Dylan Peters says:

As a native Georgian and a former resident of Cobb county, I can only say how embarassing it is to have this go on in my home state. The well-funded, well-marketed Intelligent Design folks have hijacked the language of equality and open-mindedness to promote a religious anti-science agenda. Science isn’t about exploring every hare-brained idea that comes along, it’s about accepted practices and repeatable results. The ID promote themselves as open-minded when really they have decided what the truth is and work the facts to support it. They are trying to blur the definition of “theory”, and ignore the FACT of evolution.

Eli Sarver says:

Darwinian evolution is the theory for the mechinism behind the fact of evolution. Evolution == Fact. Darwinian explanation == Theory. We know it occurs, but we do not know the entire mechanism behind it. Note that this is the opposite of the ID which presumes to know the mechanism, but does not know for a fact that spontaneous creation occurred.

T.C. Moore says:

> Evolution == Fact. Darwinian explanation == Theory

I believe/agree with evolution, but I don’t think these statements are right. A theory explains empirical evidence that is gathered by scientists. The 100 year old theory of cells in biological organisms was surely a theory for at least 50 of those years. Even though the cell theory beautifully explained so many questions in biology, we really couldn’t be sure it was “fact” until we had microscropes powerful enough for us to see it with the “naked eye.”

The question is when will we “see” evolution “with the naked eye”. That has to take hundreds of years of observations, no? Dylan Peters talking rightly about “repeatable results”, but how does a scientist create a repeatable evolutionary experiment? When an evolutionary molecular biologist can accurately describe every single mutation that occurred over millions of years to differentiate us from chimps and create homo sapiens sapiens, then I will say that evolution truly is a “fact”. Or even such a recipe for a simpler organism. Considering advances in DNA analysis and looking at the evolution of DNA, such a standard does not seem unreasonable or beyond our reach.

Creationists motivations are obviously suspect, but their criticisms of macro-evolution and gaps in the fossil record should not be dismissed out of hand until they can be accurately explained. What I have read does not satisfy me, even though I find creationism ridiculous. Because it is not an either/or issue! Both sides seem to foam at the mouth about this. I don’t see what evolutionists have to be so worried or upset about. Eventually the gaps will be filled in. Meanwhile, bible thumpers handicapping their own children probably won’t have that much affect on society, except to make America look dumb. Too late!

Scientists thought the “Ether” was a fact, and that Newton’s mechanics was the end-all-be-all for 300 years before Einstein.
Dismissing evolution as “just a theory” is mainly an abuse of English, and an enormous disservice to our children, but it will remain a theory in the scientific sense for a long time to come. When science declares “facts”, it gets in trouble. Any scientist will tell you that, in the same breath they denounce creationists as know-nothings.

How does this adversely affect a normal person’s life anyway? Perhaps a creationist won’t appreciate the significance of patterns they see in nature. But I weep at how many people don’t appreciate the beauty of so many things because they don’t have the knowledge to see the patterns or the whole picture. That applies to lots of smart people, and we all get along fine. If continuing religious faith does not significantly impede our modernity — secular society and scientific advancement seem to be roaring along fine — then what harm is done by differences in our beliefs about how we got here?

Thomas says:

Wait, wait, wait. First and foremost, science classes must be required to teach science. That means learning the scientific method and specifically learning how science goes about finding truth. Secondly, it means studying areas where the scientific method has been applied.

Evolution is universally accepted among scientists that do not have their head in their ass. How species evolve is debatable. How fast species evolved is debatable. By what means species evolved is debatable. However, that species evolved from less complex forms has so much evidence from so many different fields of study that it is treated as fact.

We do have proof that animals evolve both naturally and through human intervention. Different breeds of dog are an example of races developing through selective breeding. Viruses mutate to adapt to environmental changes. All of this can be proven experimentally and predicted.

Creationists have absolutely no scientific ground to stand on because in the end, when all is said and done, their theory rests on the presumption of a designer whose existence they cannot prove scientifically. Creationism, if taught at all, should be shown for what it is: pseudo-science. It should be put in the same category as leprechauns, goblins, ghosts and spoon-bending.

The Tea Man says:

I quite agree with J.Radtke that bloggers will get the news first. I am also intrigued by this theory, that bloggers will be the first to adapt to the new environment, and maybe blessed with useful adaptive traits first, although it sounds a little Lamarckian:

Boffins isolate ‘blogging gene’

“Webloggers are born not made,” [Professor Teilhard] said. “And shouldn’t be persecuted.” The activity could be a positive, group-bonding social function such as grooming, or simply a harmless way of passing the time, such as masturbation.

J. L. Larsen says:

Hmm. “Teilhard should know.” Does this mean that Webloggers and their “new media” are, in your mind, the Noosphere? Might make for a great column.