Angus Reid: Canadians and Britons strongly believe in evolution, Americans not

[dead0man]

Snooki is a symptom, not a cause.

[Hatman 🍁]

30 years, and still the same amount of creationists. wtf

[Link]

"Fact" is a bit strong.

No, it isn't. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and is one of the strongest ideas science has ever produced.

Regardless, it's not a scientific fact.  Anyone with a background in the sciences would agree.

Agreed.  Looks like some people are going to have to go back to Junior high school and relearn the difference between a theory and a fact.  In science it has a specific meaning.  I don't know about in church.

Anyway even if it is a theory not all theories are equal.  Some are stronger than others.  Evolution is the strongest theory we have.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

"Fact" is a bit strong.

No, it isn't. Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and is one of the strongest ideas science has ever produced.

Regardless, it's not a scientific fact.  Anyone with a background in the sciences would agree.

Agreed.  Looks like some people are going to have to go back to Junior high school and relearn the difference between a theory and a fact.  In science it has a specific meaning.  I don't know about in church.

No.... that's not what I said either.

[7,052,770]

Why do people repeat the lie that only micro-evolution has been observed?

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/


Also, why do they repeat the lie that there are somehow no transitional fossils?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

[memphis]

Cross national polls on the evolution issue always cause me to be embarrassed, and sometimes even a bit discouraged,  about my nation.  Beyond the religion thing, I think it reflects poorly on the relative quality of our schools. Clear thinking is just not job one.

By far, it's the families and churches. The schools, except for the religious ones, are more than doing their part. It's not the fault of teachers that parents and witch doctors have told children to close their eyes and not look at the man behind the curtain.

There aren't any witch doctors involved, just priests and other ministers of religion who should either know better or not hold their pastoral offices.

And what exactly is the difference? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Dibble, the people you cited calling evolution a "fact" are almost as guilty as the creationists with the "it's just a theory" argument.  The true scientific fact is a very rare, thing, and evolution has not been verified to the extent that it can truly be called a "fact".

Except that, yes, evolution is most definitely a "fact." It's readily observable in a number of different places, and supported by the vast majority of the scientific community. Just because a few high school drop outs from Alabama think God created drug-resistant bacteria 6,000 years ago doesn't mean the rest of us who graduated college should have to pretend that an obvious means of biological advancement doesn't exist.

You know how this kind of thing is treated in the civilized world north of the Mason Dixon? A science teacher is compelled by law to say "and you know, this evolution thing that's clearly laid out here in the book -- this is just a theory, because religious zealots unable to see what's right in front of them never got over losing a court case in Tennessee 90 years ago." And then all us 9-year-olds have a good laugh, cause even we're smart enough to know that the world is older than that, and that humans didn't walk with dinosaurs. And we go back to learning evolution, as if that religious disclaimer never happened. Because it's damn stupid.

[dead0man]

You know how this kind of thing is treated in the civilized world north of the Mason Dixon? A science teacher is compelled by law to say "and you know, this evolution thing that's clearly laid out here in the book -- this is just a theory, because religious zealots unable to see what's right in front of them never got over losing a court case in Tennessee 90 years ago."

uhhhh...what?  You seem to think that it's called a Theory because of religious fundies and that there is a law requiring it...and that's simply not true.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You know how this kind of thing is treated in the civilized world north of the Mason Dixon? A science teacher is compelled by law to say "and you know, this evolution thing that's clearly laid out here in the book -- this is just a theory, because religious zealots unable to see what's right in front of them never got over losing a court case in Tennessee 90 years ago."

uhhhh...what?  You seem to think that it's called a Theory because of religious fundies and that there is a law requiring it...and that's simply not true.

     It's called a theory because that's what it is. The problem is that fundies take advantage of this to create doubt about evolution out of thin air, since most people don't realize that a scientific theory is actually a coherent framework of interrelated concepts held to be true by consensus of the scientific community.

[dead0man]

Indeed.  I'm not sure what Mr. M was going on about.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, the "evolution is a theory" deal is a pet project of the fundamentalists, because they want to play on the colloquial definition of theory (which is essentially just a hypothesis) to make people doubt the validity of evolution. It's not like they want physics textbooks to bear labels saying "gravity is a theory", even though it would be just as correct.

[dead0man]

Sure, but that's not why science teachers call it a theory.  They call it a Theory because it is a Theory.  A Scientific Theory, which is, as you say, totally different than what theory means in everyday speak.  As I said in my second post in this thread.

A Theory in science isn't like a theory outside of science.  From The National Academies Press

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're clearly on the same page.  Mr. M is wrong when he says.

You know how this kind of thing is treated in the civilized world north of the Mason Dixon? A science teacher is compelled by law to say "and you know, this evolution thing that's clearly laid out here in the book -- this is just a theory, because religious zealots unable to see what's right in front of them never got over losing a court case in Tennessee 90 years ago."

They call it a Theory because it is a Theory, not because Fundies got a law past saying they had to call it a theory so they could use "see, it's all just theory!" as a gotcha.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     My point is, they shouldn't have to emphasize its state of being a theory, which is a nuance that may be misunderstood by young minds who are not accustomed to the scientific definition of the word. When I took biology, evolution was explained as what it was. The word "theory" wasn't mentioned once.

[dead0man]

They should also be teaching what the word Theory means in a scientific setting (and I'm pretty sure they did for me....I don't recall if they placed the word before evolution though).  But my point is that Mr.M said that the Fundies got a law past forcing teachers to call it theory, and that's just not true.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If anything, I understated the stupidity of the 46%. They choose the young earth creationist answer. Enough said.

[Associate Justice PiT]

They should also be teaching what the word Theory means in a scientific setting (and I'm pretty sure they did for me....I don't recall if they placed the word before evolution though).  But my point is that Mr.M said that the Fundies got a law past forcing teachers to call it theory, and that's just not true.

     They should, but they should also emphasize the meaning of the word in relation to a subject where we don't have a large segment of the population living in total denial, like gravity. Really drive home the point that no, an idea being a theory does not mean that there is legitimate doubt of its veracity.

     I've heard of attempts to do that, but not of any successes. I live in one of the last states where such a thing could succeed though, so I don't pay very close attention to what's happening elsewhere, nor do I claim that my experience is at all representative.

[dead0man]

As far as I know, nobody has ever tried what Mr.M describes.  They've tried to force Intelligent Design in one case, but that failed in the courts.  cite

Kansas taught ID as an "alternative" to evolution (but they still taught evolution) between 2005 and 2007 when the members of the Board of Education that voted for it where tossed out of office by the voters of the state and replaced with more sane office holders.  cite

The cite also says that Oklahoma and Ohio also have some ID in their classrooms, but I'm not sure of the current status.  Nobody, as far as I can tell, has ever looked to pass a law requiring science teachers to say evolution is just a theory.  They say it's a Theory because it is a Theory.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I vaguely remember them trying to put labels on biology textbooks in the South that would say roughly what Mr. Moderate described. I could look for it, but it would make me angry and I don't want to go to sleep angry. Maybe I'll try it tomorrow.

[memphis]

     I vaguely remember them trying to put labels on biology textbooks in the South that would say roughly what Mr. Moderate described. I could look for it, but it would make me angry and I don't want to go to sleep angry. Maybe I'll try it tomorrow.

I remember this. It was in suburban Atlanta (Cobb County, GA). The courts rejected it.

[Donerail]

They should also be teaching what the word Theory means in a scientific setting (and I'm pretty sure they did for me....I don't recall if they placed the word before evolution though).  But my point is that Mr.M said that the Fundies got a law past forcing teachers to call it theory, and that's just not true.

Not sure about up north, but in Florida state lawmakers don't exactly know the difference either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/19/us-science-florida-idUSN1929595320080219

[7,052,770]

Alabama has (or had if it's been overturned) labels in science textbooks noting that evolution was only a theory, not a fact.  There was discussion in the Mississippi legislature about adding them, but I don't think anything ever came of it.

[Link]

     My point is, they shouldn't have to emphasize its state of being a theory, which is a nuance that may be misunderstood by young minds who are not accustomed to the scientific definition of the word. When I took biology, evolution was explained as what it was. The word "theory" wasn't mentioned once.

It didn't need to be.  If you understand evolution you understand it is a theory.  We were all taught numerous scientific theories in high shool/college/graduate school.  The professor didn't stop make a slow deliberate pause and state THIS IS A THEORY each time.  We would never get through the lesson.

[King]

Scientific schools might be better served by calling it the Law of Evolution.  The decline in it of being believed as a theory is getting out of hand.

Really, the problem here is that dumbs have latched onto the wrong thing.  Darwin's contemporaries never even challenged evolution.  Evolution is obvious indisputable fact.  Humans domesticated dogs and cats from wild beasts.  These are evolved creatures.  The question is whether natural selection could have caused the wild variation itself to exist. 

We can disagree on natural selection, but people who don't believe in evolution just aren't using their heads.

[Link]

Scientific schools might be better served by calling it the Law of Evolution.  The decline in it of being believed as a theory is getting out of hand.

Really, the problem here is that dumbs have latched onto the wrong thing.  Darwin's contemporaries never even challenged evolution.  Evolution is obvious indisputable fact.  Humans domesticated dogs and cats from wild beasts.  These are evolved creatures.  The question is whether natural selection could have caused the wild variation itself to exist. 

We can disagree on natural selection, but people who don't believe in evolution just aren't using their heads.

The problem is people don't know what a theory is.  Evolution is a theory.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There is a theory of gravity.  I don't see religious crazies denying gravity and opting to jump out of windows instead of using elevators.  Being a theory puts you in pretty good company.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Though Jargon-tastic, it would perhaps be more accurate to describe Evolution (and gravity for that matter) as a 'paradigm'. A paradigm which best fits all the available evidence.