Cobb County schools will no longer have the following disclaimer on their science textbooks.

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Will someone please explain to me how that constitutes an endorsement of religion. After all, the THEORY of evolution is exactly that -- a THEORY. How does saying that it is a THEORY constitute a statement at all about religion?

After all, the study of science is supposed to be careful, open-minded, and critical regarding the evidence presented to support a theory. How does urging exactly such an approach to the THEORY of evolution constitute an endorsement of religion, not of science and the scientific method?

I guess this means that the study of science in this country must be close-minded, slip-shod, and uncritically accepting of claims based upon the authority of the majority.

Posted by: Greg at 04:56 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The problem is here:

"Evolution is a theory, not a fact"

The nitwits who wrote this are operating on the common misconception that a theory is just somebody's opinion, to be contrasted with fact. Theories are not opinions. Theories explain facts; without theories, facts are meaningless.

Nobody that ignorant of science has any business anywhere near any educational institution, much less writing "disclaimers" for textbooks.

Posted by: rightwingprof at Wed Dec 20 06:17:29 2006 (o7KrD)

2 I'd argue that you are quite wrong here -- the board is properly pointing out that evolution itself is not a fact, but is instead a theory (which is, of course, based upon evidence).

I guess you have a problem with folks looking at that evidence with an open mind to determine whether o not the evidence supports the theory.

Perhaps the opponents of the school board would prefer a sticker that would say the following:

"Evolution is dogma. Do not carefully examine the evidence with an open mind, nor think critically about evolution. Accept it on faith, because your betters tell you to."

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 20 07:43:26 2006 (z3YfB)

3 "I guess you have a problem with folks looking at that evidence with an open mind to determine whether o not the evidence supports the theory."

I guess you're on drugs, if you somehow got that out of what I said. The sticker is crap. By calling something a theory, you are discounting it -- that was the purpose of the sticker. That is ignorant, as in uneducated. Those idiots have no business anywhere near a classroom, much less a school board or administration.

Posted by: rightwingprof at Wed Dec 20 07:59:10 2006 (o7KrD)

4 So let's get this straight.

When you say evolution is a theory, it is a technically correct statement that tells the truth about the state of science and follows the scientific method because you are an intelligent, educated man who speaks the truth in an accurate fashion.

When the rest of us say evolution is a theory, we are discounting it and are ignorant, uneducated people who have no business being involved in education and are, presumably, on drugs.

Not, of course, that you are some sort of arrogant elitist who seeks to contemptuously dictate to those who are inferior to you.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 20 08:59:32 2006 (gMDr3)

5 My problem is, why single out evolution? There are a lot of theories - gravity, etc. By singling out evolution, the right-wingers are trying to diminish evolution. The sticker would not be offensive if it applied to anything (including theology). But, by singling out evolution, it falsely implies that evolution deserves extra suspicion.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Dec 20 15:34:07 2006 (IU21y)

6 And therein you prove your ignorance, Dan -- it is the LAW of Gravity, not the THEORY of Gravity. In science, LAWS can be tested in an empirical fashion and shown true or false. Evolution (in particular macro-evolution from one species to another), on the other hand, cannot be so tested and is destined to remain a theory in the scientific sense of the term, though I'll be the first to concede that it is the best one going (and so I will thank you to drop the "right-wingers" nonsense).

Now as for your comment in regards to theology -- I'd be glad to see theology taught in the public schools friend, and am even qualified to teach it based upon my seminary education. Are you proposing that we start teaching it? And if you are, are you adept enough to understand that science and theology have different rules and structures that make your trite little comment inapplicable to the latter?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 20 16:13:45 2006 (/+kEc)

7 Sorry, RWR - usually, I am able to have my wits about me at 9:34 in the evening, but I was extra-tired yesterday evening. Yes, it is the law of gravity, but it is the theory of relativity, plate tectonic theory - even atomic theory! Why aren't those theories singled out?

Again, there's nothing wrong with reminding students that "material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered". The problem is when that critical consideration is directed at only one aspect of human knowledge.

And, no, I do not know of any difference between science and theology that makes the concept that "material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" inapplicable to theology.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Dec 21 00:31:22 2006 (IU21y)

8 Well, on the theology point, certain aspects of it (including the existence of God) are taken as matters of revealed faith, and are often unquantifiable and/or untestable.

And I would argue that evolution, in particular, gets singled out for two reasons. The first is that it does raise some hackles religiously. But the second is that evolution is, all too often, presented as indisputable scientific fact -- indeed, as if it is a scientific law and not a theory.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Dec 21 04:20:08 2006 (Swgdm)

9 It's cute to claim that theology gets a free pass on critical thinking, but not very convincing. The theologians I know would be willing to accept that the material they present "should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered".

And I don't think evolution gets presented as any more indisputable than relavtivity or atoms.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Dec 21 16:03:26 2006 (IU21y)

10 Gee, Dan, that isn't at all what I said.

I said that theology and science use different methods -- and that certain elements of theology are not quantifiable or testable in the manner that things scientific are supposed to be.

After all, I challenge you to put God in a test tube.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Dec 22 02:29:05 2006 (T4PbY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment