Kathy Cox, Georgia's state school superintendent, has proposed striking the word 'evolution” from the state's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time":
Cox repeatedly referred to evolution as a "buzzword" Thursday and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching.
This move would be such a boon to education that it is almost assured to fail (in a country that can‘t even decide what 'marriage' means what chance does scientific terminology have?). Anyone who doubts that evolution has become an imprecise buzzword should ask their friends and neighbors to define the term. Anyone who doesn't begin by asking you if you are referring to micro or macro evolution is already off to bad start.
Even highly intelligent people like Brad from Crooked Timber (where I found this link) appears to misunderstand what the word means:
But don't you just love a country where scientific theories that are accepted universally within the relevant scientific community are the subject of partisan disagreements?
That's precisely the problem. The word refers to both a fact and a theory. By using the two meanings interchangeably it degrades the use of the term and ends up confusing everyone about what has and has not been proven. Since the vast majority of the public has such an misunderstanding about evolution (and much of what they think they know is wrong), you would think this simple clarification would be praised, and adopted, by science educators throughout the country.
This, of course, won't happen. It will be the very people who claim to be on the side of 'science” that will put partisan politics above precision of language. Some people, it seems, just refuse to evolve.
Update: Even Glenn Reynolds seems to have trouble understanding what the word means: ""Biological changes over time" is when John Kerry discovers he needs Botox. Evolution is something rather different."
Update 2: Here's another case of someone not clear on the concept: And so, while in the short term "biological change over time" is insulting to Creationists, in the long term, it's insulting everyone else, since "Biological Change Over Time" is not an equivalent phrase for "evolution." "Evolution" is tied to a well-understood general process of biology, in which the genetics of living things change through mutation, which is random when it occurs naturally." (Since mutation is not the "well-understood" process that drives evolution it is clear that at least one more person can be added to the list of people who need a reeducation.)
Update 3: This confirms it. When a former President (Jimmy Carter) doesn't get it then we've hit the tipping point.
Update 4: Cox backs down. The term won't be dropped form the curriculum.
I blog about this topic in a bit more detail on my blog.
The difference really is one of semantics in large part with those arguing in favor of Evolution conflating the 2 concepts of Natural Selection (which does have scientific support) and Evolution (which is a series of natural selection events occuring over time and does not have scientific support.) Natural selection is well settled, but Evolution has no firm support either for or against it, scientifically.
Most of the supporters of Evolution really accept on faith that a series of natural selections can equate to an evolution, but thus far, no such evidence exists.
Joe, it's Kathy Cox, with a "K." Cathy Cox is our very popular Democrat Secretary of State.
Kathy, I think, won on the name, though I voted for her for sure.
Unlike Cathy, Kathy is not afraid to take a bold stand in favor of conservative principles and Christian views.
It also puts the state Democrats in a tough position. A win-win situation.
Well of course 'evolution' refers to a fact and a theory - true theories like evolution are facts. But do you really think that the high-school curriculum will be teaching those aspects of the theory that are even moderately contentious?
I'm a bit worried if compromising between the people who say 2+2 equals 4 and those who say it is 10 by suggesting that maybe we try 7 is really a bold stand in favour of Christian views. I'd think it'd be a good Christian principle to find out as much as we can about how God actually made the world, rather than stick to old ideas about how we'd like Him to have made it.
Hey Brian,
Thanks for the comment.
Well of course 'evolution' refers to a fact and a theory - true theories like evolution are facts.
Which theory is fact? Neo-Darwinism? Punctuated Equilibrium? Which theory is it that we are claiming is a "fact?"
But do you really think that the high-school curriculum will be teaching those aspects of the theory that are even moderately contentious?
No, they'll probably teach what they do know. They present a false, outdated view of the theory and teach it as "fact." This isn't science, its indoctrination.
I'd think it'd be a good Christian principle to find out as much as we can about how God actually made the world, rather than stick to old ideas about how we'd like Him to have made it.
I agree completely. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. We should discard old theories that are no longer scientifically tenable rather than trying to prop them up for fear that they will open the door to "creationism."