Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[mgb_phys]

Mississippi lawmakers are proposing a disclaimer on textbooks discussing evolution

"This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory,"

http://www.christianpost.com/Education/Creation_evolution/2009/01/evolution-disclaimer-proposed-for-miss-textbooks-20/index.html

Perhaps this reasonable approach and should be extended to other areas ?

This electrical substation outlet contains 17KV electricity - however this is only a theory and no one has ever seen an electron so you should use your faith to decide if whether to touch.

Gravity is only a theory and elements are refuted by general relativity so you should decide if you need a safety railing on this bridge.

 

[Cyrus]

Human intelligence is also just a theory.
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-is-evolution-a-beginners-guide/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This electrical substation outlet contains 17KV electricity - however this is only a theory and no one has ever seen an electron so you should use your faith to decide if whether to touch.

Gravity is only a theory and elements are refuted by general relativity so you should decide if you need a safety railing on this bridge.

I can measure both electric potential and the force due to what we call gravity.

 

[mgb_phys]

They could have been created by God though - so assuming you will conduct/fall because a theory says so is a lack of faith.

 

[Cyrus]

I can measure both electric potential and the force due to what we call gravity.

I don't get it. He was using Irony.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The examples given don't apply...just an observation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They could have been created by God though - so assuming you will conduct/fall because a theory says so is a lack of faith.

I don't need faith to feel an electrical shock. Or are you suggesting that God is manipulating my voltmeter? If God is a trickster, that could be true.

We come up with theories to explain observations. But I don't need a theory to make an observation.

 

[Cyrus]

The examples given don't apply...just an observation.

Sure they do. We can (and have) used Evolution to make predictions and then found fossils to verify (and confirm) those predictions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I said, unlike a theory, electric potential and gravity can be experienced directly.

If we are quibbling about the names - say the notion that something has "17KV of potential" - I don't need to accept that notion in order to receive a shock. And I can repeat the experience any time I like.

 

[D H]

I can measure both electric potential and the force due to what we call gravity.

You must have missed mgb_phys' signature. It certainly applied to the OP: "Warning this post may contain irony".

 

[mgb_phys]

I was going to add an example about no one seeing these alleged germs that cause disease - but judging from the accupuncture, crystal healing, homeopathy etc I suspect this is the majority view!

 

[Cyrus]

As I said, unlike a theory, electric potential and gravity can be experienced directly.

If we are quibbling about the names - say the notion that something has "17KV of potential" - I don't need to accept that notion in order to receive a shock. And I can repeat the experience any time I like.

You can experience extinction. I think you are abusing the word "theory" here.

 

[Nabeshin]

Sigh.

What will it take for people to finally understand just how badly the "just a theory" argument fails?

 

[LowlyPion]

Study hard and keep an open mind.

What nonsense.

Keep an open mind to crackpot theories that only have Christian Scripture as a jumping off point?

 

[tribdog]

Do they still teach that hypothesis<Theory<Law<Tribdog crap?

 

[Cyrus]

Do they still teach that hypothesis<Theory<Law<Tribdog crap?

I disagree. Tribdog >>> hypothesis >>> Theory >>> Law

 

[durt]

The proposed disclaimer seems pretty reasonable...

 

[Cyrus]

The proposed disclaimer seems pretty reasonable...

In what way?

 

[tribdog]

I disagree. Tribdog >>> hypothesis >>> Theory >>> Law

as long as those are "greater than" symbols I have no problem with it

 

[turbo]

I was going to add an example about no one seeing these alleged germs that cause disease - but judging from the accupuncture, crystal healing, homeopathy etc I suspect this is the majority view!

Damn you! I have been happily disease-free for several years, and now you drag those fictional "germs" back into my life. If I get the flu this winter, I'm going to hunt you down like a dog.

 

[matthyaouw]

I think compromise is the key here. For all I care, they can go on so long as we can stick these (or something to this effect) on bibles:
http://separationofchurchstate.tribe.net/photos/c6e8c7f3-f5d9-43f5-b556-212669f123fc

 

[wolram]

Every one should have a large hard bound bible i have faith in mine, it gives me support often times , and brings me from the brink of despair when i think all is lost, i found mine at a boot sale it only cost a £1.
The other day i had to take the back wheel out of my motorcycle and can honestly say i could not have done it without my bible.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can measure both electric potential and the force due to what we call gravity.

The examples given don't apply...just an observation.

Why? You still haven't made a complete point. How do the theories of gravity or electromagnetism (or the germ theory of disease, or the theory of plate tectonics) differ from evolution, in a manner that justifies the quoted disclaimer only in the latter case, but not any of the others?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.

mgb_phys didn't write that, the State of Mississippi did. But I thought evolution concerned the origin of species, not the origin of life.

 

[Gokul43201]

mgb_phys didn't write that, the State of Mississippi did. But I thought evolution concerned the origin of species, not the origin of life.

The State of Mississippi has no idea what a theory is. Why should they be expected to have any idea what Evolution is about?

 

[The Dagda]

Oh those crazy creationists! As said the theory of gravity is only a theory, but I'm willing to bet it isn't intelligent falling that keeps things on the ground. Lol only in America!

Ah the comedy value alone is worth the effort... I remember talking to a creationist once, and I happened to mention the "theory" of creation wasn't falsifiable. He took that as a complement.

 

[jostpuur]

Oh those crazy creationists!

But creationism isn't harmless nonsense.

Enemies of science should be considered enemies of the mankind.

 

[The Dagda]

But creationism isn't harmless nonsense.

Enemies of science should be considered enemies of the mankind.

I never said it was, it's just hard to be so bothered when all you see of it over here, is knowless idiots polluting up the philosophy forums. That said it seems you have it under control anyway, nearly all motions have been barred from schools in every state they are raised aren't they?

I think the Southern states should secede barring California and Florida, that'll get rid of most of them.

 

[LennoxLewis]

Saying it's "only a theory" proves their lack of knowledge, because they have no clue that the common language meaning of "theory" is usually taken as "hypothesis", whereas a scientific theory is only called that after an overwhelming amount of evidence and acceptance by the consensus of scientists in that area.

The "some scientists doubt the validity of the theory of evolution" is a big fat lie, or telling (less than) half truth, which is as bad as than lying. 99,999% of all scientists working in the relevant areas accept evolution.

It's funny, though, when creationists come up with a name and say "look at this credible scientist, rejecting evolution", when it's someone who lived in the 1920's before DNA was even discovered as well as the plethora of other evidence... and then you discover that they're quoting a mathematician.

 

[russ_watters]

You can experience extinction. I think you are abusing the word "theory" here.

Agreed, but this little side discussion is besides the point: Evolution is not "just a theory", it is also an observed phenomena, just like an electric shock. Scientists can and do observe it in real-time, but even if they couldn't, a fossil record works exactly the same as daily/weekly/monthly laboratory observations of a closed ecosystem. The "tree of life" (that shows the relationship between species) is not a theory, it is a graph of observed data.

 

[skeptic2]

Do you suppose the evolutionists could come up with a disclaimer for the Bible?

 

[mgb_phys]

The "tree of life" (that shows the relationship between species) is not a theory, it is a graph of observed data.

Not sure about that - it's a hypothesis that these species are related.

As an example , if I look at a rock face with different colored rock bands.
It's an hypothesis that these represent different types of rock laid down at different times. There are theories about the processes that caused this but the only observable data is that the rocks look different.

 

[stewartcs]

Perhaps clarification on terms would help:

A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural word. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. For example, a study designed to look at the relationship between study habits and test anxiety might have a hypothesis that states, “This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that students with better study habits will suffer less test anxiety.” Unless your study is exploratory in nature, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen during the course of your experiment or research.

A theory predicts events in general terms, while a hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a specified set of circumstances.

A theory is has been extensively tested and is generally accepted, while a hypothesis is a speculative guess that has yet to be tested.

CS

 

[mgb_phys]

And yet they still call it string 'theory'

(looks around for any string theorists, ducks and runs for cover...)

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure about that - it's a hypothesis that these species are related.

As an example , if I look at a rock face with different colored rock bands.
It's an hypothesis that these represent different types of rock laid down at different times. There are theories about the processes that caused this but the only observable data is that the rocks look different.

I don't agree, for two reasons:

1. It's logically impossible to lay down an upper band before a lower band. Barring a reason to believe that a rock face has somehow flipped over (not impossible, but the geologist should know), the lower band was laid down first.

2. I'm not a geologist, but it is my understanding that even plain, ordinary rocks can be dated. You don't have to theorize that an older rock was laid down before a newer rock. Either way, the way they look is most certainly not the only piece of data you have available to you about a rock.

Btw, just because something is regarded as fact, that doesn't mean facts can't be wrong. All data has error bars.

 

[LowlyPion]

What I don't get is why the Christian fundamentalists care about it at all.

How is that relevant to their lives that they would impose these disclaimers on science - a science that cuts across all people - believers or not?

It's very much similar to the Proposition 8 silliness in California.

It's as though denying it in thought, creating doubt about it, makes it not exist. And attempting to deny that thought to everyone then is presumed to make the Creation Myths of the Bible true?

Instead of wringing their hands and scheming to make busy work in the Courts and mischief at the School Committees and Justices of the Peace, maybe they should be more out in the community helping those that aren't so advantaged. Rather than building their self aggrandizing Houses of Worship, maybe there are better works, that might do more positive good for everyone?

If they want to demonstrate that Scripture is supreme, come up with the scientific proof and stop trying to legislate that everyone need adopt their thinking.

 

[mgb_phys]

1. It's logically impossible to lay down an upper band before a lower band. Barring a reason to believe that a rock face has somehow flipped over (not impossible, but the geologist should know), the lower band was laid down first.

But it's only a theory that the rocks were laid down at all.
Our friends in the south would say they were created that way by God!
Even geologists took quite a long time to decide that rocks were deposited, eroded and moved rather than just changed in-situ by effects of eg. weather.
Largely because of religious views it took a long time (mid C19) to really accept how old the Earth was.

2. I'm not a geologist, but it is my understanding that even plain, ordinary rocks can be dated. You don't have to theorize that an older rock was laid down before a newer rock. Either way, the way they look is most certainly not the only piece of data you have available to you about a rock.

If you are lucky with the minerals you can radioactively date many igneous rocks.
Others you have to rely on the strata and linking them back to known rocks - which again relies on your theory that they are deposited!

Anyway - my point is that; hypothesis, experiment, theory isn't quite as clearcut. Your basic observations generally are based on some theory to even know what you are measuring.

I don't think is a factor in the southern politicians - I think they have a very clear idea what 'theory' means but are relying on the voters not having. It's like when soap or cosmetic makers claim their product doesn't have any 'chemicals'

 

[mgb_phys]

What I don't get is why the Christian fundamentalists care about it at all.

The politicians care about power, getting it, maintaining it, extending it.
It doesn't matter if it's some mad middle eastern president screaming about the great satan, some sane sensible and responsible American president talking about the evil empire, or a candidate for school board in some small town.

You say what your audience wants to hear.

 

[The Dagda]

What I don't get is why the Christian fundamentalists care about it at all.

Unfortunately most fundamentalists are evangelists also, which means they have to spread the word, and of course their particular brand of the word, as absurd as it is to those outside of fundamentalist religion.

 

[baywax]

The way words are used tends to dilute their original meaning.

"A theory is the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. In contrast with a "theorem" the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established." (Wikipedia)

"theorem |ˈθēərəm; ˈθi(ə)r-|
noun Physics & Mathematics
a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.
• a rule in algebra or other branches of mathematics expressed by symbols or formulae.
DERIVATIVES
theorematic |ˌθēərəˈmatik; ˌθi(ə)rə-| adjective
ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French théorème, or via late Latin from Greek theōrēma ‘speculation, proposition,’ from theōrein ‘look at,’ from theōros ‘spectator.’

Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus

So, those who attempt to downplay the importance of the concept of Evolution by calling it a "theory" are using an approximately correct term to demonstrate this. However, the theory of Evolution has proven to be a stable one for over 100 years, with enough examples and "truths" being sited that Evolution could well be considered a "Theorem". In which case the "nay-sayers" theory about the status of Evolution would be wrong.

 

[humanino]

Will they also include a 'spherical Earth theory' disclaimer ?

 

[baywax]

Will they also include a 'spherical Earth theory' disclaimer ?

Ha...!... yeah... that's all hearsay from these self-described "astronauts".

 

[turbo]

Will they also include a 'spherical Earth theory' disclaimer ?

I fear that the fundamentalists will start printing paleontology materials using the Flintstones comics (man and dinosaurs co-existing) as authoritative references.

 

[turbo]

Ha...!... yeah... that's all hearsay from these self-described "astronauts".

You mean those fakers who pretended they went to the Moon?

 

[mgb_phys]

You mean those fakers who pretended they went to the Moon?

<monty python voice>The moon - it's only a model...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Are they going to put a sticker for a^2 + b^2 = c^2? "It's only a theorem."

 

[baywax]

I fear that the fundamentalists will start printing paleontology materials using the Flintstones comics (man and dinosaurs co-existing) as authoritative references.

On a side note... we're starting to see fossils of our ancestors from approx 7 million years ago... not quite the Jurassic Period... but heh!

The most startling implication of the find, the scientists agree, is that our human progenitors diverged from today's great apes -- including gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees -- several million years earlier than widely accepted research based on molecular genetics had previously asserted.

The trail in the hunt for physical evidence of our human ancestors goes cold some six or seven million years ago.

Orrorin -- discovered in Kenya in 2000 and nicknamed "Millennium Man" although its sex remains unknown -- goes back 5.8 to 6.1 million years, while Sahelanthropus, found a year later in Chad, is considered by most experts to extend the human family tree another one million years into the past.

Sorry... link...http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070824121653.65mgd37f&show_article=1

 

[Monique]

For those of you interested in the evidence we have for evolution, here are http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf", published by Nature

Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years. They get on with researching and teaching in disciplines that rest squarely on that foundation, secure in the knowledge that natural selection is a fact, in the same way that the Earth orbits the Sun is a fact.

Given that the concepts and realities of Darwinian evolution are still challenged, albeit rarely by biologists, a succinct briefing on why evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated principle is useful for people to have to hand. We offer here 15 examples published by Nature over the past decade or so to illustrate the breadth, depth and power of evolutionary thinking. We are happy to offer this resource freely and encourage its free dissemination.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=282642

 

[turbo]

For the really jaded, we only need to look back a few years and observe how staph has evolved to resist drug after drug. Stress a population of organisms, and watch them evolve to resist the stress. The "advantage" with observing micro-organisms is that you can see many, many generations of them on very short time-scales. Of course, this is the disadvantage, too, if you are trying to kill them off to prevent/cure infections.

 

[The Dagda]

Some bacteria are not only resistant now, but they need antibiotics to survive more effectively. Isn't nature wonderfully persistent, blind and directionless but tenacious.