In light of the recent (and I believe righteous) ruling in Georgia regarding a sticker warning that evolution (specifically and ONLY evolution) is a theory and should be taken with a grain of salt, the question I have is how come Alabama is getting away with evolution murder.
As appears in Alabama's biology books:
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans.
No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.
The word "evolution" may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may "evolve" into gray moths.) This process is microevolution, which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing to another, such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.
There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbooks, including:
Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion)?
Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record in a long time?
Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil record?
How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of "instructions" for building a living body?
Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth.
While I think that this statement is better than the one in the Georgia books, I take issue with a few parts.
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals and humans.
No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact.
No one was alive during the time of dinosaurs, so should we also consider the existence dinosaurs a theory. What about the constitution. Since no one is alive today that was alive back then, should we consider the constitution a theory?
How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of "instructions" for building a living body?
This statement is CLEARLY trying to promote the idea of a god that gave such a set of instructions for the building of a living body.
The fact of the matter is, evolution is accepted by the scientific community, and just as the theories of Albert Einstein and Newton are not questioned in a science class, nor would evolution unless it contradicted religious ideologues. Further, evolution has been pretty clearly outlined, and since Alabama feels a need to question evolution with questions, they should also outline the scientific evidence that shows evolution exists. I would also like to point out that the Alabama "warning" was put in after pro-creationists petitioned saying that other theories were not receiving as much time in class. The fact of this matter is that rationalism is not a theory. Nor is an alien creating of humans. For the reasons these are not theories, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory to see that for a speculative idea to become theory, it needs to be very concrete and reasonable.
I find it interesting that we are taking steps back in time in regards to teaching science in our class. Religious promoters are the same kind of people that would have supported the imprisonment of Newton and other scientists of the time. They are also the same people that would deny the fact that the earth is round based on the fact that there was no proof. Actually, I am surprised they don't consider the roundness of the earth a theory. After all, couldn't it be we just see a distorted view from space?
