Well said Aaron - welcome to the debate.

...

...

Aaron.Lambert@Williams.com 08/05/2005 11:58 AM >>> I'm a late comer to this discussion because I have been on vacation, but it has been a fun read. As a disclaimer, I find myself more on Don Colton's side of the fence.

As much as we scientists claim that much of the confusion comes from a misunderstanding of the word "theory", I think we also over-state its importance. A theory is a conjecture based upon facts and scientific evidence. The theory itself is not a fact. It tries to explain the observed facts in a manner that can be tested. It is difficult to test many of the theory of evolution's predictions because they require millions of years. If we had the time we would know for sure. Evolution is a theory because the jury is still out. We could come across new data at any time that could revolutionize our understanding of life. Imagine if Einstein had been a biologist. The theory often referred to, in order to show that a theory is "really" a "fact" (or nigh unto it) is the theory of gravity. What scientists do not say is that our understanding of gravity can also be revolutionized by one scientific finding. Yes, it is well-established, but that has never kept a theory static before. I also think that scientists do themselves a disservice when they try to combine the theory of evolution and evolution itself in debates. They are two very separate things and should be taught that way. That creatures evolve has been demonstrated. That the theory of evolution is a completely, without question, and entirely accurate explanation of evolution has not been, and I doubt there are many "real" scientists that would ever make that claim unless they are debating a creationist. Joan Carmen wrote: "Let's teach facts, as best we know them, and not personal beliefs." This is what I also believe should be taught in school. I do not believe that ID has much of a place in school. Admittedly I have not read much about what their proposed curriculum is, so I probably should not dismiss it without reading up. But in any case, I think the science teachers should make a distinction in the class between what is known as fact and what is our "best guess" as to why the facts appear as they do. Also offer some other views - and these do not need to be ID. I am certain that there are slightly differing views about how the evolutionary facts are explained by the scientific community. I agree with the majority of the posters that religion should be taught at home and science at school. I just believe that the quality of science education could be better and more "scientific" - teaching fact as fact and theory as theory. This does not lessen the importance of the theory, but teaches it accurately, and accuracy is what we should be after as scientists, is it not? Aaron _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com