The sticker

[TwinCrier]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6434725
“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.”

Even from a science view, this is a great plus. No longer will science have to look foolish or admit fault when new evendence arises that challenges the current theories. There is no more pressure to prove Darwin right. Instead, the evidence can be looked at objectively, and those who have faith in the bible, ot other books and doctrine do not have to be belittled. It would seem a simple way to appease all sides, yet many evolutionist still object.

 

[Gold Dragon]

This is an unnecessary label because almost every basic science text begins with a study of the scientific method, scientific theory and that it should be appoached with an open mind to be studied carefully and critically. This chapter also illustrates how it isn't foolish but is science at work when new evidence arrives to challenge current theories.

Those who read about evolution or any other scientific concept with a closed mind probably glossed over this chapter.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Oh come on.

Why single out evolution for this disclaimer? I'll tell you why. It's to falsely make out that evolution is somehow more speculative, more contraversial and less solid than all the other science in the textbook. This is of course not true.

Deceitfulness is no less deceitful for working without stating an outright lie.

 

[notto]

“This textbook contains material on world history. World history is a theory, not a fact, regarding the history of civilization. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

According to YEC's and biblical literalist, much of world history is incorrect also. Why no stickers on the history books. What about the earth science books? Astronomy?

YEC and creationism/ID is anti-science and conflicts with more than just biology. This sticker shows that they don't understand how science works and instead of presenting any evidence to falsify scientific theories, they instead fight a political battle at board meetings with an audience that doesn't undertand the subject, all to the detriment of their children.

Science has never been looked foolish or admitted 'fault' when new evendence arises that challenges the current theories. That is how science works. Teaching children differently or teaching them that a mainstream theory is 'just a theory' is what looks foolish.

 

[Vance]

One serious problem is that the sticker itself is VERY bad science. To say that any theory is "just a theory, not fact" is a horrendous mistatement of the relation between theories and facts. Theories NEVER become fact, since theories are just explanations of data, while facts are the data themselves. The theory of gravity is not a fact either, and to compare facts and theories this way just shows the pathetic level of scientific knowledge of those writing the sticker. Why should those who are so blatantly ignorant of the basics of science that they don't even know the basic definitions of the "theory" and "fact" have ANY input in a science class or on a science book?!

Even AiG is embarrased by this type of ignorance, which is why they have warned their fellow Creationists NOT to use the "evolution is just a theory" argument. Obviously, this group didn't get the memo.

The irony here is too sad to be funny.

Not to mention that evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory, as I have shown elsewhere. There are the facts of evolutionary development and the theory of evolution that explains those facts.

 

[PaladinValer]

Once again, YECs clearly show their incorrect assumptions of what science is; this time in terms of the definition of a "theory."

A theory is a hypothesis with a great deal of information and evidence backing it up. THe phrase "its just a theory" is a crass copout and will lead to more and more ignorant children as the years go by.

As a future teacher, I am appauled at this, and I pray and hope that people get educated about the facts of science by scientists and not rely on the fallacy of appealing to authority by going to some "pastor" who knows squat about what he/she is talking about.

 

[gluadys]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6434725
No longer will science have to look foolish or admit fault when new evendence arises that challenges the current theories.

Who but a creationist would think science looks foolish when challenged by new evidence?

 

[Smidlee]

Oh come on.

Why single out evolution for this disclaimer? I'll tell you why. It's to falsely make out that evolution is somehow more speculative, more contraversial and less solid than all the other science in the textbook. This is of course not true.

Deceitfulness is no less deceitful for working without stating an outright lie.

Honestly, I can't think of any scientific theory that is more speculative,contraversial and less solid than Darwinism. There is a book out that points out all the misinformation in the biology textbooks on evolution that needs to be corrected.

 

[notto]

Honestly, I can't think of any scientific theory that is more speculative,contraversial and less solid than Darwinism. There is a book out that points out all the misinformation in the biology textbooks on evolution that needs to be corrected.

Can you please name for us all of the scientific theories that you have researched in depth in order to reach this conclusion.

Relativity?
Gravity?
Atomic Theory?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Honestly, I can't think of any scientific theory that is more speculative,contraversial and less solid than Darwinism.

String theory
Quantum mechanics
Gene expression mechanisms

Three off the top of my head.

There is a book out that points out all the misinformation in the biology textbooks on evolution that needs to be corrected.

Would this be Wells' Icons of Evolution - which is itself riddled with errors?

The correct place to raise problems with existing models is in the scientific literature. Those who instead try to overturn established science through popular literature (such as Erich von Daniken) are generally cranks.

 

[tryptophan]

The problem that I have with the sticker is that it essentially tells students that a theory is little more than a guess with some evidence that is hardly substantial. In fact, a theory is something that has been practically proven, over and over again.

We have hypothesis' about how the Moon formed. However, we don't have enough evidence to figure out if these hypothesis' are solid enough to become a theory. Also, we don't have enough evidence to show how life arose, although we certainly have some hypothesis' (plural?). Evolution, on the other hand, has an incredible amount of evidence to back it up.

 

[Vance]

Scientists are more sure about the theory of evolution today than they are about the theory of gravity.

 

[tryptophan]

Scientists are more sure about the theory of evolution today than they are about the theory of gravity.

What exactly is the theory of gravity?

Edit: Or do you mean the theory of universal gravitation?

 

[grmorton]

What exactly is the theory of gravity?

Edit: Or do you mean the theory of universal gravitation?

General Relativity. It has been confirmed experimentally to many decimal places.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

[Information] Tryptophan - plural of hypothesis is hypotheses [/Information]

 

[Micaiah]

The problem that I have with the sticker is that it essentially tells students that a theory is little more than a guess with some evidence that is hardly substantial.

That pretty much sums up evolution. Maybe the problem is claiming evolution is a theory. Certainly would be if the following definition of a theory is adopted:

In fact, a theory is something that has been practically proven, over and over again.

 

[Micaiah]

One serious problem is that the sticker itself is VERY bad science. To say that any theory is "just a theory, not fact" is a horrendous mistatement of the relation between theories and facts. Theories NEVER become fact, since theories are just explanations of data, while facts are the data themselves. The theory of gravity is not a fact either, and to compare facts and theories this way just shows the pathetic level of scientific knowledge of those writing the sticker. Why should those who are so blatantly ignorant of the basics of science that they don't even know the basic definitions of the "theory" and "fact" have ANY input in a science class or on a science book?!

Even AiG is embarrased by this type of ignorance, which is why they have warned their fellow Creationists NOT to use the "evolution is just a theory" argument. Obviously, this group didn't get the memo.

The irony here is too sad to be funny.

Not to mention that evolution is BOTH a fact and a theory, as I have shown elsewhere. There are the facts of evolutionary development and the theory of evolution that explains those facts.

Here is what AIG state:

‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

AIG's concern is that scientific theories are used with reference to those scientific explanations that are based solidly on experimental science. That is clearly not the case with evolution. Theories aint theories.

 

[Micaiah]

In case you are feeling uneasy not being able to provide a water tight description of what constitutes a scientific theory, take heart from the following discussion on the topic.

http://www.hps.unimelb.edu.au/staff/staff_papers/howard/howardpaper4.PDF

I take it the writer at least understands what they are talking about. It highlights the difficulty the scientific community has deciding what actually constitutes a theory, and how you reconcile conflicting theories.

As stated above there's theories, and then there are theories. In the world of physics, many of the theories are based on experimental or observable evidence. It would be wrong to give the same credence to evidence used to support 'slime to scientist' evoplution as say the evidence supporting the theory of gravitational attraction.

Unfortunately statements like 'yes evolution is a theory, but so is gravity' fails to highlight the differences in the trustworthiness of the evidence and the inferences drawn from it. You may recall we had a discussion about types of evidence previously.

Statements like this:

Scientists are more sure about the theory of evolution today than they are about the theory of gravity.

illustrate what I'm saying. You will find though if pressed for an explanation, the proponent is talking about small genetic changes that occur in populations of animals which no one disputes, rather than 'slime to scientist' evolution. The force of the argument lies in semantics, and no surprise given that a lawyer made the comment. In my books, that is not good science. Good science isn't about being tricky with words. It is up front. It is transparent. It calls a spade a spade. In short it is honest. Honesty forms the basis of all good science.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'd suggest that ERV insertions in the genome all but "prove" macroevolution. As far as I can see, a non-common descent of this particular evidence is perverse.

Unless you can be the first creationist to come up with a good creationist interpretation of these observations.

 

[tryptophan]

That pretty much sums up evolution. Maybe the problem is claiming evolution is a theory. Certainly would be if the following definition of a theory is adopted:

That's what I've been arguing. If somebody believes that evolution is not a well substantiated theory, they shouldn't be arguing that it is just a theory. They should be arguing that it shouldn't be considered a theory. But this sticker implies that a theory is hardly something substantial at all. And that's going to spread ignorance about science even further.