A graphic example of the profound divisions that mark American culture:

Cobb County, Ga., schools needed new biology books. The textbook-selection committee chose books recommended by the state. The books included concepts about evolution, a widely accepted scientific theory. The committee, working in March 2002, told the school board to buy nearly $8 million worth.

Enter Marjorie Rogers, a parent for whom evolution is a theory that doesn't fly. Her 2,300-signature petition decrying "Darwinism, unchallenged" prompted the school system to put evolution disclaimers on the inside front cover of the science books used in middle and high schools.

And that, in turn, prompted another group of parents to file a federal lawsuit with potentially national implications.

Arguments start today before U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper in Atlanta in a case that could stir comparisons to the 1925 trial in Dayton, Tenn., when John Scopes was tried for teaching evolution.

The trial is expected to raise these questions:

Is intelligent design, a leading alternate theory espoused by many opponents of evolution, religious? Intelligent design holds that the variety of life on Earth results from a purposeful design rather than random mutation and that a higher intelligence guides the process.

If the theory is found to be religious, do Cobb's disclaimers, which don't mention religion or intelligent design by name, violate the separation of church and state?

Six parents have sued the Cobb school system over the disclaimers, which read, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

For some interesting background on the Scopes trial, see Jim Lindgren's recent post at the Volokh Conspiracy.

" This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered" - A good disclaimer for the bible.

Actually, it's a good disclaimer for any theory at all. It's the basis for good scholarship. I think the secular parents should have left well enough alone.

Heck, I think evolution's the best theory we have, but I still admit it's a theory.

And the ACLU wonders why I won't give it money - it throws it away.

as a general disclaimer for any theory it is good. of course the people requesting it are doing so based on religious views. so the claim of "we just want to say it is theory . . ." is kind of like when we tell someone "i don't mean to offend you but . . ."

the stupid thing about this whole issue is that it shouldn't be an issue. i'm a catholic (sort of)--i believe in God, but who is to say God didn't throw out a ball and let nature take its course? that's the thing about religious fanatics of any shape--they claim to "own" their god and have supreme knowledge of the infinite. like flannery o'connor said, "A God you understood would be less than yourself."

I propose a sticker that says this: "Evolution is a theory based on science. Creationism is not." Follow this up with an explanation of how scientists develop theories and an explanation of the difference between colloquial meanings of the term "theory" and its more specialized scientific meaning.

Wikipedia is not an infallible source, but this is pretty good:

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as ìsometimes water turns into ice.î At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.

Some examples of theories that have been disproved are Lamarckism and the geocentric universe theory. Sufficient evidence has been described to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence supporting them and better explanations have taken their place.

I like George Williams's idea.

I also think the problem here is that they singled out evolution as a contestable theory, when in fact most science textbooks represent thousands of scientific theories that aren't quite proven. I would be ok with it if the sticker said "There is plenty of stuff in this book that will be obsolete in 30 years. But this is the best, most plausible knowledge we have about how things work. It is backed up by more than an overwhelming mass of evidence." [I would add: "In contrast, Intelligent Design is backed up by diddly squat."]

This is a clear case of a school board bending over backwards to accommodate the creationists. They were trying to be nice, and popular, which means that biology teachers are now finding their own authority in Cobb County undermined.

One has to be firm with creationists and such-like. No relativism.

Sorry, I meant "an overwhelming mass of evidence."

The fundamental problem with Intelligent Design is that it's an explanation that doesn't explain. In principle, there is no counterexample that its adherents would allow to refute it.

In general, as a libertarian conservative, I am sympathetic to the claims of religious people, and specifically Christians, if for no other reason than the fact that theirs is the only belief system that the current "multicultural/diversity" establishment feels free to ridicule; for some reason, when the subject of criticism is fundamentalist Christians, the establishment's otherwise reflexive "hate speech/intolerance" twitch somehow fails to kick in. But I am not sympathetic about this. This does not belong in a science class, because it's not science -- meaning by "science" not a body of doctrine, or claimed facts, or even theories, but a method.

Tom,

I hear you say you don't like it when the "'multicultural/diversity' establishment" ridicules Christianity. How do you feel about Christians who ridicule multiculturalism and diversity?

How about if we take this issue [and many others] and apply it to a spectrum and for the sake of simplicity, divide it into thirds. As for "how did we get here," let's try this: a third was created, a third evolved, and in the middle, a third happened via a mix or by chance. Any public forum should encourage the study of the entire spectrum, not just the two extreme ends, and let individuals decide for themselves. Private forums can pick any point they like and focus on it all they want. The anger and lawsuits start when public funds are mistakenly used to purport one point of view. It appears that this theory of thirds applies to many issues dividing us today, because lately only the two extreme ends are argued adnauseum, and we are never, ever going to all agree, not even through the pathetic use of ridicule, intimidation or force.

Christians don't pretend to be hung up on tolerance. But that's not the important point. The point is, the "multiculture/diversity" crowd uses their "hate speech/intolerance" schtick to penalize the speech of those with whom they disagree -- as this blog documents weekly.

Ridicule and mockery are fine. In fact, that's (some of) what free speech is all about, and if the "multicultural" types confined themselves to ridicule I'd have no problem with them whatsoever. But they DON'T.

Evolution, as a theory, does have some holes in it. It is very often preached as indisputable fact in the schools. The labels are accurate and undermine what is often a pillar by which the atheists attempt to establish their religion in the public schools.

If evolution were indeed a bullet-proof factual thing, why must even the questioning of it be attacked so vociferously.

Scientific explanations of observable phenomena are never "bullet-proof factual things."

Tom,

I think I understand what you mean: You dislike it when groups say they believe one thing but then act in a way that contradicts that stated belief.

I feel the same way about Christian groups -- and unfortunately there are many -- who act in ways that directly contradict the teachings of Christ. This is, I suspect, the reason why many people on the left end of the political spectrum are so critical of politicians who proclaim themselves Christian in ways that seem insincere and opportunistic. Unfortunately, some Christians misinterpret this criticism as an attack on Christianity itself. Hopefully, more clarity in communication can help alleviate this problem.

I don't know the level of understanding of the parent's involved in the litigation, but as a theory of how life came into existence, evolution doesn't offer anything. The overwhelming evidence for certain theories of evolution is that species change and adapt (often radically and quickly, see, e.g., punctuated equilibrium). In this sense, evolution and intelligent design are two ships passing in the night.

m,

Evolution may have some holes in it, and so does relativity, quantum mechanics and other scientific theories. However, these theories are powerful enough to explain a lot of phenomena and they have solid basis in observable facts.

On the other hand, creationism, intelligent design and most of the stories of the Bible have very little, if any, evidence to support them. In particular, the "theory" of the creation of the world by God in six days is not supported by anything other than the fanciful story in the book of Genesis. One should be wary of science based on such stories.

I agree Kobi, but I think you conveniently ignored my main point: evolutionary theory does not explain how life came into existence in the first place. It is a theory to explain an observable phenomenon, e.g., changes in species over time. In this sense, there is no "evolution v. intelligent design" because one (intelligent design) posits a theory about how life came into existence while the other (evolution) makes no such claims. Careful speaking about what evolutionary theory is and is not avoids any confrontation between the two camps.

Not so, Mike

In fact these days evolution stretches back all the way to the molecular level. I am not knowledgeable enough to explain it or even to give you a reliable reference though.

However, I think that the God who invented the few basic laws that gave rise to whatever we see around us is more admirable than the God who toiled so hard during the six days of creation.

Dealing with creationism should not deal with Biblical stories, but with the Bible itself. Sorry, but we are too frightfully unaware of the nature of our heritage. Perhaps one should, instead, peruse and ask questions like "Jehovah and his consort: How many gods, exactly, did Israel have?", where maybe we'd understand the history of the origins of "our" own religion (actually not mine, anymore):

http://antiguo.editthispage.com/jericho

or mull over the truth of whether our festivals (like Christmas) have been manipulated by 2000 years of church politics:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0300Christmas.html#top

We have done a grave injustice to our children, and hence our parents, in not putting our beliefs in the historical context they deserve. The politics of modern America are those of ancient Rome (there is a reason one branch of Christianity is called the "Roman Catholic Church") and its successors. Dogma does not invite debate--it is so. And the concept of Creationism is dogma. Evolution stands as a scientific discipline simply because it can be questioned, and when new discoveries show old theories to be wrong, those theories can be cast aside. Creationism simply cannot be questioned or cast aside--it's the fundamental nature of the beast.

PS. I am not anti-Roman Catholic, by the way. To me, whatever iteration of the line of thinking that rocked the ancient world 2000 years ago is simply the long process of those in power adapting themselves as needed to influence an audience wanting their world to be secure. Religion, whether Christian or otherwise, is a handy tool to that end.

in a subsequent post, Erin says, One analytical phenomenon I have learned a lot about during the two and a half years that I have been writing this website is that of the tactical, well-timed repetition. There are some arguments that have been made, and made, and made again, and that seem to have as their future endless additional remakings--not because they are flawed arguments, or even because they are particularly fascinating ones, but because they are necessary ones, and because the nature of contemporary debate demands it, because in the logorrheic world of mass media and mass marketing, gravitas is often acquired less through the compelling quality of an argument than through its seemingly infinite reiteration.

Creationists, who are religionists (and their cousins, the Intelligent Designers) have much more insistent staying power than the Evolutionary Theorists.

Evolution is a theory, just the way gravity is a theory. It is a theory that is buttressed and reinforced with the vast mass of data on its side. The Panda's Thumb,

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000612.html

has an excellent set of posts on the weaknesses of ID and arguments of "fairness" for including ID: Evolution is not like a political policy dispute, where there are pluses or minuses to taking one view or another. Reasonable people can disagree over the desirability, of, say, an earned-income tax credit versus a minimum wage increase. But there is no similar dispute over the scientific validity of evolution. Teaching ìalternative theoriesî of the origin of species to ensure fairness is just as valid as teaching children that the earth might be flat or it might be roundóor teaching them that the earth might orbit the sun, or the sun might orbit the earthóout of ìfairnessî to flat-earthers and geocentrists

Tremendous amounts of intellectual energy (and financial resources) are squandered addressing these things--contesting creationism, trying to determine if (despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary) thimerosal causes autism, , that there are quick fixes for dyslexia in the form of colored lenses or balance training or eye exercises; that homeopathy can prevent the flu (or anything other than Lighter Wallet Syndrome).

Creationism is a religious doctrine. It has nothing to do with science, and should not be included in a science curriculum. The pathetic state of science education--and education in the ability to evaluate competing arguments in a scientific framework-- in this country is the reason we end up with these endless "debates".

Can we get another sticker in support of the extraterrestial theory that life on earth arrived in spaceships from another planet? Why should my beliefs be denied representation!

Liz, it isn't the testing. It's the flat-out refusal to face facts, after extensive testing.

When I see all of the "it's only a theory" BS which grants equal respect to creationism, I see two things:

1) Not all political correctness is on the right.

2) No wonder that right-wingers are underrepresented in the academy
(including, for those who didn't know, the sciences).