Because it violates Church and State
Hu-wha?

According to the judge, stating that evolution is a theory is "denigrating evolution."

'Round these parts, I call that a simple, harmless fact.

It's biology. Not religious studies. There's a time and a place for different theories, and in the lab, it's evolution.

While the sticker is completely correct and all that, it's like having a sticker on a physics book about the theory of relativity, or this or that.

In any case, there is truly no rival theory to evolution in the biological sciences that is even given a second thought. The sticker seems to infer that there are other rational theories, which there aren't. Also, they infer students won't think about what they are presented, which isn't the case.

It's not really what the sticker says, but what it stands for. It is a stupid feel-good sticker for zealots who feel great fear when anything challenges their ideals. Oh noes, the earth isn't flat! On my gawd, the earth isn't the center of the universe. They have reacted like that before. True faith shouldn't be shaken at the simple hint of a rival idea. Let ideas flow anyway, and if you don't belive in it, rationally debate it. And don't put stupid disclamer stickers as if it was a pack of cigars.

Ah, finally the legal system did something good for a change!

Or a sticker on a maths book saying that Pythagoras is "only a theory".

People should learn the scientific definition of the word theory. In science a theory is "the highest forum of scientific understanding. An explanation which has passed test after test and is still the best available explanation of the facts in question."

I want to have a sticker put on copies of the bible which says:

True. But there are still other scientific theories besides evolution. Evolution simply has the most evidence compared to other scientific theories. No, that doesn't make it fact. We can only work with evidence we actually have. And we're only human, so our evidence is limited. And again, given evidence available to us, this theory has the most support.

Not to mention that evolution is in no way tied to origins of life. Origins of types of life, yes.

Dogsrool, first of all: no worries. It's just this post for me, then this thread gets off-limits. I promise.

I honestly don't think there's a competing theory, next to evolution. It's cool that you said it has lots of evidence; I read somewhere that evolution is the best documented biological theory there is - even more than basic stuff like photosynthesis and osmosis.

Also, this is a good read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html



Evolution doesn't really claim that. Abiogenesis has a pretty complete theory on the origin of life I think. I don't know all that much about it honestly, but this is good basic info: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Again, no competing theory next to it.

Anyway, all have a good night while I'm studying the subtleties of Patau syndrome. Whoo!

And, be sure to take a look at the essay I wrote on this forum. It's *mindblowing*

This is just silly. The stickers in don't even imply support of creationism. They merely state that evolution should not be regarded as dogmatically true, which is the case for any scientific theory. Isn't the whole point of science to question what we know, to see if it's true?

While the wording may have been unfortunate (the word "theory" meaning different things to scientists and to laymen), the conclusion that it supports creationism is silly. If I say that, for example, capitalism is only one view on economics, and should be approached with an open mind, it doesn't mean that I'm saying that everyone should be a communist. Even if those are the only two options, that doesn't mean that there won't be a third one discovered further down the road. And if that third one is discovered, which will be better -- a bunch of scientists trained to believe what they're told without question, or a bunch of scientists who keep an open mind and evaluate the evidence on its own merits.

Argh. It frustrates me. The sticker basically encourages students to keep a skeptical, scientific viewpoint about a currently controversial topic. How does religion even come into that?

Well, the sticker manufacturer isn't happy...

Krig---what would you say to an alternative of having a similar sticker on EVERY science textbook? The fact that evolution gets singled out makes the motivation for the sticker obvious. And if you ask me, the misfortunate wording is a lot bigger deal than you make it out to be. The sticker was put there because of the bias of that area; people in that area will see the sticker and probably see it as an excuse to justify their biases against proven theory.

No, there aren't.

The only thing that might have qualified as a 'competitor' to Natural Selection was the Gaia theory, and this was recently shown to coincidence with Natural Selection quite elegantly.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, it should not feature in a science lesson. 'Intelligent Design' is just Creationism with a whole load of completely unnecessary jargon pelted in. Similarly, it should not feature in a science lesson. Science lessons are for science.

There may be other theories, but really, do they have any place in a lab? It's slightly awkward when you go into a Biology lesson and the teacher stands up and says, "today were going to do evolution. Blah, lah, blah, but ignore all of that, because it may or may not be true. Here's some creationism. Blah blah blah..."

Creationism is an idea put forward by religion, and should be taught and listed separately to evolution, which is an idea put forward by science.

Whoops. Facts instead of theories... and religion instead of science. I must have been knackered typing this.

Exactly, Evolution is science, creation is...well... just a story.

I love how people (I'm looking at you Krig) ignore the posts above them that refute the argument they put forth, and they don't even adress them. Fight on my blind friends, fight on!

Edit:

The fact you even mentioned Abiogenesis Tenshu... man, I looked that up, hoping you weren't looking up the theory that originated back when people though flies spawned out of rotting meat, rats from hay piles, and leeches from stagnant water. But lo and behold, you were.

Now, that had to happen eventually, but the organisms that came from the organic molecules that came from, well, to be more consice, abiogenesis needs evolution to get to where we are today. It no longer is a stand alone theory. You funny, funny man you. To put in another way, that is the equivalent of saying the sun rotates around the earth. Read stuff before you post.

I disagreed with Tenshu, that is a dangerous thing, I fear the wrath of heaven! Sorry, I had to put that game refrence in here.

While the stickers arent 100% "Politically correct"... these parents must have way too much time on their hands to sue over that.... they should y'know.. get a job.. or life or something.

Maybe they are the relatives and friends of the poor sticker manufacturer?

There isn't anything controversial about natural selection.

Jedi Legend -- I would be quite happy to see such stickers in every science textbook we have, not just those relating to evolution. For one thing, due to budget constraints many textbooks in schools today are woefully out of date, and contain errors. For another, the idea that we should teach our children to accept everything they hear without question is abhorrant to me. Critical thinking is already sadly lacking in our culture of prepackaged convenience and instant gratification, to censor those who would try to encourage it is foolish at best.

As for the motivation that placed the sticker in the textbook -- why should that matter? If I save a child from a burning building because I want to be seen on the evening news, does that mean my act is evil? If I donate a million dollars to charity because I've found some tax loophole, does that mean the government should force the charity to give back the money? This isn't a matter of whether the motivation for sticker is right or wrong -- it's a matter of whether the government is allowed to legislate on our motivations. Should we start up a "Department of Thought Police" to make sure everyone's motivations for their actions are entirely blameless?

Finally, I would like to kindly point out -- hopefully without sounding too nitpicky -- that one cannot "prove" a scientific theory. One can gather evidence to support it, and many times the evidence is overwhelming enough to merit the theory being accepted in practice as fact. But there is always a chance, no matter how remote, of the theory being overturned. One of the defining points of a scientific theory, in fact, is that it must be falsifiable. So to say that a theory is "proven" and therefore we should quell all debate on the subject is actually in opposition to one of the more important principals of science. A scientist should always be striving to prove false his own theories, it's the only way he can tell if they're true or not. Really, it should be the evolutionists putting disclaimers in the textbooks, not the creationists.

Kuat -- I apologise if I missed something that refuted my previous post, would you kindly point out which one it was? I admit I didn't read each preceeding post as thoroughly as I might have, had I more time.

Mort-Hog -- I agree, there's nothing controversial about Natural Selection. It's the theory of universal common descent that's controversial. Or maybe you haven't noticed how a flame war breaks out every time the words "evolution" or "creation" are mentioned?

In any case, I would think that to promote critical thinking would be a good thing, no matter the motivation behind it. Apparently the Supreme Court doesn't agree.

Evolution is a theory in the same sense that the earth not being flat is a theory. There's no such thing as a scientific fact.

The saddest part is that people in those states truly believe they're getting quality education. If the state censors everything they don't agree with, then school simply becomes a means of propaganda distribution.

There are such things as scientific fact, just very few of them. Just like there are few actual scientific laws. Evolution, while definetly a well backed theory, is still not accepted as a scientific law. However, you would little be able to tell from how they teach it to you in school, since whenever evolution is taught it is almost always presented as a law of science, which it isn't.

I really don't think you read my post. Your idea of abiogenesis is outdated as well: you think it's some sort of aristotelian abiogenesis (with spontaneous generation). I also didn't suggest that it was a standalone theory.

YOU HAVE BEEN **FALSIFIED**.

Never said it was.
1.) It's too vague to be science.
2.) See 1.
3.) If these creationists would study both the first and second chapters of Genesis, they might notice frequent use of the word "formed" in chapter 2, as compared to "created" in chapter 1. Not that it's particularly relevant.
We're here. That's all that matters to me. Live life, and quit worrying about it, I say.

I'm still utterly confused as to why people get on this creation vs. evolution thing when the two don't even cover the same topic. I've tried pointed this out to people in other forums, and they simply don't get it. Hopefully, you guys do.

You mean it's too illogical to be science. Science is founded on logic, not precision.

My Biology teacher for GCSE said something along the lines of "I'm going to present 2 arguments for the origin of the species (whatever) - one of them will take me 5 minutes to explain, and for the rest of the week we'll be studying evolutionary theory. Both are theories, neither are FACT, but there is a heavy bias you might want to read into".

Mr Morrison ROCKED.

No, not really. Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share an evolutionary ancestor - we're distant cousins. There's some discussion as to what happened before that, we could have gone from trees to sea to land, or from sea to trees to land. I haven't been following any recent developments in this discussion.

The whole "teach the controversy" stuff is an attempt to get pseudoscience taught in a science lesson. Sociological issues might be appropriate in a history lesson or something, but not a science lesson. If the object is to keep 'bad' science from the classroom, the same standards should be applied to the counterarguments from creationists, which are all bad science.
There are controversies over details of evolutionary theory, such as the relative contributions of sympatric vs. allopatric speciation. These controversies require a great deal of background in biology even to understand what they are about. They should not be taught to beginning students. They should be taught to graduate-level students in biology, and they are.


As for the whole "it's just a theory!" malarkey..

The word 'theory' does not suggest uncertainty. A theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. In terms of natural selection, these are some of the phenomena we're talking about:
# That life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
# That life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
# That species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
# That natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

They are all facts. The purpose of a theory is to explain those facts. And it has done so, multiple-fold. Natural selection has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control and drug discovery, among others.
The observation that lifeforms change over time, this has been observed even before Darwin came around. Darwin only assembled different observations into a coherent group of them.

"only a theory" is not anything even approaching a real objection. 'Creationism' isn't even a theory.

God that makes me hungry.

This thread makes for very interesting reading.
I just wonder what would happen if someone tried to put similar stickers regarding religion in bibles?

Or put them under "Fiction" at book stores.

American public schools were openly designed to be propaganda tools and to prepare the population for non-stimulating jobs.

I think that teachers should just mention in the lesson that evolution is a well accepted theory but not proved completely as fact. I think its pretty stupid to stick stickers on the books reminding the pupils , thats just extreme.

Heh, yes, stickers in Bibles saying "This may not be literal truth" would make sense.


Also, from that article



Oh man. I'd love to see what these 'unanswered questions' are, because that one there regarding the complexity of life is certainly not unanswered.
Arguments from incredulity usually follow the form "It is inconcenievable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally (and must have been created)"

The blank is usually 'the eye', 'the ear', 'the heart', 'lungs', 'the brain', 'nervous system'.

When in fact all of those have been explained as to how they could evolve naturally. The eye in particular is often used, Creationists asking "what use is half an eye?". Well, the evolutionary steps to achieve a fully functional eye are:
* photosensitive cell.
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve.
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin.
* pigment cells forming a small depression.
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression.
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape.
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust.

and each of these steps can be broken down into many more steps.

There is no system that is "too complex" to be explained by natural selection. They can all be broken down into evolutionary steps or stages, and would have been achieved across millions of years of natural selection.

So yeah, so much for that 'unanswered question'.

Dawkins' kickass view on the subject: http://video.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/media4/now/120304/349dawkins-hi.rm

That guy rules so much it makes me cry. You *have* to read his books: maybe 'a devil's chaplain' as a starter (collection of essays from his various books, articles, etc...).

LOVE IT LOVE IT LOVE IT!

To determine if something is logical or not, it needs to be precise. Examples follow:

Vague: Is it logical to fight someone?
Precise: Is it logical to fight a person who attacks you?

Your answer is probably different depending on the detail presented. Same thing for creation. It's vague, plain and simple. Logic doesn't really come into play here. Science is based on evidence, or more specifically, the interpretation of evidence, and the collection of such interpreted evidence into a cluster called a theory.

This 'Creation vs. Evolution' bull**** is getting old. What are people hoping to prove? Evolution does not disprove Creation as described by the Bible, and vice versa.

A lot of people here and elsewhere don't seem to get that.

cre·a·tion·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Huh? A counterfactual account in the Bible?

Well, natural selection does conflict with various passages in the Bible, and other facets of modern science conflict with others. Pretty much all of Genesis conflicts with science.

'Creationism' isn't a theory. It provides very few falsifiable predictions, and all those it does provide have already been proven false. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.


Not only is natural selection a theory, it is also a fact.

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.

This is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution lies in the realm of the relative importance of the different mechanisms involved in moulding evolution. This is quite complex biology, and isn't taught until University-level. As far as 'High School biology' is concerned, evolution is fact.

No-one can deny this any more than they can that the Earth is round, rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun.

You left out the little bit about how human eyes only see one part of the light spectrum, while there are eyes that can see U.V., so who's to say we don't have just half an eye?

Sometimes, yes. But often, no.

My point is that religion is based entirely on faith, and faith is illogical, or it wouldn't be faith to begin with. :p

Like when you say you're taking a leap of faith, it doesn't mean you're choosing the most logical answer, it means you're doing the opposite.