The theory of evolution is not controversial here. For lack of education or whatever, some people refuse to accept it. But their lack of any provable alternative and ability to formulate one does not make evolution controversial. Among the rest of the thinking and educated America, evolution is as accepted as the theory of gravity. IMHO, of course.
Point taken, and gladly so! Much of the British press has reported your recent court case (in Pensylvania?) as a move by American 'conservatives' to introduce Biblical concepts into science teaching--but that makes no sense at all, least of all as a 'conservative' program. Here (UK) it is the socialists who are the culprits when it comes to politicising education; I have always assumed (without previously given it much thought, I admit) that the problem was the same in the US.
I just love following these: The darwinists claim the creationists have a "lack of education" . . . someone posts multiple links to scientific pro-creation websites . . . macro-evolutionists fire back with the claim that those scientists are whackjobs despite all their academic accolades . . . creationists claim the dawinist posters don't have anywhere near as many letters after their names . . . darwinists claim the creationists ARE the missing links they've been looking for . . . the discussion DEVOLVES into a shouting match . . .
All the while I continue to read periodically while trying to accomplish real work on the other PC. It's a hoot. Entertainment at its best.
Gravity, it's just a theory.
So9
"Among the rest of the thinking and educated America, evolution is as accepted as the theory of gravity. "
But I'd also suggest the debate is still viable for intelligent design - if you believe evolution is following a specific gravitational track down a potential gradient.
"The theory of evolution is not controversial here. .." ~ DaGman
Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
"...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
Excerpted from:
Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996