Please read this article it upset me
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6822028/
I am glad the judge had a unbiased mind
Religion is a theory not a fact…so why arent these stickers speaking about religion? Why dont bibles have stickers in them reminding the readers that Religion isnt fact and to think about it critically? Evolution at least has evidence, religion does not. Not evidence of our origninal origin, but evidence of validity none the less
I recall a hillarious quote from the movie American Beauty where Cris Cooper’s character (the marine who turns out to be gay) says to his son at breakfast while reading a newspaper:
“Son, this country is going straight to Hell.”
That was about as stupid a ‘warning sticker’ as I could imagine! Sure, it’s a theory, but exactly why should we be more skeptical about it than any other theory? When I was in school it was never taught as fact (as many want the bible to be viewed 
) but as a theory.
I guess the fundamentalists need only be sure students study English well enough to know what “theory” means. 
Couldn’t there just be some sort of general statement? Science is an attempt to logically explain the phenomena found in the world. There are other fields whcih make this attempt as well. This class, however, is a [biology, chemistry, gen. science, physics, etc.] class and, thus, will be discussing simply the methodology which science uses to obtain its solutions, as well as the solutions it comes up with.
This would probably satisfy absolutely no one, as it makes no claim to truth either way. But it strictly shows the parameters of the conversation. It is like taking a class on say, Buddhism. A class like this would generally not be about the truth or lack of truth of Buddhism, but rather simply what Buddhist believe and how they came to those beliefs. I don’t see why a science class cannot be set up in the same way.
An Imaginary Man that was an admirable suggestion. Still I agree that it is likely to be found unsatisfying.
Dang, just because it is a theory, doesnt mean that you have to balantly put it in a text book like that. People who are religious will just probably ignore it or question it, but doing that just angers people
Do these people who deny evolution also deny gravity? Afterall, gravity is only theory. Who is to say that gravity isn’t “God’s Breath” holding objects in place.
To make things fair, we should start placing stickers on bibles in churches to remind them that the information in the bible isn’t fact but a theory and should be approached skeptically.
I think the judge was severely off.
Neither is religion a theory; it’s a belief. But (macro-)evolution IS a scientific theory, and it would be better for everyone if youth were taught what theory is, and what is the evidence for and against evolution vs. intellegent design, etc. (Although it now occurred to me that intelligent design arguments might usually be more philosophical in scope than empirical method. Is that everyone’s problem?) Neither is gravity a theory. It happens all the time. But I have never experienced evolution.
mrn
it really bothers me that people are so stupid that they can’t just read about evolution, do a worksheet on it, whatever, and still choose not to believe it. it’s not a homework assignment on what you believe, it’s an assignment on what scientists believe. that’s what the whole class is about!
oh, and to answer dread’s question about why bibles shouldn’t have stickers in them, because only people that are interested in it read them. the biology books everyone has to read to graduate high school. but still… people are stupid.
Gravity is a theory just as much as evolution is a theory. Micro-evolution has been observed.
Belief and theory follow the same lines. You have experienced technological evolution now apply that concept to living things. Not too hard. Adaption to surroundings. Religion is not proven, you are not going to remove it from being a theory by calling it a belief, it is a theory about the way of things and how we should live. No proof. Evolution has observed proof in the animal kingdom. If you live long enough, you will most likely witness us hyper evolve the human species(hopefully please please!) your proof will come in time if the religious psychos dont blow us up first.
Micro evolution is a constant occurrance. Each year there is a new asian flu vaccine to counter the new (evolved) virus that made adaptations to get around the old vaccine. The pesticide wars are another example. Many insects have developed (evolved) immunity to chemical compounds that initially were a deadly poison.
One of the most serious health problems we face is the constant evolution of microbial and viral diseases that rapidly mutate to defeat our ‘magic bullets’. The constant search for new antibiotics to combat these mutated disease forms is an on-going war.
It is quite possible to contract a disease for which there is no cure - all the result of rapidly mutating (evolving) bacteria or virus.
JT
tentative hit the nail on the head.
also seen is DDT resistant insects. and other insects evolving to become resistant to our poisons.
is intelligent design a theory? no it’s untestable.
is gravity a theory? yes it’s testable, veritable.
is evolution a theory? yes it’s testable and veritable.
Was the judge right in his decision then? yes, because while it’s ok to label evolution a theory it’s not ok below it to say “there is another theory… intelligent design”
plus it makes all scientific theory fall into ridicule, which is all we need another generation to do.
I beg you to explain to me how it isn’t testable.
Aviemus,
The intelligent design argument says that even the structure of single cell organisms is too complex to be accounted for by evolution and therefore must have been created by… guess who?
I have no intention to present the whole pro/con argument, you can google up more info than you could absorb in a week, but basically, the intelligent design people set up a straw dog and use god to knock it down.
They make an unprovable assertion, try to back it with ‘scientific sounding’ unprovable assertions, and quickly jump to the conclusion that only God can make a tree.
My take is that neither evolutionists nor the intelligent design people can provide the ‘smoking gun’ definitive proof. The only difference is that the evolutionists will admit that they don’t know while the ID group is more than willing to tell you that it’s the ‘hand of god’.
JT
Correction: micro evolution has been observed and can be tested and verified. Macro evolution has not been observed, and cannot be tested or verified. The textbooks in question were teaching macro evolution, the theory that all of us used to be monkeys. That’s why there was protest, because macro evolution is effectively just as stupid and worthless an idea as creation to most scientists.
Has micro-evolution been observed? There’s a difference between natural selection and evolution.
I’m aware that natual selection was supposedly observed in 19th century England where white moths were being replaced by gray ones due to the pollution – although some believe this study was faked. Even so, this is natural selection not evlolution.
The moths remained moths; they didn’t evolve – or begin to evolve – into another species.
PS: I think Darwin theory is the greatest theory ever… FULL STOP! Better than any of Einsteins theories because Darwins evolution theory is about us… who we are, where we come from etc
No, the textbooks were not teaching that “we” used to be monkeys. This comment by you shows a COMPLETE misunderstanding of evolution and thus your credibility on the matter is obviously zero.
The theory of macro-evolution states that humans and apes share a common ANCESTOR–Not that we used to be monkeys.
There was protest because the religious idiots have no idea what macro-evolution is actually about and are too blind to realize how silly the creation story of the bible really is.
Yes, viruses micro-evolve all the time.
Yes, micro-evolution means evolving qualities within a species (like dog- or pigeon-breeding), and macro-evolution means evolving from one species to another. Now what we observe is that children of non-identical species are normally sterile (viz. Horses, donkeys, mules and jennies). So how do you get one species to evolve into a different species?
Plus, the creationists and the intelligent design people have quite a few other argumentative problems against Darwinist material-dialectic evolution. These problems with evolution’s evidence, which you can find out yourself by turning on a christian tv station in the mid-afternoon, should be legitimate material for studying the “macro-” theory since science is not one-sided.
As for the creation story being “silly”, if i remember Augustine right, he thought it was a symbolic story, not taken literally. But I wouldn’t begrudge modern fundamentalists an effort to explain it literally.
But then, i’m rambling…
Oh, and gravity is not theory, it is pre-theory. It is experience without an attributed cause. I mean, we don’t know WHY massive objects move towards each other, but I guess that’s kinda a theory.
So they call natural selection/mutation/survival of the fittest “micro evolution” now? Interesting…
It’s a new term to me but then again when I learned Darwins Theory of Evlolution in school, a computer meant “one who computes”
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist.” Richard Dawkins
Creationism is a fairy tale for gown ups. KM