Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 27 February 2008 | Nature 451, 1041 (2008) | doi:10.1038/4511041e
News in Brief
Florida adopts teaching of evolution in its schools
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
It amazes me that we are only at this point in 2008. The reticence to embrace evolution in the US casts a long shadow on our preeminence as a learned society. Darwin and Wallace proposed a simple mechanism for evolutionary change in the mid-1800's -- one that can be demonstrated in a backyard or Petri dish. The concept of species "transmutation" is much older. When will these concepts catch on?
At this point, although widely accepted by the scientific world, the theory of evolution is merely that: a theory. It is funny how scientific people want proof in general, and yet how easily they can accept this theory just... because it is beautiful, or because it gives reasonable explanations to some fundamental questions.
Nature might want to monitor what the Florida legislature does over the next few years. The counties in the northern and rural sections of the state are heavily populated by fundamentalists who will seek by changing laws to force the teaching of "alternative theories" to that of evolution. This was a hard won victory for science over ignorance and it is important to make sure that a reversal is not going to happen. The first poster of this thread might want to review Wallace's contribution. Wallace, under the influence of spiritualists, was the source of the so called "Intelligent Design" idea that has plagued the theory of evolution in recent times as a subterfuge for Creationism. The second comment is confusing the scientific definition of "theory" with that used by fundamentalists. They do not mean the same thing. While "proof" is often incorrectly used by scientists, the more appropriate term is "verification" by tests of testable hypotheses. The fundamentalists use the word "theory" to mean "unproven" but the scientist uses "theory" to mean "a generally accepted explanation of how things are the way they are". It is important, for clarity, to make sure you do not use the fundamentalists' definition when referring to the Theory of Evolution. "Just a theory" is not much of a criticism and is certainly more substantial than "just a belief".
In response to the above posted sceptical view on the validity of the "theory" of evolution. When there is scientific proof that God exists (or any proof at all for that matter), many people (including scientists) might think about becoming religious. Religion is after all only based on "faith" not "fact". Not all faiths agree on whom or how the Earth was created. If the Earth was created by a supreme being, which religion's "god" was the creator? ...Gregor Mendel, giving peas a chance since 1856
Rule #1, Mr. Swift, for discussing evolution with creationists: DO NOT get involved in discussions of theology or the existence of God. I watched a videotaped debate between Kent Hovind and three college science professors where the teachers seemed more intent on challenging Hovind's religious beliefs than in debunking his ridiculous young-earth assertions. Bad idea. ;-) One area where we can definitely clear the air, though, is on the proper definition of the word "theory," which has already been adequately described. I think it's helpful to point out that the atomic theory of matter is "just a theory," but its fundamental assumptions have been verified through countless experiments and observations, and it has tremendous predictive power. All our chemistry is founded on it, and at this late date it is extremely unlikely that any evidence will be found to contradict those fundamental assumptions. I'm sure there are numerous other examples. We MUST engage creationists in discussion or we will continue to cede ground to them in the broader cultural debate. We have to take them seriously and answer their questions, but we shouldn't allow them to control the debate; the onus is on THEM to explain the data within a young-earth or Intelligent Design framework, if they can. Ask them to provide a creationist explanation for the K-T boundary, or the existence of pseudogenes, or why human chromosom #2 is clearly, beyond any doubt, a fusion of two primate ancestral chromosomes. Let THEM do the stammering and backpedaling.
Coman makes some good points. I would not have expected creationist to weigh in at this venue to any extent. Do they really subscribe to NATURE? I wonder if they are finding the kind of articles or commentaries they are looking for here.