It seems with someone like “Dubya” leading our country, this issue would surface once again. If nothing else (as others have mentioned), the “argument” that evolution is “just a theory” is ludicrous.
Einstein postulated the “Theory of Relativity”. Ask the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they think e=mc² is just a theory.
Seriously, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the attractiveness things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
Geez ultrafilter since you asked so politely, here’s what it has to do with the topic in question.
The argument I hear most often from creationists is that “Evolution is just a theory”. I’m sure just about all of us have heard that enough until it’s been run into the ground.
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity stated (among a great many other things) that if you were to convert matter directly into energy, the resulting energy yield would be determined by the formula e=mc². (Want to explore this more? Go to www.1728.com/einstein.htm)
Basically the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 resulted in tremendous devastation. The energy yield of each of those bombs was the result of about one gram of matter being totally converted to energy !!!
So, it’s just a not so subtle way of my telling creationists that a theory is not some far-flung totally contrived piece of fiction. As others have said, creationists really should learn the scientific definition of theory.
Stephen Jay Gould has done a wonderful article on the background and the history of the Scopes Trial, where he himself was a expert-witness.
I think the article is in Hen’s teeth and horse’s toes
Gould also has some interesting idea’s why creationists have made such an identity out of attacking evolution.
One of the little factoids Gould cites that I found of particular interest was that the Pope himself has admitted that “Evolution is more then just a theory”. Creationism is not a Catholic thing at all.
Come on… the Evolution/Creationism debate was going on in Kansas in 2000 and in Minnesota in 1999 while Clinton was in office. Putting this on Bush’s plate falsely takes away from the problem.
Are you thinking of a different trial? I’m pretty sure the Scopes trial took place 20 years before Mr. Gould was born.
:smack:
Yes, the Scopes trial was in 1927. I’m to tired to look it up, but Gold wrote about a much later one. The most likely candidate, IMHO, is EPPERSON vs ARKANSAS, 1968.
It was actually Edwards v Aguillard, heard before the Supreme Court in 1987.
Come on. Can’t we have one stinking thread without some snide presidential commentary thrown in? It’s a small school district, for goodness’ sake. I doubt if it would be any different there no matter who was in the White House.
No, gravity is also a fact and a theory. The fact of gravity is that heavy objects fall to Earth. The theory of gravity (strictly, of universal gravitation) explains this fact since it tells us that all massive objects attract each other, in proportion to their masses and in inverse proportion to the square of their separation. (The explanation is further developed by reference to warped spacetime and Higgs bosons).
Child: “Mom, Dad, at Sunday School they say it was Adam and Eve in Eden. At school they say it was abiogenesis and dinosaurs and natural selection and hominids. I think I’ll believe what they said in school. The Bible has nice stories but they’re just stories.”
Parent: "OMFG!! THEM GODLESS HEATHENS ARE INTERFERRING WITH HOW I RAISE MY CHILDREN!!!"
I mean after almost 80 years?? Lets face it, this thing will finally die when textbook publishers finally remove evolution from biology texts. I have a proposal-remove evolution AND creationism-that ought to make everybody happy. Then have ONE class to present evolution, and preface by saying: this is a theory. That ought to do it.
Seriously, I think this ignorance is being fed by the trextbook publishers…this way, they get to seel a new edition of biology texts every year!
I would agree, but with minor amendment. Let us call the class in which evolution is presented “biology” and preface it by saying: this is a fact.
Just to be clear, what is “this ignorance” exactly? (I assume you mean the ignorance of the factual status of evolution.)
My introductory biology course handled the creationism issue brilliantly. A quotation from Theodosius Dobzhansky was displayed: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”. This was briefly explained, and it was said that, since the course was on biology and not religion, creationism would not be discussed in the course. Questions on creationism would not be answered during lectures (but could be asked privately).
There is an overwhelming abundance of evolution in modern biology; the morphological evidence alone would be sufficient to convince a rational person in the absence of an ‘alternative’ belief which is put forth as a religious requirement. Once molecular evidence, in the form of genetic sequences evolving over time, was discovered, the evidence in favor of evolution became so pressing that it is nearly impossible for someone to reject this evidence unless they believe their salvation is threatened by the belief.
Creationists need to believe their theory because they require the Bible to literally true for their particular religious belief to stand. If the creation account falls, they believe their literal Christianity falls with it. Therefore, they take their hypothesis (whether it’s young-earth or old-earth creationism) as true, and then find evidence to fit their hypothesis. Many of their arguments are logical (e.g. creationism must be true because evolution leads to immorality, evolution is impossible because it defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Others are based on very weak geological observations (there are dozens of creationist claims that ‘the world must be 6000 years old because <geographical feature> is far too <deep,shallow,large,small,etc.> for the earth to be billions of years old’).
(There is a list of a large number of creationist arguments with scientific rebuttals at the talk.origins archive.)
The idea that ‘more than one theory should be discussed’ is wholly inappropriate, especially for high-school students. I would support teaching about creationism later on, when students are already aware of the abundant evidence in favor of evolution and are able to understand this evidence. High school students do not yet fully understand the evidence for evolution, so an evolution-vs.-creation argument seems like an ordinary debate. Many creationist claims (the watchmaker argument, the second law of thermodynamics argument, etc.) might make a lot of sense to someone who doesn’t know to think critically about these arguments, and doesn’t understand what it means if morphological differences between species correspond to genetic differences. Some high school biology teachers may not even be sufficiently familiar with this material to teach it effectively.
Also, ‘alternative’ theories are taught at no other place in a high-school science curriculum. Students in chemistry classes are never taught the alchemist’s theories of four elements combining to make up matter. Students of physics are never taught that the ether might actually exist and is ‘just as good’ as modern theories of propagation of light in a vacuum, or that Einsteinian relativity might not be true, or that the sun may revolve around the earth. Why do creationists believe it is acceptable not to teach alternatives at other places in a science course, but wrong not to teach creationism beside evolution? Why is the origin of life is the only place they want ‘alternative’ theories, where they suddenly feel a need for ‘balance’ in scientific education?
I doubt creationists would suggest their own theories should be “approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered” – a label like that could only exist in a book that teaches evolution but not creationism. Creationism is the search for evidence to meet what creationists see as God’s own hypothesis, a hypothesis that is not subject to change. It is not to be ‘critically considered’.
The theory/law distinction is not really something that is present in modern science. Scientists today are very unlikely to get a ‘law’ named after them (and it’s usually just a set of simple observations about the way something works, like Woodward’s Rules in organic chemistry). The theory/law distinction is rarely invoked today because theories and laws describe different things. When used to refer to historical material, a ‘law’ is an observation about how something works, and a ‘theory’ is a possible way of explaining it. Darwin, then, did have a theory of evolution – he suggested that the origin of species occured by natural selection for desirable traits. There are other theories of evolution, such as the punctuated equilibrium theory, and Lamarckian evolution (a largely discredited theory where individuals retain adaptations they acquire over their lifetimes and pass them on to their offspring). These are ‘only theories’, with a body of evidence to support each (and, in some cases, such as Lamarckism, powerful evidence against them). But the idea that evolution happens is not ‘only a theory’; there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that it does occur. The only controversy related to evolution in modern biology regards the mechanism by which evolution takes place, not whether it takes place at all.
You’re right. Man, there have been far to many of these trials. You’d think one was sufficient. 
Here’s what I find chilling about the case:
[HIJACK]
Does anybody know what the No Child Left Behind Act actually requires for testing in regards to evolution?
I’ve found an article on a pro-creation website that says that there was originally an amendment to the bill, by Rick Santorum nonetheless, that left the door open with the following statements:
According to the article, that amendment was dropped. But does NCLB have actual information standards that have to be met (and does that include evolution)?
[/HIJACK]