Judge orders removal of anti-evolution stickers from textbooks inGeorgia school district

[John Grehan]

Personally I would have no problem with statements about evolution being
just a theory or hypothesis if the same were said about every other
mundane phenomenon (such as the existence of electrons, atoms, the earth
being round, that fire is the release of chemical energy, plants use
chlorophyll in photosynthesis, that we are alive, that we thing, that
yesterday actually existed etc. etc.).

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Susanne Schulmeister
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 9:13 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Judge orders removal of anti-evolution stickers
> from textbooks inGeorgia school district
> 
> The Merriem-Webster online dictionary states:
> 
> "3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
> synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference
> from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.
> HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a
> tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the
> dinosaurs>.
> THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of
> truth <the theory of evolution>.
> LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been
> found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of
> gravitation>."
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-
> bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis&x=21&y=15
> 
> Susanne
> 
>  --- Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU> schrieb:
> > The equating of hypothesis and theory, the common thread that
> > underlies these attempts to
> > consign evolution to the same status as individual belief, reflects
> > one of the greatest
> > failings of science education.  We, as science educators, need to
> > make sure that we spell
> > out exactly what the difference between a theory and and a
hypothesis
> > is.  The general
> > public, and too many science teachers, have been taught and/or
> > allowed to continue to
> > believe that a theory is just a hypothesis.
> >
> > The problem lies in the definitions of these terms provided in
> > dictionaries.  For the
> > layman, this is the source to be consulted, and most offer something
> > akin to this as one
> > definition of theory - "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of
> > argumanet or investigation."
> > The fact that this is, in the dictionary I have on my desk, well
down
> > the list of
> > definitions, makes not one whit of difference.  The first definition
> > ("the analysis of a set
> > of facts in their relation to one another") is ignored in favor of
> > the one that is most
> > appropriate for de-emphasizing the significance of the theory of
> > evolution.  I can't help
> > but believe that another significant component is that religious
> > "facts" are equated with
> > scientific "facts."  There is no recognition that these facts are
not
> > directly comparable as
> > units of knowledge (e.g., by many, facts taken from the Bible are
> > accorded the same status
> > as facts derived from scientific experimentation/observation).
> >
> > It's a challenging problem and we have a long road to travel.  I
> > sometimes wonder if we've
> > made any progress at all along this particular road.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dick
> 
> 
> =====
> Susanne Schulmeister
> Division of Invertebrate Zoology
> American Museum of Natural History
> Central Park West at 79th Street
> New York, NY 10024
> 
> Opinions in this email are that of the sender, not the museum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 250MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier
> anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de