Source: ABC News
Florida’s State Board of Education has voted to use the term “scientific theory of evolution” in new science standards, the first time the word “evolution” has been included.
Florida’s current standards require the teaching of evolution using code words like “change over time.”
Adding the term “scientific theory” before the term “evolution” was a modified proposal at least one board member called a compromise, not standards proposed originally to the committee. The option to include “scientific theory” was made late last week.
The board narrowly passed the proposed change, voting 4-3, after more than an hour of public comment and additional discussion by the board.
Before the board voted, board member Roberto Martinez took issue with including “scientific theory” before “evolution” in the standards. He joked that the option “evolved very quickly” over the past “seven days.” He quickly became serious, however, charging that the revision had been made to “placate” people who disagreed with the standards. He said they were also not vetted thoroughly as the original standards.
“We’re watering down the best possible standards we could have,” he said, calling the option “second-best.”
Board member Donna Callaway, meanwhile, called the insertion “a very minimal addition.”
Board Chairman T. Willard Fair voted last and essentially broke a tie among members.
Not everyone was pleased with the outcome, however.
Terry Kemple, the executive director of the Community Issues Council in Tampa, opposed adding language ‘scientific theory’ during public comments. Kemple has said he supports the current science standards as they are.
In his group’s opinion, he said, adding “scientific theory does not begin to even address the problems” with the standards, which were drafted over approximately the past year.
Seems to me they've named it exactly what it is: A Scientific Theory. Definition: not yet proven. Finally intellectual honesty comes to science. Hmmm.
There's a difference between "theory" in general use and a "scientific theory"
when "theory" is used in Science it means:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Still seems as far fetched as all of the other ideas.
Way too many holes to be taken as seriously as it is.
Probably helps some people to sleep at night though.
[.......]If evolution doesn't work, then viruses don't mutate and move from one species to another.
Please take your Intelligent Design and go soak your head.
Indiana Jim, you too, [.....] see Skiznot's post. See also dance theory, and the theory of gravity.
The word theory has several applications beyond those used by Columbo. Read a little, why don't you?
Are you saying that evolution has been proven then?
Kyle Nin,
Hasn't it?
Yes. It has.
I thought so, as well.
This may seem like a dumb question, but how was evolution proven? What's the scientific proof to back up the claim? I didn't know that evolution had already been proven and I can only take your word for it.
It hasn't been proven to the point of calling it a solid scientific fact, thus the usage "theory," however, the mounting evidence certainly tips the scale on the side of the evolutionary process vrs creation theory.
I for one have no problem with the label "Intelligent Design" except for the fact that it is being used as a seductive cover for the creationist theory.
I think that evolution is the key to the very clever, logical and rational intelligent design in our universe.
Just in case anyone is scrolling back to follow these comments. . .
There is a general misunderstanding of how science works among non-scientists. You can’t just make something up and be taken seriously in the scientific community. Much in the same way a prosecutor in a court has to show overwhelming evidence to convict someone of murder, scientist have to back up everything they claim with evidence. Since we can actually hang around for millions of years to watch Evolution take place, scientist make predictions based on the theory and for every prediction that turns out to be true, the theory then has that much more support. In a murder investigation you can predict that if your suspect fired a gun then they will have gun powder residue on their hands and if tests find this residue then your case against them is that much stronger. That alone would be enough for a strong conviction but as the details piles up you get a clearer and clearer picture of what happened without actually having witnessed the crime. Evolution makes the following sort of predictions: If we see some whales with teeth and some with baleen (the big strainers) then evolution predicts that transitional whale with both teeth and baleen must have existed. This prediction was made before such a fossil was ever found but they did find it.
The field of biology is full of predictions like this just of the fossil record but that’s just one part of the picture. When you include Micro biology evolution is a slam dunk. There are things called Endogenous retroviruses that basically leave a fingerprint on DNA. They way it works basically is upon entering a cell, a retrovirus copies its RNA genome into DNA, and inserts the DNA copy into one of the host cell's chromosomes. When a creature survives this the harmful RNA is deactivated during DNA duplication BUT that deactivated RNA sequence is now part of that creatures genome AND becomes part of the offspring’s genome. If my mother was exposed to an Endogenous retrovirus you would see evidence for it in my chromosomes. Evolution predicts that if humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry then you will see the many of the same vestigial endogenous retroviruses in the same places on their chromosomes and. . . we do. I’m no molecular biologist but I understand that scientific ideas are judged solely on the merit of the evidence. In order for something to become scientific theory it must undergo scrutiny that would make a murder trial look like a game of tick tack toe.
If you want to know more, wikipedia is a good source. There’s also a good article on how Evolution is both a theory and a fact. There is a great podcast called evolution 101. If you are interested in endogenous retroviruses here’s a nice article http://vwxynot.blogspot.com/2007/06/endogenous-retroviruses-and-evidence.html
Actually the word "fact" is used different in science also. The fossil record is a fact, endogenous retroviruses in our dna is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation of those facts. A ball falling to the ground when I let go is a fact. The theory of gravitations is the explanation of that fact.
Intelligent design can be a model and you can include it in your religous or mythological teachings but it has no place in a science text because by definition science does not seek supernatural explanations for anything. Once a religous idea is found in a science text then it's no longer a science text.
I have been in the medical/nuclear biological & physics sciences for well over 30 years and for many of my collegues we have no quarrel with the use of the term 'Intelligent Design' amongst ourselves, behind the clostered doors of academia and research labs, as we do not employ the term to indicate a supernatural first-cause, but only that years of study and investigation in the various disciplines of science, properly using the scientific method, have shown us that the universe, and all that is in it follows a logical and rational, and usually practical, outcome leading to a design that can, through rigourous scientific study, be understand by intelligent beings, such as humanity.
But, as I stated above, we prefer not to use the term too loosely or among mixed company because it has been hijacked by those wanting to push forward their unscientific argument for creationism.
Indiana Jim and your web-friends, how could you not be right? I mean really, secular,humanist, liberal evolutionists try to just blow this off as an attack on science when really all that was done was a simple reform and correction. Evolution HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN yet, and when I say 'yet' I don't mean that there's still the possibility. I haven't turned into a chimp; I'm still waiting. If I do though, I'll make sure to save some poop to throw at "Spork on February 20th, 2008 3:44 am" and his 'scientific' friends. (I say this to everyone who can't possibly understand how one being [God] could have created an entire planet and its inhabitants for that matter) - STOP trying to avoid the fact that Darwin spent only two weeks in the Galopagos when he was 26 years old (Correct me if I'm wrong, I know he was in his early-mid 20s) and couldn't have possibly been able to amass enough data to concieve even a half-way interesting sci-fi novel.
One last thing, Darwin himself admitted that his theory was like a mousetrap: if one elemt fell apart or was disproven, then his entire theory would unravel and be nullified. Later, on his death-bed, Darwin even admitted that his theory was a lie and that he had realized that what he said was, in fact, false. For those who read this and don't believe, try to disprove me with a reputable source, and Wikipedia doesn't count. I'm lookinf forward to the challenge and please try to prove me wrong- I'm anxious to hear from all of you...
Fwyginond - The Crusader For Christ
In my last entry in the last paragraph, there is a typo - "elemt". It is supposed to be element. Please excuse me andforgive me of my shortcoming.
Thank you
Hmmm . . . it appears I have been censored. Lesson noted.
what are the function of chrales drawin to theory of evolution