Policy Bonk
War of the Words: Will New Missoula School Policy Make Stuff Worse?
Missoula public schools are getting a new academic freedom policy in response to The Story of Stuff brouhaha. But critics say the new code, like others around the country, might help parents battle teachers -- and science.By Amy Linn, 5-18-09
In an effort to prevent another fracas like the one that erupted over the video The Story of Stuff, the Missoula County Public Schools board of trustees last week approved a draft of a new academic freedom policy—one that sets clear rules for teachers about how to deal with controversial issues.
Sounds innocent enough. And that’s what’s dangerous, observers say. Because there’s more to this stuff than meets the eye.
“There is a move across the country to use academic freedom policy to challenge controversial issues—mostly science issues,” says Kathleen Kennedy, the Big Sky High School biology teacher at the center of the Missoula controversy. Last October, Kennedy showed her students the hit 20-minute anti-consumerism video The Story of Stuff, which shows how wastefulness hurts the planet; today, the fallout still hasn’t ceased. And the new policy could make things worse, Kennedy and other educators fear.
“The people who would manipulate those policies are looking for any ambiguity in language or any open door,” says Kennedy. “As soon as you define things, you give people things to object to.”
The policy wars, strange as they may sound, are real and on the rise. According to education and civil liberties groups nationwide, an increasingly organized army of parents and political leaders are using seemingly innocuous academic freedom guidelines to fight the teaching of evolution, climate change, and other hot-button issues.
School policies, in other words, are at the frontlines in a battle that pits parents against teachers, liberals against conservatives, and science against religion.
Consider:
-- In March, the Texas State Board of Education adopted new science requirements mandating that students consider “all sides of scientific evidence.” According to the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a nonprofit that’s spent 20-plus years defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, that type of language is adopted so that teachers can push creationist views (such as the theory that God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago) and “intelligent design,” which holds that the universe was created by an intelligent cause, not Darwin’s natural selection process.
-- The Discovery Institute, a leader of the nation’s ID movement, offers an “Academic Freedom” page on its website that tells citizens how to fight “Darwinian fundamentalists” and urges them to join a national campaign to bring ID to public schools. The group advises people to pressure school districts into adopting ID-friendly policies.
-- According to a recent CNN report, Louisiana has enacted an “academic freedom” law supported by anti-evolutionists, and pending legislation in Florida calls for an academic freedom bill that would mandate a “thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution.” Both laws were crafted in response to anti-evolutionists, who offer supporters step-by-step guides on how to fight “social justice educators” in the classroom.
-- Anti-evolutionists in recent years have also pressured school districts to use benign-looking policy words such as “balanced” and “strengths and weaknesses” to undermine the teaching of science, the New York Times reports. With these terms in place, teachers can discuss the “weaknesses” of Darwin’s theories or “balance” them with discussions about creationism.
“I don’t believe there has to be balance when it hijacks conversations about scientific fact,” as Kennedy puts it. The 11-year teaching veteran says too many students already believe that science is just an opinion. “They say ‘science is just an ideology, too.’”
Enter the Missoula imbroglio. Kennedy said she showed The Story of Stuff to her biology classes last fall to generate discussion about today’s shop-and-toss society. Mark Zuber, the parent of one of her students, objected, saying Kennedy didn’t tell students the film had a decidedly progressive bias.
After complaining to teachers and the principal, and feeling he was being disregarded, Zuber took the matter to the January school board meeting. He argued in a lengthy presentation that Kennedy violated the district’s academic freedom/controversial issues policy (to view the old policy, click here). Kennedy was not allowed to present evidence in her own defense. By a 4-3 vote, the board sided with Zuber.
Board members voting against Kennedy said they thought she violated school policy because she didn’t offer students a balanced discussion. Trouble is, the word “balanced” doesn’t even appear in the policy.
In the aftermath, Missoula County Public Schools Superintendent Alex Apostle formed a committee to revamp the academic freedom policy. Mark Zuber was a committee member; Kennedy was not invited, and neither was any other science teacher.
Kennedy, meanwhile, started to do research on teachers under fire and tried (unsuccessfully, she says) to give input to the policy revision committee. She also sent the science-supporting NCSE a draft of the new academic freedom policy (read it here). Louise Mead, the NCSE’s education project director, told Kennedy that Missoula’s old policy is better than the new one.
Mead said she was particularly alarmed by sentences like this one: ”The Board expects the teaching staff to “create an environment in which students are free to form judgments independently.”
“What worries me about this statement is that there is no emphasis on using logic-based reasoning to evaluate the evidence, as was clearly stated in the former policy,” Mead wrote in an email to Kennedy. “The revised policy opens the door for any view, regardless of whether it is: (1) within the state and district curriculum guidelines; and (2) generally accepted as accurate based on the evidence. It also creates a permissive environment in which the teacher is expected to accommodate all student views, regardless of whether they are grounded in reality and evidence.”
And what does Zuber think about all this?
“I was actually happy with the old policy. I never was unhappy with it,” Zuber says.
Zuber, an engineer with the Department of Agriculture, says he doesn’t object to The Story of Stuff or its environmentalist creator, Annie Leonard. “What really bothered me was that the video clearly advocated a progressive point of view,” he says. “She [Kennedy] never disclosed it to the kids.”
Zuber says he did not seek help from any conservative group in forming his arguments for the school board and says he is not opposed to teaching about controversial issues such as climate change, evolution or consumerism, for that matter.
“The misperception is that this was a censorship deal—it never was,” he continues. “I was arguing for more information to be shown, not less. Annie Leonard: she’s an absolutely unabashed advocate for her cause. The video is very well done and very effective, and she makes a lot of good points. But I think people need to present the backgrounds of the people and points of view being presented.”
On at least one thing, all sides agree: controversies like the one over Stuff are sure to happen again in Missoula and elsewhere. No policy is airtight, and schools will always be a flashpoint for political struggles.
On a positive note, however, the new policy offers important new safeguards, says Jack Sturgis, president of the Missoula Education Association, the teachers’ union. “It actually protects teachers on a broader range and protects academic freedom in the classroom,” Sturgis says. “It’s a cleaner and clearer policy than we had before.”
The policy establishes a much-needed grievance procedure that requires parents to take complaints to the teacher, the principal and, if necessary, the school superintendent, who has the final say. Perhaps even more importantly, the new guidelines—slated to win final approval in the coming weeks—allow teachers to defend themselves and explain what they did in the classroom, a luxury not afforded to Kennedy.
New or old, the rules give Kennedy no solace.
“This has been haunting me for months,” Kennedy says. “I’ve moved from trauma to just being flat out angry.
“I’ve felt like people are telling me ‘you can’t challenge the dominant culture,’” she says. “They’ve said ‘we want you to show students the other side.’ Well, we’re living the other side. It’s all around us.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
It is frightening that mass delusions of supernatural beings still exist today. It is the same thing as saying that my invisible fire breathing dragon is more powerful than your multi-headed fire spewing sea monster. So, come around to my way of thinking or I will commit atrocities for it.
Everything from the murderous blood stained Sky Daddy who drowned virtually all humanity and other life, sentenced everyone to leave Utopia after Eve (persuaded by a talking snake) ate a magical apple, had Jonah take a ride in the belly of a whale, ruined the life of Job, told Abraham to murder his own kid, killed all the first born of Egypt, had his chosen people commit genocide on the original inhabitants of Palestine, to letting his own son be nailed to some wood so mankind could party with a ghost - is a FAIRY TALE that humanity needs to reject if we are to see many more
generations.
By the way if you are dumb enough to believe that this fable is real; in the Bible, the murder count is God/millions - Devil/zero. Whom would you rather spend time with, a vengeful monster or a “fallen” angel who thought he had a better way? I am NOT promoting the Devil, just illustrating the craziness in this stupidity.
Hopefully if you were previously deluded, after reading this you will see how foolish you have been. Society needs to accelerate its retreat from worshiping outlandishly absurd fictional psychopathic beings.
There is no middle ground.
"Natural selection" is properly an explanation for the development of biological systems over time. Darwinism has no bearing whatsoever on cosmological systems.
Sadly, the author of this piece -- who presents herself as cheerleader for science -- doesn't seem to know or care that there is a difference.
The willful ignorance of people on both sides of this issue is astonishing.
Mike LaSalle writes, "Sadly, the author of this piece -- who presents herself as cheerleader for science -- doesn't seem to know or care that there is a difference."
My comment relates to science vs. mythology in general. Why you can't (or won't) make the connection I could only speculate on. It is an absolutely appropriate post here.
Amy Linn said that "...intelligent design ... holds that the universe was created by an intelligent cause, not Darwin’s natural selection process."
Sorry, Amy. That is just wrong. Darwin's concept of natural selection does not apply to cosmological systems.
Sorry Mike.
There appears to be too much meddling in stuff by the parent and the school board.
controversial issues."
Chief Problem Number One: who or what is to say which issues are controversial? Cults in the USA and elsewhere claim that evolution itself (let alone evolutionary theory) is "controversial" even though it is not, no more than snow is "controversial." Other nut cases claim that the latest Holocaust (in the 1940s) is "controversial" in that "it never happened" even though it it was and is also just as much an observed fact as evolution.
The list of subjects in science that are not controversial in science and among scientists, yet are considered as such by the ignorant, the occult-befuddled, and the professional haters in the country, is very long. Just where are these "teacher's guidelines" going to draw the line between observed reality and lunatics' beliefs?
Natural selection is a good explanation for how life evolves over time, but it provides no insight at all about how life started in the first place.
Darwinist fundies and religious fundies both tend to reinforce each other's ignorance when it comes to questions like this.
How did life begin? Fred Hoyle and Francis Crick -- among many other leading scientists -- have thrown up their hands and suggested life on earth must have started somewhere else in the cosmos. Don't believe? Google "Panspermia" and then get back to me.
But even those scientists who buy the Panspermia theory have a lot of 'splaining to do.
Check out Oxford professor Nick Bostrom's fascinating article on SURPRISING lack of evidence for extraterrestrials. The fact is, if we are here, its mathematically very likely that ETs are also busily going about their lives in other corners of the universe. But it's the LACK of evidence for ET that makes people like Nick Bostrom wonder just what the heck is going on. http://nickbostrom.com/extraterrestrial.pdf
This is no slam dunk, folks. There are more things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophies of either science or religion.
Any statement which does not support and celebrate both is now going to be forbidden to the Missoula County faculty, due to the actions of a federal bureaucrat living in Missoula County?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?_r=1&em;
On this environmental issues. Our society needs to deal with how do deal with these issues. These issues relate to our lives and health.
<quote>See my post over at Amy's other one. I don't have the patience or energy to do another one here. But all this is nonsense.</quote> Most of your posts quite definitely are.
This is an interesting article. Some People like Amy talk as though Evolution has somehow (when no one was watching) been shown to be true when in fact no such proof exists. That is unless, when you are talking about Evolution, you are using the usual Darwinist ploy of mixing breeding (variation within a species) with Evolution.
Just to be clear Micro-evolution (breeding or variation within a species) has been shown to be controlled by the genes which is found in the DNA chain. There are limits to the variation within a species. For example, a cat can never be as large as a blue whale as the result of breeding. Of course, there has never been an example of breeding from one species into another in the history of the world. (I am sure the wise crackers will say otherwise.)
So Darwin’s Macro-evolution is just an unproven theory, an idea, without any known proof whatsoever. If Miller produced proof of evolution by showing fossils, that he claimed proved that evolution is true, I sure would like to have access to that evidence. All the evidence I have seen to date has been in error or outright fraud committed by Darwinists. Miller’s proof probably consists of a sliver of bone that someone drew a dinosaur around. As we all know, if Evolution occurred as a result of transitional macro-evolution (Changing from one body plan into another) we would see thousands even millions of transitional fossils all over the world. Of course Dr. Miller seems to have found the only one.
I think we are debating an idea that has no natural scientific credibility when we talk about Darwin’s Evolution or other faith based theologies.
What about Intelligent Design? Are we dealing with faith or are we dealing with scientific methods to determine if Intelligent Design has merit. ID deals with Information theory, Probability theory and Biology. ID is delving into the living cells of animals and plants. ID Considers DNA, RNA, amino acids, proteins, genes, all the molecular machines and instruments contained in the living cell. Based on the evidence therein derived ID is a proposed theory showing that mutations and survival of the fittest can not explain how life began.
The best current scientific knowledge shows us that two spontaneous nonfatal helpful mutations is the best we can expect from evolution, no matter how much time we apply. Probability science shows us that spontaneous helpful mutations in the ten of thousands are required for Macro-evolution. Thus, Evolution, even with the help of hundreds of billions of years, can not account for the generation of new species. Keep in mind if the first accidental human took billions of years to evolve, the second human of the opposite sex would have only several decades to accidently evolve.
In my opinion ID is a better theory than Evolution for how life began and has prospered. ID does in fact account for the generation of new species.
If religious people can conceive that God may have used Evolution to generate new species, I see no reason those same religious people cannot conceive that God may have used Intelligent Design to generate new species.
Based on the above, I think we should teach all popular theories even though Evolution has fallen on hard times. We should especially teach the strength and weakness of Evolution so people can judge for themselves the motives of the Darwinian faithful.
I would suggest reading Dr. Behe’s book “Edge of Evolution” to get a better understanding of the limits of Evolution.
This is correct. Science has been unable to replicate anything like "evolution" -- that is, one species diverging into a separate species -- despite 50 years of trying. Not even bacteria can be made to "evolve" into a separate species -- despite being isolated from the natural gene pool for uncounted generations.
That's why evolution is still called a THEORY.
Hello? When someone tries to declare evolution a "fact", be confident that person does not even know what he is saying. His mouth is open, but nothing sensible is coming out.
Ask anyone who adheres to Karl Popper's explicit standards for scientific evidence.
After all, isn't that what we're really talking about?
Pandas thumb http://pandasthumb.org/
But I have no illusions that evolution is a scientific theory that has not yet passed rigors of the Scientific Method.
For all I know, it may NEVER pass the burden of proof.
That is indeed the point.
Who knows what's going on?
Don't you think it's rather odd that complex multicellular life just emerged practically out of nowhere in the Cambrian explosion -- after a virtual yeast infection that lasted 3 or 4 billion years?
There have been many other notable cyles of rapid speciations and extinctions over the history of life on earth -- some big, some small.
What's up with that?
Does our Earth periodically pass through some kind of intense gamma radiation that causes mutations on a global scale, thereby mechanically fueling the process of evolution?
In short, it's obvious enough that "Natural Selection" is a very good description of "micro-evolution" -- but it fails Popper's taste test when we're talking about full-blown speciation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger
and then to ask themselves why they rate their own understanding of science so highly.
Up to this point the thread was relatively civil. Mal Adapted's comment above advanced no substantive argument, and was evidently rhetorical in nature.
The comment was made solely to derail the thread.
Readers please note it. The sciences are the province of enormous federal and state endowments. It is no wonder that these human institutions have spawned new breeds of academic High Priests and their faithful Missionaries.
Mal Adapted is one of these people -- a groupie of sorts who trolls comment threads like these to shout down any opposition.
Mal Adapted's comment is evidence of a threat response.
Mal is eliciting something of the same human disease evinced by Dr. Zaius from the Planet of the Apes: that is, she is a quintessential reactionary.
"There's your Minister of Science; honor-bound to expand the frontiers of knowledge." http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003467/
This is just one of many thousands of areas that science trumps (as always) superstitious belief.
You have provided no evidence to support that reactionary claim.
"which has brought more 'miracles' than prayer ever has."
This depends on your definition of "miracle", of course.
Webster's has this definition:
"an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment"
Google the "the Observation Selection Effect".
The Observation Selection Effect is a methodological rule that allows scientists to make inferences about physical parameters that are correlated with our own existence. The OSE is independent of any scientific theory - but is simply a fact that we must reconcile.
The bottom line is that our very existence in this place at this time is so improbable as to be virtually impossible. Yet, here we are, and here it is.
What is miraculous about this, you might ask? If by miraculous you mean that something highly improbably might occur, then, yes, miracles -- Hail Mary passes -- are possible.
The OSE raises a lot of interesting questions. such as: where do these "miracles" of cosmic improbability end? Do such anthropic improbabilities extend into the history of life on Earth -- perhaps even recent human history? That is, is the development of life on earth somehow impacted by the OSE?
The question is legitimate, notwithstanding anybody's missionary zeal.
a. Wizards and witches (Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:11)
b. Demons and devils (Matthew 5:13)
c. Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Jeremiah 51:37)
d. Unicorns (Isaiah 34:7, Psalms 22:21 and Numbers 23:22)
e. Half man, half goat party animals known as Satyrs (Isaiah 34:14)
The bible was written by superstitious primitive people during a time when the wheel barrow was considered high tech, NOT written or inspired by any god.
Why not follow other biblical superstitions?: Gravity vs. Intelligent Falling, Astronomy vs. Firmamentism, Physics vs. Miracleism, Meteorology vs. Angelsarecryingism, Organic Chemistry vs. Watertowinery, Seismology vs. PillarShakery?
Just a few of the many verifiably false explanations put forth in the bible.
As for attacking Evolution on the macro scale you are just as wrong. The fossil record shows many intermediate species, see Pandas thumb http://pandasthumb.org/ , a website devoted to dispelling the lies about evolution. If you really study BOTH SIDES science wins in a blowout shutout.
This is transparently a rhetorical device. Has anyone mentioned bibles in this thread yet? I think you are the first one.
Let's agree that Evolution is a process of change within a species. This is micro-evolution-- where we can observe changes to the way an animal bloodline looks or behaves over time. (example: Canis familiaris is the domestic dog, and the wolf is Canis lupus. Dogs and wolves are isolated variations of what is essnetially the same animal.)
This is where's we disagree: the fact that in THEORY, gradual change and isolation will over the aeons create groups that are too different to create viable offspring. That is evolution on the macro-scale. And that is a Theory that has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Scientific Method.
Unfortunately, many well-meaning people have forgotten this simple fact, and are now acting like the very missionaries they despise.
Hey - professor -- over here! What if there is *another* mechanism that moves evolution forward? What if genuine speciation was the result of some cycle cosmic event in which the earth was bathed in cosmic particulate for a short time?
May I not ask the question?
"Up to this point the thread was relatively civil. Mal Adapted's comment above advanced no substantive argument, and was evidently rhetorical in nature."
My comment was not rhetorical. I'm asking you why you think your understanding of macroevolution, to wit:
"Darwin’s Macro-evolution is just an unproven theory, an idea, without any known proof whatsoever."
is superior to that of the scientists who dedicated their careers to the study of evolution?
If you think "proof" is expected or even possible, then you assuredly haven't understood Popper. How about allopatric vs. sympatric speciation, punctuated equilibria, or the body of research on island biogeography? Have you published any peer-reviewed research on macroevolution? If not, then I encourage you to write up your conclusions and submit them to any peer-reviewed biological science journal for publication. After all, why should you care what I think? If you're an expert, then only another expert is qualified to evaluate your claims. OTOH, If you're not an expert, then I'm as qualified as any high-school drop-out.
Plato said (loosely translated) "A wise man speaks when he has something to say; a fool, when he has to say something." Which one are you, Mike?
"Darwin’s Macro-evolution is just an unproven theory, an idea, without any known proof whatsoever."
is superior to that of the scientists who dedicated their careers to the study of evolution?"
You miss the point. All scientists and all of science is held to the same standard. Macro evolution is a theory by definition. Your denials won't help. Any of the non-professional scientists you seem to despise can google the term "Theory of Evolution" to prove to themselves that your are flatly incorrect.
Also, your Appeal to Authority is a straight-up logical fallacy.
So what about that gamma burst theory, professor? Any thoughts there? Maybe we can fit it somewhere into next year's budget, eh?
It is a scientifically derived fact (verified with EVERY test and observation) that evolution occurred. The Theory of Evolution relates to how it happened.
Exactly. So what's wrong with advancing a hypothesis that offers a cosmological explanation for *how* evolution works?
First, most public schools are authoritarian in methods. You "learn" to regurgitate what the teacher and textbooks tell you, or you fail. The student had a valid complaint that something was being "taught" (anti-consumerism) which had little or nothing to do with science. Was he not allowed to criticize the film? If I had been that teacher, that would have been the "lesson" - what parts of the film are valid and demonstrable, and which aren't, and why?
2) The problem with "liberals" or "progressives" is that as soon as they are called "liberal" or "progressive" they deny it. That student should have been asked, "Why do you think this is "progressive", and furthermore, what is "progressive" and why do you think that is a bad thing?
3) The fact that the teacher got no opportunity to defend the lesson or whatever position she have had is a gross injustice. Why didn't the teacher's union defend her right to testify? Obviously, they had some agenda of their own (like not to piss off the voters in the local school election who were being mobilized to oppose "progressive" ideas)?
There have been similar "controversies" here in Great Falls, and if it weren't for a few very experienced people opposing the Christian Fundamentalists (or whoever they are), they would have done the same thing here.
4) Whatever the outcome of this case, it demonstrates that a monopoly, authoritarian "public" school system is a very bad idea. The state has no business trying to train students in any ideology, unless it would be democracy, the Bill of Rights, the Montana Constitution, etc. But the teacher must remain sovereign in his or her classroom. The student should have been offered a transfer to a different class and teacher.
Of course, I strongly support a voucher system or charter "schools within schools" so that students and teachers can find the curriculum and structure which suits them.
Few if any "liberals" or "progressives" support those things.
Let me get this straight, your theory is that gamma ray burst trigger what? mutation or natural selection? If it’s just mutation, then the process of natural selection will weed out the failures in favor of the more adaptive species. If your argument is that gamma ray bursts cause both the mutation and the selection, then you have to elaborate on the processes involved.
I haven't advanced any actual theories here; I am simply asking the question. My point is that I MUST have the ability to ask the question, and academic institutions MUST allow their paid researchers to ask unorthodox questions as well.
This is America, not 15th century Poland.
All of that for Mike LaSalle to bring it back on point and acknowledge the merits of academic freedom.
Does your advocacy of academic freedom come to a halt where the teachings either illustrate the error of your ways or teach a principle that you disagree with?
That would be antithetical to the very idea of free inquiry.
But I also think it's important to constantly revisit and be mindful of First Principles. The hazard is that "consensus science" can sometimes calcify the debate and stifle legitimate lines of inquiry.
That's the danger we're in right now, it seems to me.
My point is that the "theory" needs to be nimble enough to accept new explanations.
That's the danger we're in right now, it seems to me."
Show me any SCIENCE that refutes evolution.
Ah, so in other words, you are advocating the standard scientific practice of advocating a testable hypothesis, then testing that hypothesis for validity, is that correct?
Any scientists is free to pursue ANY line of inquiry he, or she may choose as long as one cardinal rule is followed.
All hypotheses must be falsifiable.
By this method, the hypothesis may be tested and validated.
So far no one has proposed a falsifiable alternative hypothesis to evolution that has been validated.
I'm advocating playing by the rules of the Scientific Method. The processes behind macro-evolution are unproven and evidently unknown.
I'm sure that for the masses of teachers and garden-variety scientists, the consensus is enough. But at the end of the day, consensus is not proof of anything.
Remember the consensus on the Steady State Theory? Hubble died still believing in it, though the evidence against this former consensus has become overwhelming.
The Big Bang Theory pissed off quite a few people. And it stuck in Hubble's craw till the end.
The missionary spirit -- the spirit of advocacy or commitment to Team -- is not limited to religious institutions. It's obvious to me that both science and football are stocked with some seriously emotional advocates.
Okay. I'm with you. I only wish that people were truly committed to the ideal of the Method. But in routine practice, the Method is applied sloppily and with self-serving intent.
"Any scientists is free to pursue ANY line of inquiry he, or she may choose"
Oh, common, Chuck. Man, you ARE an idealist.
Check it out: did you know that the Big Bang theory was so unpopular among the academic establishment that it took a couple of commercial technicians (Penzias and Wilson) to finally VALIDATE the hypothesis?
Could you imagine: what if the Standard Model of a static universe were the accepted rule of cosmology right now -- today?
Could you imagine and grandsons of Penzias and Wilson asking their department heads for a grant to study the background radiation of the universe in an attempt to validate their hypothesis that the universe had a beginning?
Could you imagine the implications if Professor Dawkins -- our Grand Overseer -- were to get wind of it? Heads would role, my friends.
Stop me before I split my sides laughing.
No, slow person, evolution is never called a theory by scientists: it is an observed fact, not a theory. However, evolutionary theory is a theory and not a fact.
For the benefit of babies everywhere, Evolution must be acknowledged as a THEORY in order to maintain the integrity of the Scientific Method. (Just google "Theory of Evolution" to find the proof that Evolution is a Theory by definition.)
My fear -- my dread -- is that our academic institutions have been so permeated with a FAITH-BASED commitment to the Scientific Method, that people who know better are too intimidated to shout down the missionaries now occupying their classrooms.
If a professor -- even a high school teacher -- asserts that "Evolution is a Theory", they are now awkwardly exposed.
That's what I call a full-blown meltdown of the academic process.
All "hard" scientists question and debate their findings, and text books change and adapt to new information: Think Pluto. What frightens me is the vehemence of ID'ers in both proving Darwin wrong, and forcing a theory that has not withstood the rigors of scientific thought into schools.
America is starting to scare the hell out of me.
Think Dark Ages.
Let me get this straight.... you think it's okay to declare Evolution a "Fact" -- not a Theory -- because you are afraid of IDers? Afraid that they will corrupt the young and impressionable?
Is this your reasoning?
I await with bated breath the initial encounters between a fully-armed crowd of tourists and some callow miscreant or a ravening beast in Yellowstone--or on the National Mall...