Is there any state more benighted about science than Alabama? Not that I know of. AL.com reports that the state school board has voted unanimously to approve the continuing appearance of the famous “evolution disclaimer” sticker pasted in the front of certain secondary-school biology textbooks. Have a gander (click to enlarge):
This is completely bogus: the theory of evolution by natural selection is no more “controversial” than is the “theory of atoms” or the “germ theory of disease,” and the school board is lying when it implies otherwise. As for their old creationist trope that natural selection can’t be assumed to cause “macroevolution” because that wasn’t observed, we have both the observations of adaptive changes in the fossil record that, as far as we know, can only be produced by natural selection. And of course the fossil record (whales, horses, hominins, birds, etc.) testifies amply to the fact of macroevolution.
As for the origin of life, that’s another canard. Yes, we don’t know how it came about, but we’re making progress, and to impy, as the disclaimer does, that because we don’t know the answer it must involve the supernatural, is the usual god-of-the-gaps argument.
Note that the disclaimer singles out evolution, and not the many other areas of science that are far less clear. There is, I think, no textbook sticker for dark matter or dark energy. It is evolution, and evolution alone, that is the subject of this hedging, and there’s only one explanation for it: RELIGION. Anyone who denies that this sticker is motivated by religious beliefs and has no secular purpose (thus violating the Lemon test applied by the U.S. Supreme Court) doesn’t know how America works.
The sticker is an embarrassment to Alabama, proclaiming its school board as scientifically ignorant and soaked in religion, and is an embarrassment to America.
But, as the site report, the parents love it. Why not—many of them are religious, and the effect of the sticker is to tell the students, “Hey, you know—evolution might be wrong!”
The inclusion of the disclaimer was part of a recommendation by state Superintendent Tommy Bice to approve recommendations from the state textbook committee on science textbooks at last week’s board meeting.
In making the recommendation, Bice told board members that the appropriate books would include “the statement on specific scientific theory.”
Board member Stephanie Bell, who has worked on the disclaimer updates in the past, said that the disclaimer would be included in the same textbooks as it has in the past.
“It has been a very positive addition,” Bell said at the meeting. “Parents have been very appreciative. And in the few cases where they have not seen this as expected, they have called and asked questions about it and the local systems have taken care of it very quickly.
“It does fit in perfectly with the course of study and the questions that are presented in the course of study.”
You never see a disclaimer in the front of a Bible (or any other ‘sacred text’) saying that the text sets out one view of God and the world, and that it could all have been created last Thursday, or even (gasp) by purely natural processes.
“You never see a disclaimer in the front of a Bible”
I have! On some bibles in some hotels.
And the FFRF sells them! 😉
https://ffrf.org/shop/stickers/bible-warning-labels
The sticker is cute, but could be disregarded as a “joke”- what’s needed is a version of the school board’s sticker that lays out just WHY one shouldn’t bother reading the Babble.
I have a Wholly Babble at home in the bookcase next to my bed, and have taped this note inside the front cover:
“Should anything happen to me I would like it known that the reason I had this book next to my bed was not that I was a “closet-Christian”;
I only have it there because I have no other good place to put it and my only use of it is for reference when I’m debating Christers on topics such as evolution, abortion, or just the absurdity of the notion that this garbled collection of Bronze Age fables, myths, and superstitions is the literal word of any ‘God’.”
… but its full of great stories and apparently we are creatures defined by our “stories”.
There are some stories that I would more rather have “define” me than others…..
Occassionally I open the Bible –on a Sunday– to solve a New York Times crossword puzzle clue. Book after Esther, that sort of thing.
“You never see … by purely natural processes.”
Statement of the obvious. It’s like saying “You’ll never see instruction on gardening in your Java language computer programming book.”
A more meaningful question or comment is whether any holy book offers any kind of disclaimer or limitation on the use of its words.
From the B.of.M: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God”
So over the years people have found some faults and it’s not quite a big deal. Finding that the B of M at the end says, “Just kidding — it was all natural!” would be quite a surprise.
More like, “You’ll never see instructions on gardening in your garden. It IS the garden. Learn how to read nature from nature, not a book.”
More like saying, “You’ll never see instruction on gardening in your garden, it IS the garden. Learn to read nature from nature, not a book.”
DiscoveredJoys’ comment has to win the application of neutral skepticism. Religious good ol’ boys in Alabama will insist skepticism is paramount when faced with evolution. Where is this skepticism when faced with the xian bible, hmm?
And before you comment, yes, skepticism is the appropriate way to look at evolution. It’s just that the evidence overcomes it. But our precious Alabama god-botherers don’t want to play the same game when it comes to religion.
*to do with the application…*
Does it matter that this isn’t really true? There are lots of editions of the bible or its books that include skeptical prefaces or apparatus. Critical editions of the Greek or Hebrew text will talk about variances,etc. Most theological schools include atheists and they teach critical analysis of the bible. It’s not all like Moody out there.
“Parents have been very appreciative.” Because education is all about the easing the parents minds and not about teaching students about the reality they live in.
And they double-down in Texas. Remember this gem from the Texas GOP plank at the 2012 convention:
“Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”
Cringeworthy.
For whatever it’s worth… If you have a Mac, which I’m sure many people who read this blog do, and you go to the Dictionary application and search “theory”, you’ll find a definition similar to the one given by the Alabama State Board of Education with the example: Darwin’s theory of evolution. haha (In case somebody else follows this up and gets a different result, I have the OSX Yosemite Operating System)
Just had a look as you said
Under THEORY you get
noun (pl. theories)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin’s theory of evolution.
This sounds bad from “independent of the thing to be explained”
But then the status of Evolution is confirmed
under
SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[13]
Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.
Ive got OS X Yosemite
It’s true that the word ‘theory’ has dictionary definitions ranging from integrated framework to speculation. But a dictionary has the job (according to dictionary editors) of reflecting common usage. So it’s slippery misdirection to say: “well, the word ‘theory’ has many definitions in the dictionary, thus any of those definitions might apply to the meaning of the word ‘theory’ in the phrase ‘theory of evolution'”. Just because the dictionary says ‘theory’ has lots of commonplace meanings does not testify that it has lots of scientific meanings. When scientists use the word ‘theory,’ they only mean integrated framework of established knowledge that is useful for making new predictions.
I thought such stickers had been ruled unconstitutional?
IANAL but here’s my layperson’s understanding of the situation.
There have been three major court decisions that talk about evolution disclaimers in textbooks. Freiler v. Tangipahoa (1997, applies to the 5th district), Selman vs. Cobb (2005, applies to the 11th district which includes Alabama), and Kitzmiller vs. Dover (2005, applies to the 3rd district).
All three found the disclaimers unconstitutional, however, Cobb was overturned on appeal and eventually settled out of court. Since that’s the district Alabama’s in, there is currently no law against the disclaimers in that district.
The Wiki article says this:
It certainly sounds like the new stickers violate this out-of-court settlement.
Cobb county is in Georgia, not Alabama. The out of court settlement would only apply to them.
Ah, different Cobb. I see.
Ok, I get it now. If the district court ruling had stood for Cobb County in Georgia, it would have applied to Alabama. Since it didn’t, and all the plaintiffs got was an out-of-court settlement, it only applied to Cobb County in Georgia.
I believe that’s correct.
And sorry for the repeat in my other post below; there was a delay and I didn’t think my original version posted.
So apparently there must be lawsuits in every single district. Great use of taxpayers’ money.
ALEC’s education report for 2014-2015 rated Alabama as 49th in testing standards and 46th in 8th grade reading proficiency. NAEP’s 2013 report rated it 44th in low-income general education support and performance. But hey, their anti-evolution disclaimer makes parents happy.
does this “school” get federal support? Seems like there could be a case made against our tax dollars going to institutions that teach lies. Maybe FFRF??
There is no first amendment requirement that schools teach the truth. Past creationist material has been shot down because the courts deemed it religious establishment, not because they thought it was incorrect. And while I don’t remember which one or have a quote, I believe one of the major evolution vs. creationism court rulings stated this pretty pointedly: states are free to teach any idiocy they want, as long as it’s not an establishment of religion.
Fills you with confidence in the system, doesn’t it?
“There is no first amendment requirement that schools teach the truth. ”
To do so puts the government in charge of “truth”. Is that your desire? If so, then truth is what Congress says it is.
I wasn’t complaining about the limits of the first amendment, I was just commenting to Alexandra that I don’t think her example case could not be made.
AIUI constitutionally, creationism gets the legal boot because its a religious establishment by the State, not because its a pack of lies. The first amendment leaves each States free to teach whatever non-establishment idiocy it wants.
OTOH, the federal government can and often has blackmailed the States into adopting some policy using the threat of withholding federal dollars. The most famous incident being the withholding of highway money unless/until states passed a 21-year drinking age. I suppose the Department of Education could do something like that with evolution education, but (a) it wouldn’t endear them to many States or their representatives, and (b) knowing the US, this would only serve to create more creationists.
I’ve had enough of this “directly observed” con game. Atoms weren’t “directly” observed until what, the 20th century? what says something has to be “directly” observed?
What’s saying “directly observed” like, what does it mean? Is it like saying “there’s no app for that”? Is it from a “middle-world” bias? (“Middle-world” is a Dawkins idea, check out his talk).
“Atoms weren’t directly observed until what, the 20th century?”
Not even then. Atoms cannot be directly observed (that is, with your eyes and maybe with optical enhancement).
Atoms can be individually detected, even moved around, I think STM, Scanning Tunneling Microscope does that sort of thing. It wouldn’t work if atoms did not exist.
Speciation is a slow process but not impossibly slow. National Geographic reported on an experiment with chickens. For 50 generations, the largest and the smallest were bred back to the largest and smallest. At the end of that experiment the largest were about the size of turkeys and the smallest about the size of robins. Whether that constitutes a new species is not for me to argue.
But really it makes almost no difference. These are just obstacles on an obstacle course. You can whack-a-mole forever thinking that you are having a science argument.
I have *never* seen a testable definition, kind of how like (testable!) constraints becomes “assumptions” when it fits the writer.
I have come to understand it as a dysfunctional shorthand for “tested to my satisfaction [but I have no testable definition for the number and quality of tested constraints, so I’ll wing it]”.
I wonder if these “directly observed” folks would agree to all murderers being set free because their crime wasn’t “directly observed”.
There’s a sense in which everything in our perception is an inference: the visual system, for example, receives feedback from other systems, influencing what it “produces” (to speak sloppily. (Philosophers jargon, IOW: direct realism is false.) Hence nothing is “perceived directly”.
Not that one needs another way to see (heh) that this disclaimer is ludicrous.
‘I wonder if these “directly observed” folks would agree to all murderers being set free because their crime wasn’t “directly observed”.’
Indeed, if I was on a jury, I would regard ‘eyewitness’ testimony with very deep suspicion. Unless the suspect was personally well known to the eyewitness.
There’s plenty of experimental evidence and strings of reversed convictions where people have picked the wrong suspect in a line-up.
I’d be much happier with some good forensic evidence.
cr
I do not believe embarrassment is something that Alabama could define. Anyone who remembers the George Wallace of Alabama and the history of the state as a whole. Lets just say Donald trump would likely find embarrassment before this state. There is nothing sweet about home in Alabama, as it’s the child only a mother could love.
I obtain a completely different sense out of that commentary. It is a pretty good definition of scientific theory presented to people that probably have no idea whatsoever what is the meaning of scientific theory. By citing several well-established “theories” such as Newtons Laws of Motion, it portrays and declares the existence of a continuum of proven or provability with any particular theory ranging from 99.9999… percent proven to barely a WAG.
It provides a type of escape for parents or students. It removes threatening challenge to world view by proposing science study as theoretical rather than facts challenging your world view.
In my opinion, true science and true religion cannot oppose each other. Where they seem to be in opposition one can be pretty sure of error, and proper study of both realms can help identify and remove that error. For that reason I encourage study of both religion and science. Science usually won’t help or hinder your relationship to your neighbors but a religious dispute can lead to war.
BYU, a religious school (or at least sponsored by the Mormons), has a substantial science curriculum and accepts, so far as I know, modern scientific views on pretty much everything including DNA sequencing and the significance thereof. It can do that because Mormons have built-in flexibility; there is no papal infallibility and its holy book advises right on the title page that there could be errors.
Consider Shroedinger’s cat. It is in a box with an amount of air that is only 50 percent likely to leave the cat alive after some period of time. After that time, you cannot say and you cannot know which side of 50 percent describes the life status of the cat. But you have to decide *something* so you decide that it is both alive and dead at the same time. Only on opening the box do you know which way it is and the peculiarity of it is that for purposes of computation, the cat is alive or dead only at that moment; before then, it was both alive and dead.
So it is possible, and I suspect common, for people to hold opposing views simultaneously but in different realms or boxes. When I go to church, life is simple because Adam was the first Man. When I go to college, it is not simple because nobody knows for sure what exactly “Man” means or who was the first. But that’s okay. Each exists for entirely different purposes.
At some point in a person’s life he or she will have become trained in religion and in science (and art, music, history, and so on) and then, and only then, would it be wise to open Schroedinger’s Box and decide what is true and what is false for there will be consequences either way.
This disclaimer allows for Shroedinger’s Box to stay closed for a while in a young person’s life.
You do not get to define their religion; they do. And if they say their religion includes a belief in a young earth, then it does. Or put another way, they have just as much a right to say what “true religion” includes as you do.
You’re also getting the lesson of Schoroedinger’s cat wrong. The indeterminacy doesn’t refer to a lack of knowledge about the state of the cat, or the fact that you have to make a decision about what to believe without sufficient information to do so. The QM particle the cat represents really, truly exists in an indeterminate state which is both/neither alive or dead. Until you expose it to some external particle (i.e., open the box), then it changes into a determinate state.
“You do not get to define their religion; they do”
Did you comprehended my point?
A 19 year old college student, or a 17 year old high school student, doesn’t have a “their religion”. He has a blended culture from those 17 or 19 years exposure to many things. He goes to family reunions and learns by observation that everyone insults Democrats or Republicans, makes jokes about {Irish, Italians, Swedes, etc} and does or does not eat meat on Fridays and so on.
For him, everything is a theory, or ought to be; or it would better if he would see things in a slightly theoretical way accepting that at the age of 19 he isn’t all-knowing.
As I seem to be the only one that has a different sense regarding the purpose of this disclaimer I will try again. I accept the overt purpose is as many here see it; but these words are carefully written to get a foot in the door and these words ought to be praised rather than condemned.
Steve (imaginary name and person) comes from a family whose religion is not just Young Earth Creation believers, but inerrant believers as well. There cannot be a shade of meaning, private interpretations or any of that. Steve will not be permitted to even think different thoughts and by the age of 19 he would rather look at naked aborigines in National Geographic than consider the terrifying possibility that the Earth is older than 6000 years.
In the event that you somehow manage to persuade him that he is wrong, I hope you take responsibility for the consequence; for he will then have nothing, no moral foundation and the result can be scary. In the religious metaphors of the bible, his house was built on sand and the storm washed it away. He thought it was a rock, but the rock wasn’t big or strong enough (or possibly even the wrong rock).
Many people approach science in just as brittle a manner, just as inflexible, just as cock-sure of themselves. It is their god, their religion, and they are as vulnerable to the game of gotcha as an inerrant Christian.
A bit of flexibility goes a long way. 1 + 1 could be 2, but it can also be 10.
“There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those that understand binary, and those that don’t.”
“In my opinion, true science and true religion cannot oppose each other.”
Well, your No True Scotsman will go even shorter than usual on this site, since its plum de chat has written a book exactly why they are opposed (incompatible).
My short take is that religion is in the business to make unfounded beliefs (like your theological claim I cite), while science is in the business to make founded facts.
I am not sure what your emphatic point is.
Is it “A bit of flexibility goes a long way”? But 4 decades of accommodationism in US has done nothing – it is indeed a long way to nowhere.
While the recent rise in US irreligion likely correlates with an acceptance of basic biology.
Sorry, I meant “nom du chat”.
[I plead being on painkillers.
Oh, and that is why my temper is short too. :-/]
Torbjörn Larsson writes: “Well, your No True Scotsman will go even shorter than usual on this site, since its plum de chat has written a book exactly why they are opposed (incompatible)”
An excellent observation! Indeed, for there to be complete opposition science and religion must be defined carefully so as to be in opposition.
For me there is considerable overlap. Science is that which is known and knowable by testable means; religion is that which is believed. The overlap is that some beliefs can be tested, and some things that can be known are also believed.
(I have noticed something odd; words I have written change their spelling spontaneously — science became since!)
You might think it impossible to know something but not believe it, but this website exists because of that very phenomenon. People can know evolution but believe Adam was the first man.
Knowledge is just a factoid with little or no motivational power. Belief has the motivational power. People know that smoking and illegal drugs are dangerous but they do it anyway. Knowledge is not power; belief is power. Knowledge can lead to belief if people are willing to be led to it.
Therefore, it is unwise for knowledge to sacrifice its motivational power by positioning itself in opposition to belief, and belief is strengthened by knowledge.
Your mileage obviously varies but I wonder if you prefer it that way.
Torbjörn Larsson “I am not sure what your emphatic point is.”
Doubtless why I’m the only one having that emphatic point. Oh well.
I think I agree with you. And at least the disclaimer is grammatical, which cannot be said for Schenk’s little screed of hatred towards Alabama.
If you elect representatives that enforce a legal norm fitting a 3rd World theocracy, you cannot expect your compatriots to praise you. Deeds have consequences.
“My short take is that religion is in the business to make unfounded beliefs”
Your sequence is mostly backwards. Unfounded beliefs become a religion, not the other way round.
Founded beliefs can also become a religion. Well documented founded beliefs can sometimes be called science.
Thus a difference between science and religion is how well founded are the beliefs (and, to an extent, how much money and sacrifice does either system of belief demand).
“Many people approach science in just as brittle a manner, just as inflexible…are as vulnerable to the game of gotcha as an inerrant Christian.”
Not many, no.
And the ones who do, are approaching something with valid truth value.
Unlike religion which has none.
I think if you really accepted the overt purpose was how we see it, you wouldn’t think it was praiseworthy.
The overt purpose is to mislead students into thinking the theory of evolution is scientifically controversial when it is not. The purpose is to set it apart from other theories of science and imply to students “look, this one is different” when it is not. That purpose should be condemned, not praised, because it is a lie to think that the theory of evolution is any weaker or more controversial than any other currently accepted theory.
I think you’re being a bit hyperbolic and have no good data to back your opinion up. AFAIK the rate of murders, rapes, thefts, or whatever bad deed you want to mention is no higher amongst people who have rejected Christianity than anyone else. Its not lower, either, and I’m sure you can find some anectdotes of atheist convert murderers if you really want to look. But really there doesn’t seem to be any sort of statistically detectable pattern of ‘scary behavior’ going on amongst those who go from YECism to OECism, theistic evolutionism, agnosticism, or atheism.
Or to put it another way, I don’t fear the effects of conversion at all. I don’t expect all converts to behave well, but I don’t expect the process to causally create criminals either.
How does a pre-emptive warning sticker about evolution encourage flexible thinking about evolution? I think it does exactly the reverse; it shuts down flexible thinking, messaging to kids that they don’t have to think as seriously about this theory as they might another theory, because hey, this one’s controversial in a way other theories aren’t.
I think you are missing his point entirely. He is saying while the statement’s overt purpose is one thing, it has been carefully written to actually be another. And that other thing has the effect of making a challenge to dogma more palatable.
It’s just wrong to assume an overt purpose is all that matters. Trump’s overt purpose is to make America great again. Some people suspect other purposes or fear other outcomes. How would you react to someone who said that if you agree that is Trump’s overt aim you must support him or disavow the aim?
It is common for people to think they can hold their opposing views simultaneously, but the truth is that no one can do it, not just for religion versus science, but for anything. The brain just cannot hold two conscious thoughts at the same time. By analogy, you may think that you are aware of your multiple parts of your surroundings right now, but in fact you are only paying conscious attention to a small amount of things that are right in front of you, and you are switching that attention around from one item to another.
You essentially imply it: one world view trades places with the other when you realize which view is acceptable at the time. They never really co-exist at the same time.
I don’t know who said it, but I like it: “A fact can never be an enemy of another fact.” There is only one reality that is really real.
I think that oversimplifies the issue. We adopt different decision-making systems and definitions of evidence in different contexts. Law vs. science are two very different systems. They have different definitions of evidence, different algorithms of how to come to a conclusion, and radically different notions of professional ethics in some cases. In everyday life we don’t adopt either system of decision making, we are instead a lot more casual with the rules we follow and what we count as evidence. Yet we move between these contradictory systems pretty seamlessly and effortlessly, adopting the system we think is most appropriate to the context we’re in. Religious people do the same thing. Arguing from authority about some claim of fact on Sunday and then doing an experiment on Monday is not too much different from hand voting on a claim of fact as part of a jury on Friday and then doing an experiment on Monday.
I’d argue that using such radically inconsistent systems in different contexts isn’t bad per se (and certainly isn’t something only religious people do!); what’s bad is when we adopt an approach that isn’t really suited for the context. I’m going with my gut in a deer-in-headlights situation. I’m not going with my gut to determine the mass of the Higgs boson or whether prayer heals cancer. Likewise, I’m going to consider testimony and use a hand count if I must make a binary yes/no decision very soon and I can’t count on empirical observation. Like whether that guy did in fact shoot that other guy. But I’m not going to use testimony and a hand count to decide whether souls exist or (again) the mass of the Higgs boson. The problem with religious people is they want to use a go-with-the-gut methodology for questions that really ought to answered using other methods, for contexts where it doesn’t really belong.
You are obscuring the point and intent of the statement, at least in terms of evolution, which is the point of the statement.
The “theoretical” set-up is a false-flag to establish an impartiality and reasonableness which is not there. As the good professor said above:
“This is completely bogus: the theory of evolution by natural selection is no more “controversial” than is the “theory of atoms” or the “germ theory of disease,” and the school board is lying when it implies otherwise.”
“In my opinion, true science and true religion cannot oppose each other.”
Yes, if by “true religion” you mean one limited to the supernatural. However, by this criterion, all religions known to me are “untrue”. They include a cosmogony with factual statements that are incompatible with the findings of science. E.g. calculations have been made showing that, according to the Bible, the world was created in 4004 BC. There is a mountain of scientific data that the world, the Earth and its organisms, including humans, are much-much older. No way to reconcile this. So the good Alabama authorities force a sticker implying that kids should doubt science because it clashes with the Judeo-Christian creation myth.
“Yes, if by true religion you mean one limited to the supernatural.”
That’s about half of it. The other half is the spiritual component of a person and such intangibles as finding a purpose in life.
You are here typing at a computer, as am I, because you are motivated to do so but I suspect you would have some difficulty articulating why that is, and if you can, it simply moves the goal posts to explore why you are motivated to do the things that ultimately lead HERE.
A computer is perfect logical and has no wants or desires. It does what it is told (on a good day that is). Science does not and really cannot provide a reason for living; it is the word for efforts to discover how life works but not why.
I suspect science cannot provide a why for a thing that to science “just is”. It happened, here we are, end of story.
That isn’t very exciting or purposeful.
The only intellectual endeavor that deals in absolute indelible facts is religion. In religion facts are facts no matter how wrong they are. Thank goodness that science deals in theories that are provisional and can only find validation through exploring the evidence at hand. An established scientific theory can be questioned but you better come armed with mounds of overwhelming evidence to support your claim. I would also suggest that you first present it to someone other than a bunch of Alabama 7th graders.
To add to that: Theories are subjected to review and possible revision or abandonment, but in truth there is an ascending order of theories. Early in their existence a theory can be pretty provisional, but as they pass through many generations of testing and especially through many advances in technology that enable us to re-test them from a new perspective, theories slowly become ‘robust theories’. Robust theories are in no real danger of being discarded b/c that would mean our grasp of a big chunk of reality was basically a hallucination. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are two examples of robust theories. Yes, technically, evolutionary theory could be overturned. But that is about as likely as finding that gravity is in fact not curvature of space-time. This may seem dogmatic, but it is only confidence in our ability to grasp reality and describe it once we have a lot of facts.
Contrast that with the sticker above which describes robust theories in a language not that different from hypotheses.
Exactly.
There is a massive established body of knowledge that theories have to, and do, cohere with.
Perhaps I appeared to be a bit soft on my stance. I am entirely in agreement that evolution is a hugely robust theory. All I am saying is that as implausible as it may be if someone feels they can present a real scientific challenge to evolution through the proper peer review channels they are welcome to try — at their own risk. As for creationism in its various guises I don’t consider it a challenge but rather a mockery.
“The only intellectual endeavor that deals in absolute indelible facts is religion.”
And global warming. Don’t forget the settled science thereof.
And mathematics.
Any defined thing: A 48 bit ethernet address (mac address) is 48 bits.
Most of Christianity is defined and thus as delible as its leader deems it to be.
I love it when someone says “only” or “always”. It’s practically like playing Jeopardy.
Mathematics does not deal with facts.
mayamarkov wrote “Mathematics does not deal with facts.”
What a strange belief you have! As I wrote above, mathematics is mostly a collection of definitions; but those definitions relate often to factual relationships.
For instance, the ratio of the circumference of a circle and its diameter is going to be consistent in any numbering system, that ratio is a fact and no wishing can make it something other than what it *is*. It can be expressed in various ways of course but all of those ways mean the same thing.
“For instance, the ratio of the circumference of a circle and its diameter is going to be consistent in any numbering system, that ratio is a fact and no wishing can make it something other than what it *is*.”
But, as far as I know, this is not the case with the sum of the angles in a triangle. I mean, we have “Euclidean” and “Non-Euclidean” geometry.
mayamarkov “I mean, we have Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry.”
Straining at triangles!
In plane geometry the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. It is defined so. But as I am libertarian I really don’t care if it is something else for you.
In non-Euclidean geometry circumference-to-diameter isn’t necessarily equal to pi, either.
Mathematics does not necessarily deal with ‘facts’ or even what we might commonly call ‘reality’. It can quite easily encompass hypothetical or non-real situations.
cr
They should define controversy and then modify it for “scientific controversy” right in the beginning of the spiel then conclude:
I suspect that would not lead to the ‘very appreciative parents’ they seem to desire. 🙂
😉
Such lies are inappropriate in a science book.
+ 1
It always gets back to the fact, stated quite well by the professor in the post. Nothing other than religion rejects evolution. And, the idea that some religions do not reject it outright does not give any of them a pass in other parts of their superstitions or declarations without evidence.
Randy Schenck wrote: “Nothing other than religion rejects evolution.”
That strikes me as unlikely. If you define religion as that which rejects evolution it is just a tautology. How could you be wrong?
My church says nothing about evolution per se. Different authorities have at times expressed a personal opinion one way or another.
The problem is simple enough; it creates a small problem for Christianity’s concept of sin and atonement.
The conundrum can be solved variously. Some churches have simply decided there were no men, not of any kind, before Adam. Others, acknowledging evolution, fossils and various forms of hominids, simply accept Adam as the first man that scripture calls “man” and probably relates to him being first with sentience and the ability to sin (after having eaten of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil).
“And, the idea that some religions do not reject it outright does not give any of them a pass in other parts of their superstitions or declarations without evidence.”
What an inflated sense of importance you have. I will draw more fire from Catholics, Baptists and Born Agains over my commentary than from all atheists combined, for I do not subscribe to their dogmas but I also don’t subscribe to yours.
Yes, well I am not really into dogmas. That is the specialty of religion and you spent some time already going over various dogma and eating of fruit and whether they acknowledge evolution. Now that sounds like inflated importance to me. Particularly since they cannot provide a shed of evidence for these declarations.
If you will find an example of rejection of the science of evolution that is not tied to religion please spit it out and amaze us all.
Randy Schenck “If you will find an example of rejection of the science of evolution that is not tied to religion please spit it out and amaze us all.”
You overestimate my interest in amazing you.
“Yes, well I am not really into dogmas.”
It is probably inescapable. These are things you believe and which you imagine others believe and which have an “ought” sensibility to them, people ought to believe certain things. A clue is “we” or “us” thinking.
I’ll be away from a computer for a while so skip the *crickets*.
Non-American here… what happens to biology textbooks at universities and colleges in Alabama? Are they on the hook too, or if they get a pass, why is that?
I suppose a snarky comment would be: There aren’t any biology departments at any college or university in Alabama, but I won’t go there….
Part of The Onion’s take on the topic:
“The whole theory doesn’t make any sense. If educated people descended from ignorant people, why are there still ignorant people?”
Frank Gibbs Skateboard Carver
For those who’d like all three:
http://www.theonion.com/americanvoices/alabama-textbooks-call-evolution-controversial-the-52594
“If educated people descended from ignorant people, why are there still ignorant people?”
Education is not heritable. It is obtained by those who wish to obtain it and have the means to do so.
“The stick is an embarrassment to Alabama, proclaiming its school board as scientifically ignorant and soaked in religion, and is an embarrassment to America.”
Should that be sticker instead of stick?
Considering that Alabama currently has a bill cruising through the legislature getting Alabama out of the marriage business altogether, this doesn’t surprise me at all. Just think, if nobody can get a marriage license, THOSE people can’t either.
Hopefully, someone with standing (a kid assigned the books) will contest this.
Flint wrote: “Just think, if nobody can get a marriage license, THOSE people can’t either.”
Another statement of the obvious.
It is a very libertarian decision. You decide how you live and what to call it. I like it!
And like many libertarian ideas, it would cause far more problems than it solves. Marriage serves a lot of perfectly good social functions, conferring medical decision-making and visitation rights for instance, that while possible to gain individually are far more expensive and troublesome to do so.
The obvious way to make it easier for people to live as they like is to simply open up marriage laws to more types of living than to nix it altogether.
Though, having looked a tiny bit more at the Alabama bill, the above criticism doesn’t apply. Alabama would simply stop giving out marriage licenses, instead having people fill out and send in a form declaring their marriage. So long as the actual legal status of being married remains unchanged, I have no problem with this approach.
“The obvious way to make it easier for people to live as they like is to simply open up marriage laws to more types of living than to nix it altogether.”
Please: Nix it altogether. Why does a person need a RIGHT to visit someone in the hospital? Why does that right emanate from a government *license*?
It is a big complicate pyramid for sure but it emanates from government choosing to involve itself in marriage in the first place, in the 1800’s largely as a way to stomp out the Mormons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds%E2%80%93Tucker_Act
It is about people’s legal status, a prerogative of the state.
This is perfectly sensible. It’s rather like what they do in France, where the civil ceremony and any religious one are completely separate and neither implies or inhibits the other. Isn’t that PERFECTLY fair and non discriminatory?
Well, at least the kids are getting the whole science book, unaltered and uncensored. (Unlike, so I hear, Texas, which has enough market share that textbook publishers can be intimidated into changing the content to suit their demands).
As I see it, the message the kids will get depends substantially on the teacher. “Instructional material associated with controversy should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered”. I can’t fault the actual wording. (I know why the Board put it there but that’s a different issue).
IF the teacher wants to emphasise the sticker and how ‘shaky’ evolutionary theory is, the kids will get one message. IF the teacher teaches the textbook contents, and effectively dismisses the sticker as just a bureaucratic disclaimer, they’ll get the opposite message. Kids are well used to small-print disclaimers (which can usually be ignored) on everything these days.
cr
I agree. Speaking as a devout atheist who accepts evolution as fact, we can’t allow religion to influence teaching science. But this “disclaimer” sticker is fairly worded, and if it assuages the bible thumpers… let them call it a win.
M.Walker wrote “Speaking as a devout atheist…”
Like I have often said, religious words DO apply to some atheists! Atheism can be simply not-a-thing, but to be devout, it must become a thing.
“we can’t allow religion to influence teaching science.”
We? How many of you are in there? How were you planning to prevent religionism from creeping int science, or even atheism?
Although neither one is really “controversial”, I think the big-bang theory is less well proven than evolution.
sub
My mother read this article and had a unique perspective. (She’s a recently turned atheist thanks to avenues such as this site). Anyway, she wasn’t upset about this disclaimer and basically viewed it as a way to pacify and shut up the parents who are complaining. Most kids probably won’t even bother reading it, and even if they do, they may not yet grasp it’s implications at that age. So, even though it’s bogus, it may not be doing much harm and might be a way to suppress further attack on actual science. It’s placement in the text might be enough to satisfy those people that don’t understand science, and the kids at least still will be learning presumably real evolutionary theory that is contained in the text book–the portion they will actually read and study, rather than a footnote they will likely over look altogether.
Roughly my take on it, too.
And on reflection, I wouldn’t care to speculate on the Board of Education’s motives in posting the sticker. They may think exactly the same way as your mother.
cr