Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm hearing from sources in Florida that there is a movement going on behind the scenes to "compromise" on the new science standards by adding the phrase "theory of" anywhere the word "evolution" is mentioned. Apparently there is support among those with a vote for doing so. Since evolution is, of course, a theory, this seems perfectly reasonable, but we all know why this is going on: because to the average person 'theory' means "wild guess" and thus it will quell some of the controversy.
If this is done, however, we should insist that the same thing be added to the science standards in reference to every other scientific theory and that all of them begin with an accurate scientific definition of theory. This is just another dishonest game being played by the anti-evolution crowd and it needs to be stopped.
Comments
I really hope they don't capitulate here. It's entirely unnecessary to put "theory of" in front of every single scientific theory, and singling out evolution for this kind of treatment would create undue bias against that theory as opposed to every other theory.
Seriously, why do states choose school boards by popular election? How could anyone possibly think that's a good idea? And it's because of this irrational practice that this country has to go through this tedious shit every time education standards need to be updated.
Posted by: Wes | February 18, 2008 10:15 AM
In addition, there is the FACT of evolution, which is distinct from the theory (e.g. the fact that finches evolved, the theory as to what drove that evolution). Does the compromise differentiate between the fact and the theory, or are both called theory?
Posted by: Shygetz | February 18, 2008 11:24 AM
Ok, have a look here on the standards, and the proposal:
http://www.fldoestem.org/page231.aspx
Posted by: Kim van der Linde | February 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Is this really something that a mere definition can really bridge? I mean, on one side, you have rationalist thinkers, and on the other side, you have non-rationalist believers. I - for one - do not think that a definition alone will really solve any problems.
Of course if you do want to include correct definitions, one should require a definition of "scientific theory" in all science textbooks, including the very first science texts a student might get.
In any case, if this proposal were to pass, I think "scientific theory" should include all the following (and other scientific theories that other people know):
* the scientific theory of atoms
* the scientific theory of cells
* the scientific theory of circuits
* the scientific theory of [computer] computation
* the scientific theory of electromagnetism
* the scientific theory of gas kinetics
* the scientific theory of general relativity
* the scientific theory of global climate change
* the scientific theory of gravity
* the scientific theory of plate tectonics
* the scientific theory of quantum fields
* the scientific theory of relativity
* the scientific theory of special relativity
* the scientific theory of systems
* the scientific theory of the big bang
And you can also have (for those of us who don't think that mathematics is a "real" science), statements warning the students about "mathematical theories":
* the mathematical theory of catastrophe
* the mathematical theory of category
* the mathematical theory of chaos
* the mathematical theory of graphs
* the mathematical theory of knots
* the mathematical theory of numbers
* the mathematical theory of probability
* the mathematical theory of sets.
(Don't get me started on "mathematical theorems"!)
But guess the crazies on the side of the non-rational believers will say: "WOAH! So many theories! They must ALL just be based on wild guesses! SEE!?! Because a "scientific theory" is just a wild guess by stoopid scientists, and "mathematic theory" is the same thing with those dumb-ass mathematicians. Scientists and mathematicians are trying to pull the wool over our eyes! Only faith in the ONE TRUE GOD, three-in-one, one-in-three, the mystery of faith can save you from the fiery pits of HELL to which you will be cast if you dare travel down the path of materialist atheism so central to the godless, evil[utionist], heathen mob of Fascio-communist totalitarian goose-stepping Nazi mathematicians and peace-and-free-love hedonistic gay-loving transvestic-transexual-transgendered Castro-worshiping dogmatic idolater scientists! And don't say we didn't warn you!"
A part of me just make me want to let that area of the country sink slowly into its own "Age of Endarkenment." Let them wonder why they are being "left behind" in the advancement of modern society. Maybe we should make Florida a state-sized analogue of an Amish community (nothing against FL or the Amish, but it is the only peninsula that would be large enough to hold all of them), and send all the "scientific-theory-isn't-real" people there. Given only a few years of social isolation, anthropologists even be given a new opportunity to study a non-modern society without having to travel great distances. (Of course, by this time, the English language spoken by the "natives" would likely have migrated to something completely foreign - with so many similar-sounding words - that it would provide linguists an opportunity to create their own theories (!) of language development. It might even provide the US military with an impenetrable code that could be used like the Navajo code talkers were used in WW2.)
Posted by: Umlud | February 18, 2008 1:42 PM
Wes, I agree with you on the school board elections. The boards are political entities first, and I'd bet that 75% of the people on state boards have no background in education at all. In Michigan, we have an administrator, a religions major, a home maker, a newspaper editor, an economics major, a lawyer, a communications major, and a teacher.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 18, 2008 1:44 PM
Kim - If those are the standards (and thanks for posting a link to them), then I'm surprised that all those evolutionist deniers and scientific-theories-are-just-guesses people got past the third grade! If they had learned what was expected of them to learn, then they SHOULD have known that a theory isn't a wild guess, and that evolution isn't random (among a myriad of other false arguments we have all seen or heard).
Posted by: Umlud | February 18, 2008 1:53 PM
The the report I heard had the board adding "scientific theory of" not just to evolution but to every (or most) theories mentioned. Also, the standards have extensive (and good) discussions of what a "scientific theory" is:
Starting in grade 3, students are supposed to be instructed as to:
By 6th grade: And, in 9th through 12th grades:So it is less craven a compromise than it might first appear and and at least some of the creationists recognize that it won't be in their favor.
Posted by: John Pieret | February 18, 2008 2:25 PM
On the other hand, such a compromise might allow Junior to learn some real science despite the inclination of the parents. After all, they're only teaching him about a theory, right? How likely is it that Mom or Dad is going to ask the kid, "So, just what is a scientific theory?" No, Junior can be exposed to the science of evolution properly while the parents think he's learning about wild-ass guesses.
Posted by: Karen | February 18, 2008 4:03 PM
I heard, too, that the "compromise" proposal is to use the phrase "the scientific theory of...." This could possibly equip teachers with a response to students and parents who try to get them to include discussion about ID: "I'm sorry, we only discuss SCIENTIFIC theories in science class."
But then there are those individuals -- including some teachers -- who will glom onto the "T" word.
Posted by: Gerry L | February 18, 2008 10:49 PM
The other factor that's involved here is that the state legislature, which has the final say over the standards, has been making noises about appending "theory" to the word "evolution" in the standards and, you know if they do that, it will be only evolution that they'll target. By getting out in front, the board can "cut 'em off at the pass," so to speak, and make it difficult for the legislature to single evolution out as something less than fully scientific.
Posted by: John Pieret | February 19, 2008 6:35 AM
The following op-ed from the Miami Herald by writer Carl Hiaason might be of interest to readers of this blog (hat tip to Jason Rosenau).
http://www.miamiherald.com/540/story/421075.html
Posted by: SLC | February 19, 2008 9:42 AM
Thanks for that link, SLC. The sad thing is, that could've been written about Michigan, too.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 19, 2008 10:12 AM
So we can explect to see this in our text books:
"Theory of Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Theory of Evolution is the only scientific explanation for the fact of Theory of Evolution."?!!
Posted by: Ian | February 20, 2008 8:37 AM
I propose that the word "conjecture" be used everywhere the idea of Intelligent Design is mentioned.
All students should be taught the difference between conjecture, hypothesis and theory.
A hypothesis is an idea that can be empirically tested. If it stands up to lots of testing, it may graduate to the level of theory. A theory means it seems to work so far, although further refinements may not be ruled out.
A conjecture is an idea that cannot be empirically tested. It is an untested, and untestable, idea, or "hunch" or "intuition" or "gut feeling".
Intelligent Design squarely falls in the "conjecture" category. So it should always be referred to as such.
Now, given that Jeb Bush wants Florida kids to grow up stupid, so that they can't compete with Indians and Chinese for science and tech jobs (read: corporations won't have to pay American-level wages to get the jobs done), we can clearly see the motivation of the pro-ignorance crowd. It's to maintain a strict class system that supports a capitalistic oligarchy. In such, the lower classes must be prevented from becoming too educated lest they step on the toes of the elite, or figure out that they are being manipulated for the profit of super-wealthy.
Such a society will not be able to solve the problems coming in the 21st century such as climate change, or function in a world economy where they have to compete against actual educated people from other countries.
It's lose-lose proposition, and Florida citizens should make it known they are not in the mood to tolerate it.
Posted by: yogi-one | February 20, 2008 9:44 PM
Dawkin's next book is to be called, "Just a Theory?". A great, strategic title, I'd say, in view of the inanity in Florida.
Posted by: ngong | February 21, 2008 2:34 AM
According to Dictionary.com there are seven definitions for the word "theory" (see below). Surely this should be the beginning of any discussion on what comprises a theory. Let's call each of the definitions a Class.
So, for example, evolution would be a Class 1 theory. Intelligent design would be at best a Class 6 or 7 theory.
Anti-evolutionists would assert that evolution is a Class 2 theory.
By sticking to accepted definitions we avoid semantic digressions that fail to illuminate the discussion.
--------------------------------------------------
Here are the seven definitions:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Definition of "theory"
Posted by: Roger | February 21, 2008 9:09 AM