Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[BikerNYC]

High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory ...

If they do that, they should have a "disclaimer" for the Theory of Covalent Bonds, the Theory of General Relativity, and the Theory of Stellar Evolution.

In fact, everything in science should be labeled a theory, since it is always open to review and alteration because of new evidence.

[Physicist]

"No scientific theory has ever explained all the phenomena that fall within its domain."

Of course. Likewise, no piano has ever played all the songs that fall within its domain. There is a gigantically large number of electromagnetic phenomena in the universe, for example; the question is not whether our theories of electromagnetism have explained them all, but whether there are any such phenomena that it cannot in principle explain. The best you can ever say is that you haven't found any; the worst you can usually say is, "we haven't yet figured out how to explain this phenomenon with the current theory".

[stanz]

Anyone who reads and is knowledgeable in matters of biology accepts evolutionary tenets as the basis for the development of life on earth. For this to be questioned smacks of either a fear of letting go of long-held notions or of repudiation of science itself...IMHO. Anyone can question science- - -science allows you you put things to the test. Until someone can come up with solid evidence that disproves what the the fossil record tells us, invalidates DNA work, comparitive animal morphology and behavior and geologic analyses, I will recognize evolution and Darwinian selection as fact.For any school board to refuse to do so is, in my eyes, archaic and I would never allow my children to be educated in that kind of institution.

[PatrickHenry]

"No scientific theory has ever explained all the phenomena that fall within its domain."

Okay, but compared to what other kind of "theory" that explains the phenomena better? Astrology? The Olympian gods? Genesis? Taoism? You get the picture.

[LivingNet]

Also, I would like to see you create life from "scratch" using amino acids by FIRST creating the amino acids, etc.
No problem creating amino acids from scratch. Decades old technology available to high school kids.

How do you create Amino Acids from scratch??? (Bear in mind that when we say from "scratch" we mean from absolute nothing).

When you can prove to me (and re-duplicate it in a lab) that nothing explodes then we'll talk. Until then it is just a theory taken on faith whether you like those words or not.

[BMCDA]

Oh, a disclaimer again!
How about a page that explains what "theory", "hypothesis", "law", "model", etc. really mean in the scientific context?

[whattajoke]

from the article: "John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette..."

Once again, a creationist uses his lofty title to get the good people of Louisiana in a tizzy. I wonder if he mentions to them that "John Oller is Professor and Head of Communicative Disorders" at UL-Lafayette. And that his body of work includes how to get people to come to understand the words of Jesus were all true:
http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/oller_collinspap.html

it never ends with these people.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: su·per·sti·tion
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'sti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Middle French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand -- more at STAND
Date: 13th century
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

[ALS]

It boggles the mind how this should even NOT be in a textbook on evolution. It's a theory. Why the fear to call it such?
This intellectual dishonesty foisted on our kids needs to end.
While they're at it, comb the books themselves and delete all the subtle references that deceive the readers into believing that evolution is something resembling fact.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Once again, it's not enough for the fundamentalists to teach their own children.

[f.Christian]

"They have... lost(link)---a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

"That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

[forsnax5]

Okay, but compared to what other kind of "theory" that explains the phenomena better? Astrology? The Olympian gods? Genesis? Taoism? You get the picture.

I wasn't intending to make any such comparisons. That statement just appealed to me as a "universal disclaimer" that could be placed at the beginning of ANY science book.

One of the favorite statements of the anti-science types is that, since one or another particular theory doesn't explain EVERYTHING about a particular subject, then it's no good at all. The "universal disclaimer" simply points out that such logic doesn't work anywhere.

[forsnax5]

...the question is not whether our theories of electromagnetism have explained them all, but whether there are any such phenomena that it cannot in principle explain.

I like this. Thanks...

[Physicist]

It's a theory. Why the fear to call it such?

Because the science textbooks are filled completely with theories that are not labelled as such, but only evolution is singled out for the label. The obvious intention here is to inculcate doubt in the minds of the students regarding evolution, as compared to such equally well established models as the atomic theory of matter, or universal gravitation.

[whattajoke]

I'll allow the disclaimer in bio texts the day the bible states just before Genesis 1:1, "This book contains a bunch of fictional parables and symbolic stories handed down over the millenia. Nothing in this book is intended to be truthful or accepted as fact. Please read it with the understanding that it contains mostly superstition and impossibilities. Create and foster your fantasies at your own risk."

Ok, maybe not so hyperbolic, but maybe... just maybe, you get my point. But I'm sure not.

[far sider]

More creationist BS. In another 20 years we'll be able to create life from scratch using amino acids. Where will the cretionist arguments go then?

In other words in 20 years evolutionists will prove that it takes intelligence to create life. I'll buy that.

[VadeRetro]

Or, how's this for a disclaimer to the disclaimer:

Scientific theory should not be confused with fable or conjecture. For an example of a belief system that does not rise to the status of a scientific theory, take any religion. At bottom it is a superstition which postulates that sheer magic or unobservable beings somehow are more responsible for the operation of the world than predictable cause-and-effect relations. Such a notion takes the idea that stepping on a sidewalk crack will eventually somehow break your mother's back and extends it to the history of the universe.

[far sider]

Especially, if they can create life without DNA. (Amino acids form proteins. It takes a lot more than protein to create even the simplest organism, i.e., nucleic acids and many others.)

[ALS]

"Backers bristled at suggestions that they favor the teaching of creationism, which says that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible's Book of Genesis."

This is why the argument rages on. WHO said that's the definition of "creationism"?
I believe in creationism and if I believed that I would be making up my own theory just as much as the God-haters have made up theirs. You are witnessing a re-creation, not an initial creation.
Anyone with a decent concordance can quickly see that there is no reference to the earth or the universe being created 6,000 years ago. Yes I know so many have been TOLD that, it will cause confusion, and a need to defend what you don't even understand, because none of you have taken the time to check it out. It doesn't matter if you are atheist or fundamentalist. Anyone can still check it out.

The bible clearly says that the earth was perfect in its creation, yet in the 2nd verse of Genesis it says this:

1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The english translation contains the key to misunderstanding by ALL of you. At first glance it appears to be a continuation of verse 1:
1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

But the translation reveals that it BECAME WASTE AND RUIN.

The word "was" is hyh, which means to BECOME. Become is not the same as was. The word "form" is wht, and it means formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness. The word "void" is whb, and it means emptiness, void, waste.

If it was created in perfection, and it BECAME waste and ruin, it follows that there had to be a time period between the two.

Evolution and "creationism" have both become bedfellows in ignorance. Neither has defined the truth. No wonder you fight and bicker.
The evolutionists are happy as pie to allow the religionists to define creation in such a manner it's not only ridiculous, it's blasphemy. The creationists are just as happy to let the evolutionists define science in such a way it's preposterous and the epitome of blind faith.

Go ahead and keep bickering over the utter stupidity of your OWN fallacies in which you find comfort.
Very much like the married couple that aren't happy unless they argue.

children forever

[f.Christian]

The light at the end of the evo tunnel is the oncoming train!