'Evolution is theory' sticker on court docket

[Thom Little]

Under orders from a federal judge, school staffers and students used putty knives and a glue remover last spring to erase the evolution debate from 34,452 Cobb County schoolbooks.

The famous stickers declared evolution "a theory, not a fact," but U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper said that assertion had more to do with religion than science.

This week, in a nation still riven by disagreement over the ascent of man, the federal appeals court in Atlanta will hear arguments on whether Cobb's stickers did, indeed, violate the First Amendment's rule that government may not establish a religion.

"This case, like the recent Dover, Pa., case on intelligent design, is one of the storm signals of new collisions between religion and science and between law and religion," said John Witte, director of Emory University's Center for the Study of Law and Religion.


http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/1205/11metsticker.html

[Sandpiper]

1. Evolution is a fact

Natural selection is a theory.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. and ID/creation/whatever is religious mythology

[Canuckistanian]

16. There is no such fine distinction to these nutcases

They reject all of it in favor of the "Goddititall" theory.

[KittyWampus]

29. A lot of DU'ers make same mistake, you know. Equating Evolution With

Darwinism/Natural Blind Selection.

[WindRavenX]

39. natural selection is at least a testable hypothesis

The same can't be said for ID, or any alternative.

[Sandpiper]

43. I used to make the same mistake myself

It's fairly easy to do since anti-evolutionists use evolution and natural selection interchangeably.

My fellow DUers, yourself included, helped educate me on the difference.

[stray cat]

2. Impossible to prove with our available technology

that millions and millions of years part is a tough one to reproduce in a scientific laboratory. I have no problems with calling it our working hypothesis based on the available evidence - that covers most science.

I do agree, however, that micro-evolution certainly occurs and that we can test.

[Warpy]

3. It's been proven in the laboratory

using fruit flies and applying environmental stress. The flies produced a completely different genus of fly under stress.

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is still the theory. Nobody knows whether or not that new genus of fruit fly would become the dominant species, we only know that it evolved.

[longship]

18. Evolution is a fact.

The fact that life evolved on this planet is as much a fact as gravity, as electro-magnetism, as the existence of atoms. It is a fact because everything about life on this planet speaks loudly for common descent and only common descent. It's written in the DNA of every living thing. It's written in the distribution of lifeforms on the planet. It's written in the fossil record. No other idea in science is as strongly supported than evolution. Nothing in biology makes any sense except through evolution.

That's why the claim that evolution is considered to be a fact, not a theory. The synthetic theory of evolution (which is the synthesis of Darwinian theories, Mendelian genetics, and DNA) is a body of theory which describe how evolution works. But the fact that evolution happened is not in doubt by any working biologist.

Virtually every single person who claims that creationism (including ID) has higher epistomological value than evolution has a theological agenda. It's all over their writings and pronouncements. They cannot help themselves from stooping to theological arguments which have absolutely no place in science.

[WindRavenX]

19. Micro and macro are the same

We just don't live long enough to see macro--as that takes several hundreds of thousands of years, and even millions.

Please don't buy into RW spin. Evolution is a fact and is observable vis a vis fossil evidence and genetic analysis :hi:

[longship]

22. Correct--There's no such thing as Macro-evoltuion

Macro-evolution is a construction created by creationists to express their theological belief that the synthetic theory of evolution is wrong.

In spite of all their screeching, intelligent design proponents have never characterized the physical barrier that prevents the genetic changes responsible for so-called micro-evolution from accumulating to a point where so-called macro-evolution takes place. At minimum, for ID to be considered a theory one would have to specify the physics of such a barrier. IDers never do this because their interest is not science, but theology.

There's no macro- or micro-evolution. There's only evolution.

[Lindacooks]

30. That's right. And we see micro happening all the time:

Bird flu, drug resistant bacteria, and cell mutations are all evidence of evolution.

[WindRavenX]

35. yup

Yearly changes in flu strains are called genetic drift; those pandemic flus we see every few decades are called genetic shifts, in which there are entirely new HA and NA subtypes.

I think people are uncomfortable with the idea of evolution simply because we often cannot "see" it happening in large scales, like speciation.

[tjwmason]

4. Can they kick it out on the grounds that the stickers are factually wrong

Because it's a theory, we don't know if it's a fact.

I'm more than happy to call it a theory - because that's what it is - along with all manner of other theories on which we base our lives. That it's a theory in no way changes whether or not it's a fact.

[longship]

23. A theory is not a conjecture.

Science defines "theory" differently than the common populace. Evolution *is* a theory, but it is also a fact, just like gravity is a theory and a fact.

When creationists use "theory" they mean the common populace version. That definition is useless to scientists.

[Hypatia82]

6. Relativity is just a theory...

accurate out to as many decimal places as you care to go, but it's still a theory. In science it's a law or a theory. Laws state, theories explain. No matter how accurate the theory, it only ever is a theory. And so far no one has ever found a flaw in the work of Darwin and Wallace. Which given what they didn't know eg genetics makes their indepedent accomplishments all the more staggering. And the only modification to their work effects it in the whole not at all. That being Stephen Jay Gould's concept of punctuated equllibrium.

[seriousstan]

7. Evolution is a theory......

just like gravity.

[Thom Little]

9. So why single it out? Obviously, for religious reasons.

[Barrett808]

10. Yes, but I.D. isn't *even* a theory.

T'ain't falsifiable.

[VegasWolf]

12. Yes, it is a philosophical theory, just not a scientific theory.

:toast:

[VegasWolf]

8. Gravity is a theory. Who knows whether its real? Stupid ignorants!

:sarcasm:

[Hypatia82]

25. Actually so far...

only the effects of gravity have been observed. Gravity is only known to exist by inference. An observation of gravity itself has as yet eluded science. No one is even certain how to observe it. Though it's getting to where physicists are open to suggestions on how to observe a gravity wave. Be nice to actually state a few properties of gravity directly finally. So far all anyone can do is rattle off what it does from a couple different frameworks eg Nestonian and relativistic.

[VegasWolf]

28. I think you meant Newtonian. And nowadays there are many more

theories for defining gravity such as string theory, quantum physics, etc.
I am not sure what your point was.

[Hypatia82]

31. Yeah that was a typo...

point is for all the theories of gravity, no one has as yet observed gravity itself. Just what it does. Kind of a fun little thought. That what gives galaxies their structure, causes stars to burn, holds planets together, has never been observed, only its effects.

[Gregorian]

11. The funny part is- no one knows the reality of it all.

Where did evolution come from? If there's a god, where did god come from?

Stop tying them together. They have nothing to do with each other. Religion is not threatened by evolution. And evolution is not threatened by religion.

Furthermore, won't we all feel really stupid when we die and find out that we were both right. Oops.

[VegasWolf]

13. The problem is that evolution, both macro and micro, is used deeply by

science as a working hypothesis that underscores the foundations of biology,
physiology, embryology, microbiology, genetics, etc. Do you think we should not have life sciences?

[Gregorian]

17. Reread my post. I edited it.

I mean, both are correct. And yes, we definitely should have science.



Both of these become controversial if we try to go beyond the evidence. That is science. Evidence.

Fighting occurs when people begin to imagine, and use that for fact.

I'm comfortable with whatever we can prove.

Science has proven facts, and the bible has proven facts. And none are worth fighting over.

[VegasWolf]

27. Well, I don't believe that both are correct. Science changes constantly

as new theories, data, and ideas emerge. As for the bible, I'll leave that to the religious people.

[Hypatia82]

14. Whole point of science is to know...

the very word science comes from the Latin scientia, literally, knowledge. As for why evolution happens, because it can. Basic tenet of science, that which is not explicitly forbidden is possible no matter how improbable.

[VegasWolf]

15. Scientific theory also forbids assertions that require MAGIC to make them

work.

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[Gregorian]

20. I know what you mean.

But I assume that you use the term "magic" as your definition for religion. And I'm not going to argue religion with anyone. But that may not be what you meant. The icons add a suggestion that I assume have that meaning.

[VegasWolf]

26. Please see my post 24 for my thoughts on magic. I am not saying

that magic equates with religion. Religion is just an organized, approved, orthodox set of beliefs. I believe in religion, I just personally have no use for it.

[sandnsea]

21. What is magic?

The illusion of the impossible happening, which are truly just nothing more than a series of events unknown to the observer. Just because we don't know the how of something happening, it doesn't equate that it's happening by magic. And if some unknown God put intelligence in the DNA so that it would evolve on a predetermined path, just because you haven't observed those specific events doesn't necessarily equate to it being magic.

Just sayin. For the sake of nothing better to do on a Sunday afternoon.

[VegasWolf]

24. Ah! Scientists don't argue that magic ( not the performance kind anyway)

doesn't exist. It simply that for scientific purposes it is irrelevant. If magic (some unknown phenomena) were required to make a television set function, then there wouldn't be any television sets. Using the unknown as a variable (x) and then asserting that y is true based on some function of x holds no practicable value. Ergo, magic cannot be used as a basis in any scientific theory.

Whether or not unexplained phenomena exist, well of course, we did not understand electro-magnetism, genetics, and many other theories that we have today just a few
hundred years ago. To think that we understand everything, or even remotely everything, would be the epitome of absurdity. This is the main complaint I have with the ID'ers and their assertion of overwhelming complexity. They are saying the origin of the universe is too complex to understand therefore there must be some god that created it. This is absurd, it assumes we know so much that if we can't figure it out today, that we will NEVER be able to figure it out.

As far a intelligence in DNA, last I checked it was just a few nucleic acids behaving in accordance with theories of Organic Chemistry. I see no intelligence there.

[sandnsea]

32. "I see no"

Exactly. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. Just like so many other things, what once wasn't seen is now seen. The idea that an unknown, inherent, intelligent system is part of our DNA structure isn't necessarily dependent upon "magic". However, it's also not remotely science which is where the creationists and ID people really should be called to account.

[VegasWolf]

33. I am not sure what exactly you are advocating. Are you saying

that something else besides simple nucleic acids resides inside the DNA structure?

:toast:

[sandnsea]

41. I don't know

Do you? And just because you think you know, maybe you don't. That's all. Maybe there's something unknown in the acids, that we haven't discovered yet. Something that directs evolutionary processes. I don't know. And neither do you. Because nobody can know what isn't known.

But that isn't science. That's not even really philosophy. It's exercises in "what if", only for Sunday afternoons or late night drunkathons.

[VegasWolf]

44. Then you are advocating magic. The structure of the DNA molucle

and the mechanism of replication is well understood. Science is now slicing and dicing the DNA molucle creating all sorts of new life. Now there is a Sunday topic.

:toast:

[PurityOfEssence]

34. "Religion is just a guess"

Let's keep it all in perspective, huh?

[deadparrot]

36. I don't know much about science, but I do know that the word "theory"

in scientific lingo has a slightly different definition than they way we use it in regular speech. It basically means no one lived for millions of years millions of years ago, so no one actually witnessed these changes taking place. In that case, no, you technically can't "prove" it, but the absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence causes 99% of biologists to accept evolution as the way it happened.

Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but that's the way it had always been explained to me.

[WindRavenX]

38. close

Evolution *is* a fact. Things change. That's a fact and no one can deny this.

How that happens is what's really the "theory" of it. Natural selection--the shift of allelle frequences of traits that are selected for/against-- is the accepted "machinary" of evolution.

[Endangered Specie]

46. Technically, nothing is 100% proved in science...

that is just the way science is, as a matter of fact one of the qualifiers for any idea being even remotely consided by science is it HAS to have a way of being tested and proven false.

theories and laws are basically sciene's best answer to explain what we can observe, and they change. That doensnt make them 'wrong' per say either... for instance, Newtons law of gravitation is not technically correct because of Einsteins relativity, however, Netwons law at the time explained things very well it its time (and still does). For instance the vast majority of calculations still use classical Newtonian mechanics, minus Einsteins updates.

[Jim__]

37. I really hope this country doesn't revert to trying learn science

from the Book Of Genesis.

[POAS]

40. So the ID freaks

want to include ID in science curriculum alongside evolution. Since science is always testing and refining theory and disproving aspects of theory are they then in favor of scientists disproving the theory of creation as they believe it?

[WindRavenX]

42. weeeeeelllllllll....

...technically there's no way to "disprove" the Theory of Creation except in the literal sense that the world is 6K years old--good ol' carbon dating =)

Then again, they say (and I HAVE met people who HAVE said this to my face) carbon dating is a bunch of bull...so..so the world IS 6K years old! :rofl:

Oh lord. Fundies and science is just too much hillarity.:think:

[Endangered Specie]

45. You know, in many ways, evolution is more sound than gravity

We both know that evolution occurs and gravity acts as a proportion of mass and distance. But, we really don't know what exactly 'causes' gravity yet, the law of univeral gravitation is only 'proved' by the fact that the millions of times its been applied it has been pretty much correct (Einstein had a few revisions to make of it).

We not only know evolution happens we know what causes it, and the mechanisms by how it works.

Go figure eh

[Gregorian]

47. Gravity is something we can apply with certainty.

Evolution has it's limits.

By the way, I thought this discussion was more clearcut than it is. I'm learning something here.

You are right about gravity. But it's not dynamic like evolution. And here's a problem I have with the discussion of evolution. The degree to which we can apply it. I have to word this carefully to avoid setting my own trap. We can only claim the facts of evolution where there is evidence. Did man evolve from butterflies, for example. In short, where is the evidence to back up broad claims? We don't see half man, half butterfly fossils. And this is the problem I have with evolutionary claims. The only problem. And I think this is where the problem with teaching evolution bothers people. Did man evolve from monkeys. We don't know that. He may have. He may not have. But the proof is not conclusive beyond any doubt.
And as I say in all of these posts- evolution can coexist happily with creationism. They can live with each other perfectly. It's when we start diverging from facts, that we end up in trouble. If the last few sentences give you trouble, you can ignore them. Because everything I said up until then stands on it's own.

[The Sushi Bandit]

48. "RELIGION is THEORY"

all they need is this sticker to place over the other one.