The Education Wonks
So what is on the sticker that is not true? I read the other day that new research on meteors suggests that the chemicals to start life on earth may have come from them. Not what we originally thought.
Not that I think that the biblical theory is correct but rather we should encourage open and inquisitive minds.
The issue isn't the validity of the content on the sticker. The issue is that some think that this particular theory needs such a sticker in the first place. There are lots of unproven theories in many disciplines. Why no stickers for any of those? These stickers were chosen for a very specific purpose, and the court correctly saw through that.
Since when is a statement of fact that is consistent with the scientific method an endorsement of religion?
And to answer Stephen, it is because too many folks insist that questioning evolution makes one a closed-minded, uncritical opponent of science. But I guess we can see here that the closed-minds are all on the side of evolution!
Actually, the issue is the sticker, rather the fact that the ignoramuses who are responsible for it think that theory is somehow less than fact, as if it were somebody's opinion. It is not. Theory explains facts. Without theory, facts have no meaning. The fact that these twits don't know that and are somehow involved in education is the issue.
A sincere question: suppose a group of people wanted to add a sticker to school history textbooks (books covering the history of many centuries and many countries) that read, "This textbook contains material about the Holocaust. The occurrence of the Holocaust is a theory, not a fact, and some people question its occurrence. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
What would be the proper response?
"A sincere question: suppose a group of people wanted to add a sticker to school history textbooks"
That's not analogous.
Evolution has always been a theory. It has never been proven as fact. It should be taught as a theory, and not as a factual account of man's (and Earth's) origin. Besides, if one studies ANY living organism closely, whether it is a plant or an animal or a human, the sheer complexity seen would show to any intelligent thinker that this could not have just "evolved". Besides, in the "big bang" theory, where did the original matter come from? Looking at the physical laws of the Universe, one can see that you can not get something out of nothing. Ever.
That's not analogous.
Why not? Both are examples of historical events which some people assert took place, and others deny.
But what's the answer to my question? Suppose a group of parents/academics/citizens requested such a sticker be placed on school history books. How should the school respond?
Actually, your analogy fails.
One is well-documented and attested to.
The other is a theory -- though one well-grounded in fact -- that attempts to explain a long, on-going process.
The one can be verified, while the other can only be posited based upon deduction due to the absence of huge sections of the fossil record and the seeming sudden emergence and extinction of species.
Indeed, science itself defines evolution as a theory -- but it seems that scientists want evolution, alone among theories, to not be rigorously examined or tested.
One is well-documented and attested to.
That would be evolution.
But I'm not arguing about evolution or creationism. I'm asking about a different point, and no one has yet responded to it. I think denying the historicity of evolution is as reasonable as denying the historicity of the Holocaust. You disagree. I don't think our disagreement can be reconciled. I don't want to "celebrate diversity" here -- I think you're wrong. *But* in our free society, I will defend *absolutely* your right to publish twenty volumes of anti-evolution screeds if you want, to stand on the street corner handing out flyers for the Holocaust or against the Holocaust, or to blog for years about the transmissions you receive from the planet Krypton by way of the fillings in your teeth.
The question is not, "How can our views be reconciled?" The question is, "How should irreconcilable views be treated in society?" Should we resort to cutting off each other's heads, or firebombing each other's houses, as in Baghdad? I hope not.
The way we should approach irreconcilable views in the public square is clear: there should be near-absolute freedom to express whatever views you want. If you want to spend years handing out flyers on the street corner about the planet Krypton, or I want to spend years handing out flyers about evolution, the state should never prevent either of us from doing so, and should protect both of us from those who might wish to stop us, subject only to time and manner restrictions.
But a public school classroom is not the same as a street corner, is it? Or is it?
So if I'm a principal or a school board member, and someone from my community wants me to put stickers on my school's history books that say the Holocaust is a theory, not a fact, how should I respond?
In science, the term "theory" has the same general meaning and validity as the term "fact" in common usage. A hypothesis in science might be analogous to a theory in common usage.
Hence, the theory of evolution has the same standing and validity as the theory of general relativity. All theories are treated as facts because they have advanced beyond the hypothesis stage as the best information available to explain an observable phenomena.
Any scientific theory may be revised or overturned when a better theory is discovered. But ultimately, the dustup over evolution can be resolved rather simply. Any scientific hypothesis or theory must be replicable and falsifiable. In other words, other independent researchers must be able, using the same methods as those proposing the theory, to obtain the same results, or in the alternative, to prove it false. If a theory cannot be replicated or falsified, it is simply not a theory within the realm of science. It is not science; it is something else.
No matter how one packages creationism (intelligent design, scientific creationism, etc.) it cannot meet this simple test. It cannot be replicated or falsified because at its core, the foundation and the ultimate explanation is that God (the uncaused first cause) caused it. This is faith, not science.
There is nothing at all wrong with faith. Some scientists believe that God is the ultimate creator, but they do not represent that belief as science. One does children a terrible disservice when they knowingly confuse faith with science no matter how well intentioned they may be.
There is no paucity of institutions for the furtherance of faith, and most do not include science in their theology. May schools be allowed to continue to teach the best theories that science can offer. No student is thereby denied the opportunity to practice their faith as they see fit, and all students are intellectually enriched and remain undeceived and unconfused.
Oh yes, one final thing about those who demand equal time to "teach the controversy." I'll go along with that, as long as you include my theory of creation, which is that we were all created by a super race of space aliens who eerily resemble William Shatner, and who seeded lifeless planets, built the pyramids, and are responsible for WalMart, certain US senators and representatives (you know which I'm talking about) and flouridated water.
Besides, if one studies ANY living organism closely, whether it is a plant or an animal or a human, the sheer complexity seen would show to any intelligent thinker that this could not have just "evolved".
Funny. The intelligent thinkers who actually do look at the sheer complexity come to exactly the conclusion that these organisms just evolved. Perhaps they know something more about what is possible and not possible than you do?
Looking at the physical laws of the Universe, one can see that you can not get something out of nothing. Ever.
The Big Bang Theory does not posit that "nothing" existed before the expansion of the universe started. The theories specifically don't say anything about what was extant at time zero.
I think you might want to learn a little more about the theories you criticize. Otherwise, you'll continue to spread uninformed opinions that serve to create only heat and no light.
To Rhymes with Right...
Sorry, but comments like "But I guess we can see here that the closed-minds are all on the side of evolution!" are not in any way productive. I didn't say anything about anyone's being closed-minded at all, and to respond in that way was unnecessary.
I did mention that evolution is an unproven theory, and it seems absurd to put stickers on any book that contains unproven theories because there are so many of them. The reason that this particular theory is being targeted is because it contradicts what some religions teach. That does not imply closed-minded behavior, unless you believe that being religious is in some way equivalent to being closed-minded. I do not feel that way at all.
"In science, the term "theory" has the same general meaning and validity as the term "fact" in common usage. A hypothesis in science might be analogous to a theory in common usage.
Hence, the theory of evolution has the same standing and validity as the theory of general relativity. All theories are treated as facts because they have advanced beyond the hypothesis stage as the best information available to explain an observable phenomena.
. . .
There is nothing at all wrong with faith. Some scientists believe that God is the ultimate creator, but they do not represent that belief as science. One does children a terrible disservice when they knowingly confuse faith with science no matter how well intentioned they may be."
Well said, sir. Very well said.
And no, evolution is not an "unproven" theory, whatever that might mean. There is more evidence for evolution than there is the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.
I've got no problem with that sticker - if those proposing it will wear a sticker explaining what "theory" means in science for the rest of their lives. An unproven idea is a "hypothesis". When it's been confirmed by multiple tests by many scientists and their is general agreement on it, it's a "theory".
Scientists use that word to emphasize that everything in science is provisional and subject to revision as we learn more. Some very basic and centuries old theories have come to be called "laws". E.g., there's the law of gravity, discovered in the 1600's and at the very base of physics - but about a century ago, it was discovered that even this wasn't quite accurate, and physicists are still discussing exactly how to revise it.
I am glad that those of you who wrote about the Holocaust being a theory to some do not live in Austria. You would now be in jail...and you could be putting stickers on the wall 
It's unfortunate that so many "educated" people have NO CLUE that there are 2 different definitions for theory depending on whether one is speaking of theory in the scientific realm or theory as used in humanities. They are two vastly different concepts. In science, something is never "just" a theory. The "just" a theory is the educated guess definition as used in humanities and "intelligent design" (AKA creationism).
Kathy F,
"Besides, in the "big bang" theory, where did the original matter come from?"
How about -
Besides, in the "god" theory, where id the original god come from?
Commenting by HaloScan.com
