A compromise on evolution?

Will describing evolution as a "scientific theory" appease critics who say the state's proposed new science standards are dogmatic?

Department of Education officials told The Gradebook this afternoon that they will offer that option to the Board of Education Tuesday, when the board is slated to vote on the proposed standards in Tallahassee. "That's not a compromise at all," said DOE spokeswoman Jennifer Fennell. "We're bringing forth the best options that are still scientifically accurate."

Fennell said DOE officials ran the idea past some members of the writers and framers committee (which crafted the proposed standards) and "the consensus is, it's scientifically accurate."

The proposed standards describe evolution as "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" and one "supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence." The term theory is not used.

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[Drew Smith]

Josh writes: "I don't really see anything wrong with calling it the 'scientific theory of evolution'."

What's wrong with that is that evolution is both a fact and a theory. The theory of evolution (by natural selection) explains the fact of evolution. Referring only to the "scientific theory of evolution" refers only to the theory, and not to the set of facts (evolution) that the theory explains.

[Josh Krupinck]

I don't really see anything wrong with calling it the "scientific theory of evolution". While it is unnecessarily cumbersome and a bit silly to state "scientific theory" over and over again, including other topics such as gravitation and plate tectonics, I don't think it hurts. The children will be taught in school the difference between a scientific theory and a theory ala Sherlock Holmes. As for the anti-evolution adult crowd, most of them are willfully ignorant and do not want to learn; they often prefer getting their science information from church affiliated organizations instead of major universities or other reputable sources.

I imagine it would help if the definition of theory in regards to science was understood in the first place.

No compromise. I am sick of compromise with education.

[Drew Smith]

Clearly, whoever is proposing this still fails to understand that the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things, and that the scientific community accepts the *fact* of evolution.

[Chris W]

Gee, I wonder which members the DOE officials ran the idea past? Could it be the dissenting minority? Hmmm.

Nothing is ever going to be good enough for these clowns.