school children by muddying the difference between the common usage of the word theory (aka. hunch) and the scientific:

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.

Is there a better way to teach scientific thinking to students than to emphasize "what you are learning is not final"?

In fact, no... but the basic tenant of science is to keep an open mind so why stress this about evolution? Also, as I stated, this was not designed to open students minds but merely to confuse them.

For me this ruling depends on books contents

[Chuck Chunder]

If the books contents are written so as to imply that evolution is fact then such a sticker is probably appropriate.

If however the book glosses over all theories as fact then the sticker is innappropriate for singling out evolution and a more general sticker (or preferably a different text) would be appropriate.

If no such glossing over is done then the sticker is innappropriate.

Any science book however should teach that theories are there to be challenged by scientific means. Science's strength is that theories can be improved upon or replaced when a demonstrably better (not merely "alternate") theory eventuates.

Science should be proud of it's theories, proud that they represent accumulated knowledge and proud that science is honest enough to let them go if we get something better (not merely "alternate").

For those with brains and a spiritual center

[deft]

I found this in an earlier article on slashdot (the one where they asked a grip of scientists what they believe without being able to prove).

This was spot on for me, and since we're in the smart room right now with this article, I thought I'd share. It's a wonderful explanation of why critical thinkers can still have faith.
----------------

TOR NØRRETRANDERS
Science Writer; Consultant; Lecturer, Copenhagen; Author, The User Illusion

I believe in belief--or rather: I have faith in having faith. Yet, I am an atheist (or a "bright" as some would have it). How can that be?

It is important to have faith, but not necessarily in God. Faith is important far outside the realm of religion: having faith in other people, in oneself, in the world, in the existence of truth, justice and beauty. There is a continuum of faith, from the basic everyday trust in others to the grand devotion to divine entities.

Recent discoveries in behavioural sciences, such as experimental economics and game theory, shows that it is a common human attitude towards the world to have faith. It is vital in human interactions; and it is no coincidence that the importance of anchoring behaviour in riskful trust is stressed in worlds as far apart as Søren Kierkegaard's existentialist christianity and modern theories of bargaining behaviour in economic interactions. Both stress the importance of the inner, subjective conviction as the basis for actions, the feeling of an inner glow.

One could say that modern behavioral science is re-discovering the importance of faith that has been known to religions for a long time. And I would argue that this re-discovery shows us that the activity of having faith can be decoupled from the belief in divine entities.

So here is what I have faith in: We have a hand backing us, not as a divine foresight or control, but in the very simple and concrete sense that we are all survivors. We are all the result of a very long line of survivors who survived long enough to have offspring. Amoeba, rodents and mammals. We can therefore have confidence that we are experts in survival. We have a wisdom inside, inherited from millions of generations of animals and humans, a knowledge of how to go about life. That does not in any way imply foresight or planning ahead on our behalf. It only implies that we have a reason to trust out ability to deal with whatever challenges we meet. We have inherited such an ability.

Therefore, we can trust each other, ourselves and life itself. We have no guarantee or promises for eternal life, not at all. The enigma of death is still there, ineradicable.

But we a reason to have confidence in ourselves. The basic fact that we are still here--despite snakes, stupidity and nuclear weapons--gives us reason to have confidence in ourselves and each other, to trust others and to trust life. To have faith.

Because we are here, we have reason for having faith in having faith.

Re:Interesting...

[DShard]

Or more interesting what is the hypothesis that we can test? We have yet to see anything out of the "evolution didn't happen" camp to even test.

The continuing problem with religous conviction is that it presupposes fact. Science, on the other hand, assumes denial. If you come up with the hypothesis "God's tears cause thunder." you need to prove God. You may be able to (as possibilty may allow) but you need to be smarter than _many_ that have come before you.

If we reduce the argument to "Variation of life on earth couldn't exist without a guiding ${THING}". Then presumption is that ${THING} is god, but you can't do that because your hypothesis didn't include that. Change the hypothesis to include God and you are stuck with the proof-of-god conundrum again.

At some point you have to include assumption which isn't science, rather subjective reality. You can not prove it objectively, therefore we can't agree on it and it is not testable.

Additionally

[hayden]

For something to be a "theory" in science it must be falsifiable. So the theory must predict things and then it must be conceivable to perform experiments based on those predictions and get a yes or no answer. If the experiment gives an unpredicted result then the theory needs to be modifyed or a new one investigated.

A quote I've seen attributed to Asimov:
'The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."'

Intelligent design/creationism are not falsifiable and do not belong in a science class. They belong in a class studying mythology and fairy tales.

Instead of Removal...

[the pickle]

...they've been ordered to cover them with these!

p

Re: What?

[Theatetus]

Oh, and a minority should decide what the majority wants their kids to learn in schools their taxes fund?

A minority of people in this country understand the Calculus. They should be the ones who decide what everyone's kids learn in school. So, yes, exactly: a minority should decide what the majority's kids learn in schools everyone's taxes fund. That's because the minority is often smarter.

I'm in the Cobb County School District

[nfg05]

I go to a high school in the Cobb County School System (I'm a senior now), and I'm embarassed that we're even having this discussion. It's especially frustrating for me as my college applications are being reviewed and my school system is in the headlines for making everyone here like a bunch of crazy religious idiots. Not everybody here feels the way these "parents" do about evolution; most of the reaction I see at my school about this issue is disgust and frustration over the stupidity of the whole thing. I hope that this won't negatively impact my future, maybe I'll get lucky and the admissions officers at the schools I'm applying to won't read the news today.

Re:I'm in the Cobb County School District

[grcumb]

"I hope that this won't negatively impact my future, maybe I'll get lucky and the admissions officers at the schools I'm applying to won't read the news today."

No problem, just show up for your interview in a t-shirt with 'CAUTION - MAY CONTAIN THEORY' written across the front. They'll love you.

Re:Why are we abolishing critical thinking?

[Dimensio]

Why not similar disclaimers on all other science texts? One for gravitational theory, one for the theory of relativity, one for atomic theory?

Why single out evolution?

It only states that Evolution is a theory regarding the origin of living things

Actually, it's a theory regarding the origin and diversity of species. Evolution does not cover the ultimate origins of life, and the disclaimer is misleading in its wording.

Obligatory link to talkorigins.org

[wotevah]

Cut and paste to avoid slashdot effect.

Page titled "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.htm l

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
[...]

Hence, saying that for sure evolution "is not a fact" at best cannot be proven, at at worst is downright false.

Want more ? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Quote:

Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What's New page for the latest changes.

Re: What?

[belmolis]

Evolution is accepted by a minority of the world.

Really? My impression is that a rather large part of the world's population, quite probably a majority, accept evolution. Let's start with the Chinese, who comprise about a quarter. Add most Europeans and a large percentage of Americans and most Canadians. The only groups that I know of that are generally opposed to evolution are fundamentalist Protestants (Catholics and non-fundamentalist protestants accept evolution - I'm not sure about the Orthodox and monophysite churches) conservative Muslims, and some Hindus. And those Hindus who do not accept evolution have quite a different version of creationism from the Christians and Muslims.

Creationism vs. Evolution

[thewiz]

I've watched this debate with a great deal of interest and have laughed at the antics of those who want to push creationism on everyone.

I was raised in a Roman Catholic family and went to a Catholic high school. Funny thing is they taught us EVOLUTION, not creationism, in science class. We discussed the creation story in theology and how it was a metaphor for evolution since the people who were inspired to write the Bible didn't have the knowledge to understand evolution.

When will the people who want to put stickers like this in textbooks get the clue that trying to put science under the purvue of religion is a bad idea. Remember what happened to Galileo? When a group of people persecute others that don't agree with their idea of the "truth", we have tyrany.

Re:Interesting...

[Facekhan]

ID is just creationism with a new label to make it more palatable to the general public and not just fundamentalist lunatics. The only "scientists" working on ID are fundamentalist wack jobs whose PHD's were funded by Sun Moon (famous Cult leader) and others like him in an attempt to build support for ID by getting people with letters after their name say they agree with it even though those people are not actually involved in any "scientific" research, just fundamentalist lunacy.

Yes, Creationist.

[955301]

Do you live in Cobb County? Because the school superintendent also wanted the word "evolution" to be replaced with "biological changes over time". The whole thing is caused by people here misunderstanding that creationism isn't a theory. It's an ongoing argument propogated by media and people who think media coverage = credibility. If you catch the local religious stations here it would make your stomach turn to hear the logic behind the "fight".

BTW, facts are used to confirm a hypothesis and move it to theory status. Just shows that those that came up with the text don't understand science at all.

Re:Why are we abolishing critical thinking?

[OldAndSlow]

The trouble with the sticker is that it singles out evolution, and was put on the biology books to support a particular religous point of view. If every science book carried a sticker to the same effect, for example f = ma is a theory then I suspect that the entire endevor would pass constitutional muster, but it would also collapse under the weight of its own stupidity.

Lots of people want humans to be special in the universe. Evolution pretty much trashes that. But they are not so conflicted as to take on the entire scientific establishment that produces obvious, powerful things like atomic bombs and internets. They think that they can cut evolution out of biology without destroying the entire fabric of modern science. But it won't work.

Re:Which religion?

[LGagnon]

Actually, you're wrong. Atheism is not the lack of religion, it is the lack of belief in god(s). An atheist can still be religious (as in the case of some Buddhists). What atheism is, is a belief that one can have, whether you have religious beliefs or not.

Re: What?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Hey now! I breath through my mouth due to a nose problem, and I live in a cave ... but I know what an allele is!

Its time to fight against the predjudice towards cave dwelling people with overgrown nasal septa!

Re:GOD IS DEAD

[JavaRob]

Year 1882: God is dead -- Nietzsche
Year 1900: Nietzsche is dead -- God

That's funny, but it doesn't actually make any sense when you think about it. Try this:

Year 1882: "God is dead" -- Nietzsche
Year 1900: "Nietzsche is dead" -- Newspaper
"" -- God

Re:Yay!

[lucabrasi999]

this is only problably because this is a highly catholic community and they dont want their chilren believing otherwise.

As a former Catholic, I feel compelled to point out (for clarification purposes only) that the Catholic Church is not opposed to the theory of Evolution. It does question some of the "ape-to-human" points in the theory, but, from what I have read, that appears more to be from a lack of evidence than from some overall dogmatic opposition to humans evolving from apes -- check these out link and link.

Both links are very long articles that go into significant detail, but from the summaries I read, I interpret them to mean the Catholic Church is concerned where the human "soul" came from. They are not caught up in a creationistic point of view and they appear to be quite accepting in many of the finer points in evolution.

And, to go a step further, the Catholic Church, unlike some of the Evangalicals, does NOT believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

Re:Yay!

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

What truth? That because we didn't use antibiotics wisely, we now have strains of infectious pathogens that are all but immune to most/all of these drugs?

I suppose they didn't involve, rather God stepped in and created new superior bacteria as a punishment for heathen textbooks.

Re: What?

[belmolis]

I believe that the official Roman Catholic view is that evolution took place as scientists believe. They add the claim that at the point at which humans became human, God infused them with souls. This isn't really inconsistent with biological theory since biology doesn't have anything to say about souls. Effectively, the official view is biology + infusion of the soul.

I agree that those Christians who believe in evolution would not agree that life evolved purely as a result of cosmic chance, but evolution in and of itself doesn't require that. A purely materialist scientist sees no need to appeal to anything other than chance, but one can hold a perfectly orthodox view of evolution and at the same time believe that a Supreme Being set the whole thing in motion.

you have it backwards

[Phil Urich]

it's "thank goodness I live in Canada ... where there aren't so many people so rabidly fundamental that they try anything, everything, even silly things like stickers to try to make children ignore evidence!"

Evolution: both theory and fact

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the sticker is that evolution is both a theory and a fact. When Newton's theory of gravity was replaced with Einstein's theory of gravity, apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air during the process. Gravity is a fact and a theory. The theory describes how gravity works and the fact is that it exists. Anyone who thinks a sticker that says "Gravity is a theory not a fact" is a good idea should go jump off the nearest building and do us all a favor. The belief "evolution is a theory not a fact" is the belief of an idiot. School is not the place to endorse idiotic beliefs. Church is.

Re:Evolution: both theory and fact

[ultranova]

Gravity is a fact and a theory.

No. "Things fall down" is a fact - an observed phenomenon. "Things fall down because there's a force called gravity that causes an attractive force between any two masses" is a theory.

As for the sticker, "evolution" means "species change over time". This has been observed, so it is a fact. "Theory of Evolution", on the other hand, says that "All species on Earth were born from a common ancestor through evolution", which may be true, partially true ("some, but not all, species developed from a common ancestor through evolution") or completely false. Therefore, it is not a fact.

It should also be noted that one of the reasons that the Theory of Evolution gained so much support was simply a counterreaction to the centuries of oppression by religion and the then-fashionable atheism; scientists, being humans, aren't any more immune to letting fashion influence their thinking than anyone else. It was fashionable to deny the existence of God, and the authority of church, so any theory that would allow people to do so seemed inherently better than it's merits might have allowed.

Re:Evolution: both theory and fact

[Flaming Foobar]

but i really don't see how it's intended to promote some religious point or to argue a fact.

Then you must be stupid or blind.

Why not drop evolution from the sticker completely. Just "This book should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." It could be stamped on EVERY book. Including religious ones.

Re:Evolution: both theory and fact

[uohcicds]

I'll second all of that.

In addition I would say that, as a theory, it has stayed around so long because it explains observation better than any of the alternatives offered so far (my emphasis). That is the purpose of a theory; to construct a model of the world that we can use to explain what we observe. For example, light is neither a particle or a wave, it is something that can sometimes be modelled one way to describe its behaviour and sometimes the other. for each purpose, either model will explain the behaviour adequately. In a sense, it doesn't actually matter what it really is, merely that the model can describe and predict it. This echoes Richard Feynman, who once said something along those lines (I forget the exact quote).

Theories are not foolproof and set in stone, which is precisely what positivists like Popper said about empirical science: nothing could be proved, only disproved, because the set of data for such things is infinite and there may always be some condition to disprove just around the corner. This is precisely how the Laws of Thermodynamics were presented to me in my first year of a Physics degree: a set of "laws" making up a theory about thermal energy that seems to hold up with the observational data we have so far.

From Britain I look at the sticker and think, OK, have your sticker with the message written on it, just so long as those who don't think the same can put the following on bibles:

The Bible is a story, not a collection of facts, regarding the origin of living things. The material was written by many people over hundreds of years in many different languages. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Somehow, I don't think the Creationist lobby will go for that though...

Re:Evolution: both theory and fact

[dcw3]

School is not the place to endorse idiotic beliefs. Church is.

The parent's last comment should be labled flamebait.

I was in full agreement until he had to go and add that last sentence. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it right for you to go slaming other peoples beliefs. I'm no church-goer, but I respect peoples rights to believe in what they want...as long as they'll respect mine, and not call me (or others) an idiot.

I wonder

[MrLint]

if the bibles in Cobb county have stickers advising people to consider other belief systems?

Only in the States

[Whiteout]

... could such an issue arise. I'm sympathetic, my left-wing intellectual American friends, but the world is laughing at you just a little bit harder.

Re:Yay!

[Chris Burke]

Make no mistake about it; there is a cultural war, and the ACLU, the scientific community and the debate over evolution is being used in an attempt to exterminate Christianity in public life.

Don't be moronic. Yes, the ACLU has gone too far in enforcing separation of Church and State by hindering individual and consensual religious expression. No, the scientific community and the debate over evolution do not have anything whatsoever to do with exterminating Christianity. Sure, a lot of scientists are not Christian, but many are.

The only reason evolution and the scientific community can be considered enemies of Christianity is because certain subsets of Christianity insist on promoting a dogmatic view of the world that contradicts basic facts. It's a silly as calling Galileo an enemy of God, when really he was only an enemy of the Church because he contradicted their dogma and thus undermined their secular authority. In reality the Church was simply wrong, not to mention hubristic in assuming that earth was the center of the universe.

to prove or not to prove

[paperclip2003]

Science is the process of elimination:

1) I have a theory
2) Poke holes in theory (Try to disprove, not prove anything)
3) Make the theory better -- fit the facts that distroyed my first theory, then repeat until hopefully we got it right!

Religion:
1) I believe something -- therfore it is!
2) See 1

I would say that is like comparing Apples to Oranges. Science is great because it is ever changing. Religion is great because it is comfortable and never changes (much). With that said, if you are going to teach evolution and creationism, which versions do you teach and how? Wouldn't it better to teach children to think instead of ideas?

That's a good call, dude

[IdahoEv]

I'll be the one screaming "medic!" at the top of my lungs. Modern medicine may just be a theory but I reckon it's statistically a better bet than relying on His strength.

And you'd be absolutely right. In the current conflict in Iraq, the death rate from battle wounds is only 1.6%, whereas in vietnam it was 3.68%, more than twice as high. The army, at least, attributes this huge increase in survivability to modern medical technology and improved practice.

looked at as a ratio of wounded (but survived) to killed, the current ratio is 7.6:1. Going backwards in time, counting only U.S. soldiers:
Vietnam: 2.6:1
WWII: 1.7:1
WWI: 1.8:1
US Civil War: 0.74:1

In other words, a trend consistently shows more people surviving war wounds as time goes on.

Meanwhile, the evidence is not that there has been a massive (factor of twenty) increase in religiosity in the United States since the Civil war. Certainly, available data show that people self-identifying as Christian have decreased significantly between 1990 and 2004.

So the evidence would seem to indicate, unless God has consistently increased his tendency to save the lives of wounded soldiers despite no significant increase in their faith, that improvements in medical technology are in fact a good bet for saving your life when you're lying bleeding on the battlefield.

Good call, mike260.

Re:That's a good call, dude

[Darth Cow]

Actually, reduced mortality rates are better correlated to the increased righteousness of our cause.

Adendum to the stickers.

[Associate]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
Creationism is a superstition, not a fact.

Re:Just to be Safe

[aderusha]

google up "pascal's wager" - you've made one of the oldest (and throughly disproven) arguments for religon ever.

do you really think that the best reason to believe in a god is to treat it as a hedge bet against eternal damnation?

Re:Yay!

[Chris Burke]

Too, I'll have to ask you why if evolution is the exact science, why are there still monkies around?

Shouldn't they have evolved as well?

They did.

Why don't dolphins have thumbs by now?

Why would a dolphin need thumbs? They are perfectly well adapted to their environment. They are the top of their food chain.

Why can't rats talk yet?

Why should rats be able to talk? Rats are superbly adapted, and will probably outlast us. We couldn't wipe out the rats if we tried, so what evolutionary pressure is there to drive them to talk?

These are all questions based on a naive understanding of evolution based on the simple phrase "survival of the fittest". The seems to imply to people that if some adaptation (e.g. thumbs, speech, being able to fly, mutant super-powers) is or would be helpful, then that adaptation will necessarily arise and dominate. This is simply untrue.

A more accurate and revealing phrase might be "survival of the sufficiently fit". If a species is able to find food and procreate successfully then there is little pressure to change. Most mutations and new features are detrimental, not beneficial. Even if a "good" feature arises it will not necessarily spread and dominate if the rest of the species is able to do fine as they are. Even flaws -- sickle cell anemia, our vestigal appendix -- can survive if they aren't sufficiently damaging that they prevent survival (or in the case of sickle cell, can have benefits such as increased resistance to malaria).

You might as well ask why humans can't fly. We do just fine on the ground, thank you very much.

On the other hand, environmental pressure can quickly result in adaptation. Here is a fascinating example: poisonous toads imported to Australia were multiplying like crazy and killing the local predators that tried to eat them. Since their arrival in the 30's, a couple species of snakes have adapted to be able to more saftely eat these frogs. You see, snakes without the correct trait were not sufficiently fit and the pressure to change was huge.

Evolution is not an exact science -- the main theory for new features arising is random mutation of DNA! Questioning evolution because rats can't talk or because monkies can't fly and don't have laser eye beams is misunderstanding the point.

This is the tip of the iceberg

[Thangodin]

Telling school children that scientific theory is just theory is a game of dishonest semantics. The sense of the word theory in a scientific context is quite different from its common usage. In everyday usage, theory means an opinion based upon sketchy evidence. In science, a theory remains a theory no matter how well founded--even when everyone agrees that it is a fact. Gravity is a theory. Changing your mind about it will not give you the power to fly. To confuse the two meanings deliberately in a children's textbook, as this does, is a deliberate lie.

All over the world, religious adherents are using the old arguments of postmodernism to try to discredit science wherever it contradicts their beliefs. They are not engaging in scientific debate, but in meta-debates, using methods from literary criticism to paint science as mere opinion and orthodoxy. They are not talking about evidence. They are arguing that evidence itself is irrelevant. And they are not talking to scientists, who have already heard all their arguments and refuted them soundly. They are talking to people without any scientific knowledge, preferrably as young as they can get them. From the sound of some of the responses on this post, they've been talking to a lot of the people here. The goal is political. They can't refute science, but if they get enough votes, they can outlaw it.

I'm not kidding about this. The strategy is called The Wedge, and the long term goal (we're talking in terms of generations here) is to encourage a widespread attitude of distrust towards science and skeptical thinking. The have identified science, quite correctly, as the greatest threat to the type of magical thinking required for fundamentalist religions. Muslim and Hindu extremists have come to the same conclusion, as have a horde of New Age con men and fortune tellers, and are fighting for the same goal; the disparagement of science and the scientific method.

Anyone here who does not think that the scientific method works, throw out your computer now. And your car, all your appliances, hell, you should probably burn your house, because all of these things, the way they're made, the materials they are made of, are possible because of science. You probably would not be alive without the medicine and food that scientific advances have made possible. Think of the number of people who just died in the Asian Tsunami who would have lived if there had been an early warning system. Ignorance kills.

And if you think that evolution is just a theory or 'pseudo-scientific propaganda', that there are lots of arguments against it and its on shaky ground, then you haven't bothered to read the literature. I'm sorry, but all the arguments against it advanced by ID theorists and Creationists have been answered, and there is no alternative theory that has anywhere near the same volume of evidence to support it. If you don't know this, I suspect you either don't care to know it, or would refuse to acknowledge any evidence no matter how sound.

You are tremendously disingineous....

[jotaeleemeese]

... pretending there is no agenda in such an sticker.

THe court sought through it and rightly smacked the idea down as the offensive nonsense it clearly is.

5 words...

[benjaminchoate]

Science and religeon can coexist.

Honestly, in these forums I see so much religious ignorance that it makes me sick.

I don't agree with the sticker of course, because I believe that what Darwin observed does exist. I don't believe that man originated through evolution, but I believe that God created the earth and the things on it with a certain level of tolerance and adaptability. To do otherwise wouldn't make much sense from a scientific point of view, would it?

Re:5 words...

[Sj0]

God created this world. It's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it.

I'm not talking about the evolutionists, I'm talking about those who don't even want to look at the world God created for clues about how He did it before declaring that they know how the world works because of literalist interpetations of the bible.

Re:5 words...

[Decaff]

I'm not talking about the evolutionists, I'm talking about those who don't even want to look at the world God created for clues about how He did it before declaring that they know how the world works because of literalist interpetations of the bible.

This is because scientists look at the world with an open mind. We don't go out looking for clues about how He did it, because we don't assume anyone did it - if we did assume that, it would not be a useful scientific approach.

The problem with assuming that there are these clues is that almost all the discoveries that were thought to be clues of God's work have turned out to be false, and could be explained far more simply. There comes a point where there is no more room for these clues, as almost everything can be explained - we are very close to that stage with evolution and biology.

Have you heard of the 'God of the Gaps' argument, and why it is flawed?

Whats really frustrating here is....

[iwbcman]

that this pathetic attempt by religous fundamentaists to impose a creationist curriculum makes the critique of evolution and the critique of modern science even more difficult.

Science is not about truth. The measurement appropriate to science is the measurement of correctness. It is not about truth because it is personally irrelevant-ie. it has nothing to do directly with you or your actions and values-unless you are a scientist engaged in scientific activities. But the dogma of school science is about truth and pupils are by and large incapable of NOT drawing personal conclusions, conclusions about there own being, life and meaning based on what they are taught about science.

And it is indeed questionable if such is having a detrimental effect on our society. That so many adults are turning to fundamentalist christian beliefs is a an ultra hardcore indictment of our public school instruction about science. The void of personal meaning present in that which is being taught is real and tangible. It's not as if these adults were not subject to evolution in their schools curriculum....

Being against the fundamentalist doctrine of creationism does not mean that by default one endorses the theory of evolution. But this kind of situation, where the state acts to prevent an endorsement of religion in the public school curriculum, forces the issue-rendering things black and white.

The whole argument of science vs religion overlooks that there is practically little difference, in terms of conviction, between religion and science. Science is the religion of many modern day earth dwellers. It is accepted with the same kind of passitivity as is the case in most modern christians. Only a tiny percentage of people are actually scientists yet their theories, facts, and findings, translated into language which the non-initiated can understand, form the basis for much of our public schools curriculum.

Much of the religious nature of modern science is due not to science itself but due to the science (pedagogic) which has evolved to enlighten our childrens minds by teaching them about science.

Now one can argue about whether the material being taught is really science. And in the process overlook the fact that the indoctrination of scientific values and assumptions in our pupils impressionable minds is anything but scientific. To the extent to which 'science' and 'evolution' have become doctrines administered to our youth in the public school system the issues of what rightly constitutes science is no longer a decision of 'scientists'.

Evolution, an incredibly broad and overgeneral term for multiple conflicting and competing theories has become the basis of biology and the whole slew of neo-scientific adventures which have sprung up in the past 40 years (socio-biology, pyscho-biology and what not). In these scientific field there exists a degree of consensus about what evolution implies. This consensus around 'evolution'-or rather the raster of interelated theories which form 'evolution' has become so central, so pivotal that such neo-scientific adventures would vanish in a puff of logic if the non-verifiable ultimate hypothesis implied in 'evolution' where sufficiently debunked.

'Evolution' is in the first place a working tool which aids in organizing, categorizing the abundance of material gathered and explicitly casting these findings in terms of teleological causes.

As a tool 'evolution' is usefull for these scientific pursuits. As is the case with all tools- this tool will be surplanted in time by newer and more appropriate tools-as the sitution requires. 'Evolution'(eg. Maturana and Varela and the concept of autopoesis, natural drift) of today has remarkably little to do with Charles Darwins "Origins of Species".

The problem with 'evolution' in specific and 'science' in general is not that they are based on theories. Aside from the fact that everything which is not a theory is either (fantasy, mythology, mystery, fiction) or the unmittigated

Surely the sticker should be on ALL textbooks

[rishistar]

If it is the case why are they not asking for the same stickers to be stuck on EVERY textbook? A fair amount of what is accepted as 'scientific fact' for day to day purposes are is still a theory. And not just the natural sciences with its theories of evolution, relativity, black hole formation but also things like economics and geography textbooks need stickers on them

In fact, now I think about it the same sticker should be on English comprehension textbooks - lets face it we don't really know what Shakespeare was trying to portray a misogynist society in The Taming of The Shrew - seems more likely to me that he was out for a cheap laugh. Much of history is the same.

And obviously, when sticking these stickers on, they need to do the bible at the same time. Something like 'Well the first half of this book is a collection of pan European mythical tales bought together in a nice anthology and the second half was about a dude who was really cool, but we don't like to talk about what he did between ages 18-30 as he may have been being a naughty boy' should be accurate.

Evolution: known via rationalism or via science?

[LinuxParanoid]

(post1:) while atomic theory, gravitational theory, and germ theory can be tested, evolutionary theory cannot.

(post2:) Yes, it can, and has. If we found human remains in Precambrian strata, or if human DNA wasn't similar to the DNA of the other great apes, or if a cat ever gave birth to a dog, then evolution would be in trouble.

As an engineer watching this debate (and now dipping his toe into it), I don't find your rebuttal that persuasive. Analysis of the state of the world today (e.g. evolution) is a rational method, but it is not, to my mind, the scientific method (hypothesis, test, analyze, etc.) Whenever you are forced to use your analysis of a situation to predict and change it, your analysis is really tested in a fundamentally different (and superior) way than when you just take in new evidence and find you can make it mesh with prior evidence.

I confess I only skimmed a dozen of those speciation events in the FAQ you mentioned, but all the plant ones involved either observing or crossing-by-a-scientist. Not a scientist setting up an environment and watching chance do its work in creating new capabilities. (Actually some of the drosophila ones came at least close to using what I would consider the "scientific method" for evolution but I didn't find them too compelling. I didn't have the patience to wade through them all (work beckons) and you can discount my opinion appropriately.)

I've written natural simulation programs and I can tell you that it's not too hard to create an environment where, according to random chance a single trait changes from X to Y when you have coded a gene that allows variations in that trait. But evolution postulates that the genes weren't "created" and the notion of a trait wasn't "created" and that's a much subtler beast and based on what I've read over the years I don't quite buy that evolutionists have "proven" or even demonstrated it via a "scientific method".

I guess if I had to ask you one question, it'd be whether you agree with my distinction between a rational method and a scientific method. I see the latter being a subset of the former. If I'm wrong about that, then you probably don't have to even get into the evidentiary specifics.

--LP

It would be nice to have stickers that said...

[Peter Simpson]

"You'll be told many things in life. Don't believe all of them, ask questions, weigh the responses, do your own research, and form your own opinions."

That's what school's *supposed* to be about. Not school boards promoting their pet ideas and buying "lowest common denominator" textbooks.

Do yourself a favor, read your child's textbooks. Discuss them with your child, encourage them to think (critically) for themselves. It will only do them good as they grow up.

(and remind them that if they ever find themselves saying "hey, watch this", that they should immediately stop whatever they are doing and think long and hard about what might happen next!)

Why stop at evolution?

[Anita Coney]

I can't understand why creationists only object to the theory of evolution. There are plenty of other scientific theories which could be helped by their guidance:

Theory of Relatively: Things occur because god says so.

Theory of Gravity: Things fall and do not fall because god says so.

Theory of Continental Drift: The earth's surface moves because god says so.

Heck, I figure with the creationist approach to learning, kids would only have to go to school for about a week before they graduated. How long would it take to teach a kid the following: If you can't explain something, or if you don't like the explanation science offers, just assume that god did it.

An interesting quote from the actual decision

[male]

If you read the decision, the court spends most of the time explaining why the sticker *is* constitutional. However, the sticker still failed the test. Here's one reason why:

--
In this case, the Court beleives that an informed, reasonable observer would interpret the Sticker to convey a message of endorsement of religion. That is, the Sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the Sticker sends a message to those who beleive in evolution that they are political outsiders. This is particularly so in a case such as this one involving impressionable public school students who are likely to view the message on the Sticker as a union of church and state
--