NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.local10.com/news/15340441/detail.html

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Florida's State Board of Education has voted to use the term "scientific theory of evolution" in new science standards, the first time the word "evolution" has been included.

Florida's current standards require the teaching of evolution using code words like "change over time."

Adding the term "scientific theory" before the term "evolution" was a modified proposal at least one board member called a compromise, not standards proposed originally to the committee. The option to include "scientific theory" was made late last week.

The board narrowly passed the proposed change, voting 4-3, after more than an hour of public comment and additional discussion by the board.

Before the board voted, board member Roberto Martinez took issue with including "scientific theory" before "evolution" in the standards. He joked that the option "evolved very quickly" over the past "seven days." He quickly became serious, however, charging that the revision had been made to "placate" people who disagreed with the standards. He said they were also not vetted thoroughly as the original standards.

"We're watering down the best possible standards we could have," he said, calling the option "second-best." Board member Donna Callaway, meanwhile, called the insertion "a very minimal addition."

Board Chairman T. Willard Fair voted last and essentially broke a tie among members.

Not everyone was pleased with the outcome, however.

Terry Kemple, the executive director of the Community Issues Council in Tampa, opposed adding language 'scientific theory' during public comments. Kemple has said he supports the current science standards as they are.

In his group's opinion, he said, adding "scientific theory does not begin to even address the problems" with the standards, which were drafted over approximately the past year.

Why do evolutionists have a problem calling evolution a theroy-when that's exactly what it is? According to every scientist I have spoken to (even some self proclamed scientists on this board) it is a therory. Why then are you afraid of children reading about the theroy of evolution, instead of evolution. Its the same damn thing.

evolution is a process in nature, not a theory. there are theories how that process works, but that's not the same.

http://www.local10.com/news/15340441/detail.html



Why do evolutionists have a problem calling evolution a theroy-when that's exactly what it is? According to every scientist I have spoken to (even some self proclamed scientists on this board) it is a therory. Why then are you afraid of children reading about the theroy of evolution, instead of evolution. Its the same damn thing.

I don't have an issue with calling it the theory of evolution. That's what it is. My issue is with people who misunderstand what "theory" means.

Just make sure that the first chapter includes a section on scientific terminology, including the exact definitions of "theory" and "hypothesis", and test students on them.

I think the main problem stems from the common usage of theory compared with what is scientific theory. Evolutionary Theory is scientifically tested and extremely complex, based on data and research, but many people associate theory with something made up or poorly evidenced. As long as children understand what goes into creating a scientific theory, I have no problem with them learning that it is a theory.

In a nutshell, it's because people will say, "see, it's just a theory, its not true." While completely disregarding the evidence that evolution that takes place.

I only have a problem with the "Scientific" part, making it seem like theres another competing theory.

Graaah!

There is no such thing as an 'Evolutionist'!

Just because the term 'Creationist' is used, that doesn't automatically mean you get to call those who believe in Science 'Evolutionists'.

Also, it's called a theory because it is. If someone can present scientific evidence of another theory that would supersede it, it can be modified or replaced, much like Newton's Laws.

Scientific Theory of evolution is just fine to me. As long as ID is called Unscientific theory of Stuff Appearing.

Seriously though, as long as the kiddies learn that stuff changes over millions of years (supposedly) for the better its all good.

http://www.local10.com/news/15340441/detail.html



Why do evolutionists have a problem calling evolution a theroy-when that's exactly what it is? According to every scientist I have spoken to (even some self proclamed scientists on this board) it is a therory. Why then are you afraid of children reading about the theroy of evolution, instead of evolution. Its the same damn thing.

There's no problem with the word 'theory' in principle, it's the ignorant and dishonest way in which it's abused by Creationists which is a problem.

Yes, Evolution is a theory, just like Gravity (just as the theory of Gravity describes the fact of Gravity, so the theory of Evolution describes the fact of evolution). The problem is twofold:

1. Many people (especially Creationists) seem incapable of understanding that a scientific theory isn't just some vague conjecture, but a rigorously tested model, which could potentially be invalidated by a single observation but never has been.

2. Dishonest Creationists insist on refering to Evolution as 'the theory of Evolution', but never to Gravity as 'the theory of Gravity' etc. By only using it to describe Evolution they're attempting to cast doubt on it.

According to the first two lines of the article, the brouhaha isn't that evolution is being called a "scientific theory", it's that the curriculum of science will include the word evolution at all. Perhaps we could compromise again, and drop "scientific theory", keep "evolution", and placate the conservative faction by calling it "godless, baby-murdering, Hitler-sponsored, devil-inspired, loony lefty, raping, cannibalistic, bedsore-inducing, acne-causing evolution".


You forgot liberal voting, gun controling and terrorist befriending.

*shakes fist*

CURSE YOU TIMEWARP!!!

you would understand it better if you had a larger grasp of the definition of the word theory

S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory

It is just a theory. However people who are not familiar with scientific terms have different standards for what qualifies as a theory, when in science, a theory must go through many tests and be supported by many opinions to become just that - a theory.

Evolution is a theory, but theory /= simple opinion.

According to the first two lines of the article, the brouhaha isn't that evolution is being called a "scientific theory", it's that the curriculum of science will include the word evolution at all. Perhaps we could compromise again, and drop "scientific theory", keep "evolution", and placate the conservative faction by calling it "godless, baby-murdering, Hitler-sponsored, devil-inspired, loony lefty, raping, cannibalistic, bedsore-inducing, acne-causing evolution".

Every time a gene mutates, God kills a kitten.

Why do evolutionists have a problem calling evolution a theroy-when that's exactly what it is?They don't.
They might have a problem with it if it's implied it's "just a theory", though. Many people might mistakingly think that if it's "just a theory" it's nothing more than "just an opinion"; but a scientific theory has rather a lot to back up that opinion. It can irk people in the scientific community when that distinction is swept under the rug.

Because we’re not sure what a ‘theroy’ is. Or a ‘therory’...

Oh, and and am I also a ‘gravitationalist’ for regarding the theory of gravity to be correct AFAIK? Or a ‘roundist’ for believing the evidence that the world is round(ish)?
there is no gravity. there is only intelligent falling.

Scientific Theory of evolution is just fine to me. As long as ID is called Unscientific theory of Stuff Appearing.

Seriously though, as long as the kiddies learn that stuff changes over millions of years (supposedly) for the better its all good.

Evolution doesn't have a direction: 'More evolved' != better.

Why do evolutionists have a problem calling evolution a theroy?
Because we’re not sure what a ‘theroy’ is. Or a ‘therory’...

Oh, and and am I also a ‘gravitationalist’ for regarding the theory of gravity to be correct AFAIK? Or a ‘roundist’ for believing the evidence that the world is round(ish)?

Because we’re not sure what a ‘theroy’ is. Or a ‘therory’...

Oh, and and am I also a ‘gravitationalist’ for regarding the theory of gravity to be correct AFAIK? Or a ‘roundist’ for believing the evidence that the world is round(ish)?

Yes, and you're also a plate tectonicist if you think earthquakes are caused by faults in the earth's crust rubbing together, as opposed to Satanic flatulence.

The term 'Theory of Evolution', in a political context, has political undertones as a result of a poor understanding of the term 'theory' (just as much as the term 'evolution'). I don't mind really which is used, but students should know scientific terminology regardless.

Oh, and and am I also a ‘gravitationalist’ for regarding the theory of gravity to be correct AFAIK? Or a ‘roundist’ for believing the evidence that the world is round(ish)?
I'm an Oblatesphereoidist.:)

Evolution doesn't have a direction: 'More evolved' != better.

I know. Thats why I said better. And things have evolved into dead ends so to speak in the past.

This is my least favorite internet debate topic.

Because Christians are dumb and dont seem to realize that a scientific theory still has more weight attatched to it than their creationism and ID BS.


They like to attatch theory in front to fool the scientifically ignorant into thinking evolution isnt really backed up by fact.


As long as kids know that a scientific theory is different from a layman's theory, I dont care.

I don't have an issue with calling it the theory of evolution. That's what it is. My issue is with people who misunderstand what "theory" means.

Just make sure that the first chapter includes a section on scientific terminology, including the exact definitions of "theory" and "hypothesis", and test students on them.

My thoughts exactly. Please see: "theory" of gravity, "theory" of quarks, etc.

Why do evolutionists have a problem calling evolution a theroy-when that's exactly what it is? According to every scientist I have spoken to (even some self proclamed scientists on this board) it is a therory. Why then are you afraid of children reading about the theroy of evolution, instead of evolution. Its the same damn thing.

1. Evolution is not a theory - it is a fact. You are not identical to your parents, right ? That is evolution.

2. The theory of evolution through natural selection is a scientific theory that describes and examines a mechanism for and the consequences of the fact of evolution. This is indeed a scientific theory.

3. Scientific theory and the common mans theory are two entirely different things. Unfortunately many people do not know that. That is why scientists dislike using the word - they know that certain groups of people that shall remain nameless like to exploit this lack of knowledge when pushing to put "alternatives" in science class.

I also do not understand why so many people attack evolution. Natural selection is the thing that conflicts with some religions - denying that evolution happens is like saying your family is so inbred you cannot see any variance anymore.

http://www.local10.com/news/15340441/detail.html

Why do evolutionists have a problem calling evolution a theroy-when that's exactly what it is? According to every scientist I have spoken to (even some self proclamed scientists on this board) it is a therory. Why then are you afraid of children reading about the theroy of evolution, instead of evolution. Its the same damn thing.

I'm curious as to whether the rest of the science standards refer to everybit of the curriculum as "the theory of X", "the theory of Y," etc. Or whether the standards single out evolution from the rest of the science curriculum. If so, it appears to inform students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are is "just a theory," which plays on the colloquial or popular understanding of the term "'theory" and suggests to the informed, reasonable observer that evolution is only a highly questionable "opinion" or a "hunch."

Not to take undue credit for the above, I'm paraphrasing the court in Kitzmiller v. Dover (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html#p71).

I also do not understand why so many people attack evolution. Natural selection is the thing that conflicts with some religions - denying that evolution happens is like saying your family is so inbred you cannot see any variance anymore.I don't see why so many people can acknowledge small evolutionary changes like new breeds of dog, but not large ones such as fish growing lungs.

I don't see why so many people can acknowledge small evolutionary changes like new breeds of dog, but not large ones such as fish growing lungs.

Well, those people generally also believe the earth is 6000 years old. Which is indeed far too little time for such changes to occur.

They are the same thing. The only problem is, people have a hard time distinguishing between the conventional definition of "theory" (which is basically a hypothesis in scientific terms) and the scientific theory, which is a concept strongly supported by direct observation, empirical evidence, rigorous peer-reviewed testing and confirmation of its theoretical predictions. As a result, it's necessary to emphasize "scientific" in order to immediately kill off the intellectually dishonest manipulation of the word "theory" by creationists.

Just make sure that the first chapter includes a section on scientific terminology, including the exact definitions of "theory" and "hypothesis", and test students on them.

Well put. I'd add "evidence", "experiment", "observation" and on the other hand "assertion", and "appeal to authority".

A theory in science is not jus some idea, it's an idea that is backed by evidence.

http://www.local10.com/news/15340441/detail.html



Why do evolutionists have a problem calling evolution a theroy-when that's exactly what it is? According to every scientist I have spoken to (even some self proclamed scientists on this board) it is a therory. Why then are you afraid of children reading about the theroy of evolution, instead of evolution. Its the same damn thing.

its not "evolutionists" who have the problem. religious nutcases think that if its called the SCIENTIFIC THEORY of evolution that opens the door to some kind of acknowledgement that it could be completely wrong.

they dont have a good grasp of the defintion of scientific theory.

Because Christians are dumb and dont seem to realize that a scientific theory still has more weight attatched to it than their creationism and ID BS.

There are plenty of Christians who understand what a scientific theory is, just as there are plenty of Muslims and Atheists who don't have a clue.

Way to go with generalizations, n00b!

leet speak. Cute.

http://www.local10.com/news/15340441/detail.html



Why do evolutionists have a problem calling evolution a theroy-when that's exactly what it is? According to every scientist I have spoken to (even some self proclamed scientists on this board) it is a therory. Why then are you afraid of children reading about the theroy of evolution, instead of evolution. Its the same damn thing.

In some troubled parts of our globe, people are shouting "Revolution! Revolution!" In parts of our country, some folks are screaming "Evolution! Evolution! WE WANT OUR THUMBS!" 'Cause they see people with thumbs on TV and it drives 'em crazy!

--Bill Hicks

Way to go with generalizations, n00b!

C'mon, the whole OP commentary is rife with generalizations. "Evolutionists" and "why are you afraid", etc.

One good spurn deserves another.

Because Christians are dumb

Call it "Intelligently designed" please. Political correctness is important.

Because Christians are dumb
Way to go with generalizations, n00b!

Next they'll be calling us the Evolutionistas...

C'mon, the whole OP commentary is rife with generalizations. "Evolutionists" and "why are you afraid", etc.

One good spurn deserves another.

Exactly.


My new policy on this board is if the OP generalizes, Im allowed to.

Because Christians are dumb and dont seem to realize that a scientific theory still has more weight attatched to it than their creationism and ID BS.


I'm a practising christian, and think that ID and creationism is wrong. Please don't put nearly 2 billion people in the same lump.

There are plenty of Christians who understand what a scientific theory is,

And indeed, most xian churches -- including the Catholic Church -- accept evolution, as they accept all science. Of late, the current pope has been nibbling away at the Church's acceptance of both the age of the earth and evolution, but to the best of my knowledge, hasn't issused a new Bull (religious edict) overturning Vatican II... but I am not a Catholic, so I may not be up on the latest news from Rome.

Well put. I'd add "evidence", "experiment", "observation" and on the other hand "assertion", and "appeal to authority".

Definitely.

And I know about the Catholic Church's opinions on science. A while ago, some bishop or cardinal said something very wise on the subject. I don't recall the exact quote, but it basically said that since they are certain the Bible is right, they have nothing to fear from science. Eventually, they believe, the science will fall in line with the Bible, since the Bible is true, and science discovers truth. There is no need to oppose science, or even interfere with it.

I'm a practising christian, and think that ID and creationism is wrong. Please don't put nearly 2 billion people in the same lump.

Why not? People on this board do it in regards to Muslims all the time.

Why not? People on this board do it in regards to Muslims all the time.

:headbang:

There are plenty of Christians who understand what a scientific theory is, just as there are plenty of Muslims and Atheists who don't have a clue.

Actually in the UK the issue with creationists isn't with christian ones (although they do exist, they're a tiny tiny minority) it's muslims (still a minority of all muslim's of course.

:headbang:

I was joking. My point about my new policy stands though. From now on, I fight generalizations with generalizations;)

According to the first two lines of the article, the brouhaha isn't that evolution is being called a "scientific theory", it's that the curriculum of science will include the word evolution at all. Perhaps we could compromise again, and drop "scientific theory", keep "evolution", and placate the conservative faction by calling it "godless, baby-murdering, Hitler-sponsored, devil-inspired, loony lefty, raping, cannibalistic, bedsore-inducing, acne-causing evolution".

Every time a gene mutates, God kills a kitten.

ROFLMAO

I'm a practising christian, and think that ID and creationism is wrong. Please don't put nearly 2 billion people in the same lump.you follow an invented jewish god. there is no reason to take you out if the lump yet.

I was joking. My point about my new policy stands though. From now on, I fight generalizations with generalizations;)

Please note your tongue in cheek humor next time then.

I'll just repost this, I will.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Theory01.jpg

I would call evolution a principle. Our current explanation of the development of species from biogenesis is a theory, but that a species' features change over time thanks to environmentally-influenced inheritance is an observation, and stating as much is not mere hypothesis.

Definitely.

And I know about the Catholic Church's opinions on science. A while ago, some bishop or cardinal said something very wise on the subject. I don't recall the exact quote, but it basically said that since they are certain the Bible is right, they have nothing to fear from science. Eventually, they believe, the science will fall in line with the Bible, since the Bible is true, and science discovers truth. There is no need to oppose science, or even interfere with it.

Of course that attitude can lead one to become unstuck: according to one story of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria (the Muslim conquest one, there are several others) the Caliph ordered the books to be burnt because if they agreed with the Qur'an they were unnecessary, and if they disagreed with the Qur'an they were blasphemy.

There's a typo in that. 3rd line, 6th word from left, 'scientiffic'.

You may want to see about getting that fixed.

Actually in the UK the issue with creationists isn't with christian ones (although they do exist, they're a tiny tiny minority) it's muslims (still a minority of all muslim's of course.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there: if I recall correctly, 25% of Christians and 33% of Muslims believe in a version of Creationism, so the Christians significantly outnumber the Muslims. Also, while the tabloids will kick up a fuss (quite rightly) at the idea of Muslim groups coming into schools to teach Creationism, they're likely to do the exact opposite and scream persecution if Christian Creationist groups are refused an audience.

The Christian groups are also a lot more media savvy: they've been watching the tactics of the religious right in America and begun to copy their strategies.

you follow an invented jewish god. there is no reason to take you out if the lump yet.

I can see from your sig that you are completely unbiased in this. But really, would you lump, for example, every person with brown hair together? Regardless of other distinctions? Cos I really rather resent being lumped together with Fred Phelps.

And with fighting generalizations with genralizations: please do as you see fit, but don't fight comparitively rational argument with generalizations. Ty.

There's a typo in that. 3rd line, 6th word from left, 'scientiffic'.

You may want to see about getting that fixed.

Too lazy, too much work http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/sleep.gif

As long as kids know that a scientific theory is different from a layman's theory, I dont care.
OK, maybe we should just use different words. Reserve "theory" for the colloquial sense, and when speaking scientifically, call it the "theroy" of evolution, or the "therory".

Why not? People on this board do it in regards to Muslims all the time.

Yes, but you quoted me in that. I too think that the OP is a bit of a dumbass.

I can see from your sig that you are completely unbiased in this. But really, would you lump, for example, every person with brown hair together? Regardless of other distinctions? Cos I really rather resent being lumped together with Fred Phelps.

And with fighting generalizations with genralizations: please do as you see fit, but don't fight comparitively rational argument with generalizations. Ty.

I wont.


But no comparitively rational arguement was made by the OP.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there: if I recall correctly, 25% of Christians and 33% of Muslims believe in a version of Creationism, so the Christians significantly outnumber the Muslims. Also, while the tabloids will kick up a fuss (quite rightly) at the idea of Muslim groups coming into schools to teach Creationism, they're likely to do the exact opposite and scream persecution if Christian Creationist groups are refused an audience.

The Christian groups are also a lot more media savvy: they've been watching the tactics of the religious right in America and begun to copy their strategies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm I'm afraid I was going off that article, which doesn't give exact numbers, although if that is the percentage, you're right, they'd be higher (depending on how you define Christian of course)

Although that high? I have to admit to being somewhat dismayed, do you have a source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm I'm afraid I was going off that article, which doesn't give exact numbers, although if that is the percentage, you're right, they'd be higher (depending on how you define Christian of course)

Although that high? I have to admit to being somewhat dismayed, do you have a source?

That's what I remember off the top of my head, but I'm afraid I can't find a source right now. If it's any comfort, the percentages can vary quite widely depending on how the question's phrased, and I'd guess that most of the Christian creationists are getting on in years.

I can see from your sig that you are completely unbiased in this. But really, would you lump, for example, every person with brown hair together? Regardless of other distinctions? Cos I really rather resent being lumped together with Fred Phelps.

And with fighting generalizations with genralizations: please do as you see fit, but don't fight comparitively rational argument with generalizations. Ty.brown hair? it's not about what's on your head, it's about what's in your head. christians are delusional. no further distinction needed.

ok, ok... not going to argue with you.

The term 'theory' in science is not what mean what opponents to evolution claim it means. It is not as if some guy said one day, "hey I have a theory, we evolved." Its not how it works. We are primates, intelligent primates but primates still. Get used to it.

"Just a theory" is to science as "just a little boy and a fat man" is to warfare.

"Just a theory" is to science as "just a little boy and a fat man" is to warfare.

lol, mind if I sig that? :D

"Just a theory" is to science as "just a little boy and a fat man" is to warfare.

You mean they both involve massive death by fire?

http://baddaker-studios.net/asshat/kill_fire01.jpg

lol, mind if I sig that? :D

Not at all.

The word "theory", like the word "force", has a significantly different meaning to scientist than it does to a layman. To the man on the street, a theory sounds like a guess. To a scientist, it sounds like the culmination of years of research and debate. Evolutionists are hoping to avoid this confusion by abolishing the use of the word "theory" in conjunction with evolution, so that everyone will be clear on how well-supported it actually is.

Hope that answers your question. :cool: