UPDATED NOVEMBER 10. 2009: We should never lose sight of the concept that a scientific theory is more than just opinion or conjecture. A scientific theory is usually based upon a body of facts and observations from which conclusions can be drawn on a logical basis. Many scientific theories can be tested scientifically.

Examples of scientific theories are atomic theory, valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) theory, ligand close packing theory, theory of relativity, the theory of plate tectonics and so many more. For instance the germ theory of disease was highly controversial when proposed. Now it is the cornerstone of medicine. It is still a theory. Would anyone state that the germ theory of disease is just opinion or conjecture?

Another example is the cell theory. This theory arose about five hundred years ago when scientists began to conclude from study that the single cell was the building block of all life. Today this is universally accepted. Does anyone in the RIA hold that because it is called "cell theory" "it is just a theory and not a fact?" How many times have you heard that type of comment?

As far as evolution and natural selection is concerned, take a deep breath, set back, relax and let science take its course. Science will tell. Philosophy and doctrine must take a back seat to fact when proved by science.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: This should not be an issue but it continues in many parts of the country. The fundamentalist Protestant cult groups insist that their particular parsing of the Bible should be the law of the land. Reliance upon bronze age science must be shoved down everyone's throat.

As a political issue, irrelevant.

But as a moral/metaphysical issue, highly fascinating. It is our best attempt at explaining our origins. Certainly a question that's well worth asking. Whether or not it should become a political football, well, that's another question. I think that we should be honest about what we teach kids in school, and leave the proselytizing at the door.

My take on evolution and natural selection is that it obviously isn't a testable scientific theory in the traditional sense. We can't go back in time and directly observe genetic shifts in the development of the species, so what we're left with here is a metaphysical theory of development. The gaps in the history of our development are particularly difficult to explain. But yet the theory has a lot of practical applications. In fact, because of Darwin, our knowledge of genetics and biology in general has grown exponentially. For example, an explanation of why some bacteria adapt to certain anti-biotics like penicillin whereas others don't would be incomplete without an understanding of the theory of natural selection. The theory allows us to study adaptation to a new environment in a clear and rational way. It suggests an element of adaptation, and it gives us the ability to actually study it in detail.

Darwinism, as modern biology understands it, is natural selection theory backed up by Medellian heredity. Put together, this can be a powerful explanatory tool. Basically, mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool is the result of our biological origins, as we've been able to decode through our DNA. Evolution is another component of Darwinism. This states that all life on Earth evolved from a few primitive one celled organisms, maybe even one organism. Over time, life developed into more complex organisms as the environment changed. It is a very broad theory with a lot of gaps, but from a metaphysical standpoint, it makes sense, irrespective of whether you think God was the prime driver in adaptation or not.

We might never get the science because the theory isn't testable, but then again, all scientific theories are merely based on conjecture, even those that have passed very rigorous tests. We are limited by our understanding of the universe to this very time and place only. In short, it is very hard to get our hands on the exact truth because our powers of observation are very limited to a few variables. In our attempts to devise rational explanations for the natural phenomenon, we can be very reductionist in our approaches. The truth is far more complex than our current knowledge of science can fathom. That's why we should endeavor to discover and grow our knowledge in these fields.

Why is the federal government in my local school? This is unconstitutional. The federal governement hasn't been given the constitutional right to come into a local school.

Very important!

If you're a lathe-turned moron, this is a critical political issue.

If you're not, then it probably hasn't hit your event-horizon, let alone your radar-screen.

By believing this a serious issue you have, in fact, helped suggest where you belong on the scale concerning natural selection. . .

This would be a one star except that it really is quite important. It is unbelievable to me, an educated man, how many Americans still believe that the earth was created in seven actual calendar days! Evolution of man is a proven fact, beyond debate. True Christians face the fact that not all that the Bible says can be taken literally. They resolve through their faith the discrepancies, and then move on with life. I feel truly sorry for those who cannot accept the truth. They must live very colorless lives.

Sooo..Evolution is not as much as a political issue here in Canada,at least I think so. But anyways.It is both a theory and a fact.And creationism,in my opinion,is neither.Why?Because everything creationism states is scientifically and physical impossible to have ever happened.Life all had its origins with the simplest of organisms.It took billions of years to get to where we stand today.You can't just expect creatures to adapt to their environments instantaneously.It just doesn't happen like that. Seriously.You just can't call creationism a science.Science involves /testing theories to see if they are even physically possible/.You cannot do that with the bible.

I personally find it hard to believe that we "evolved" from scum in the ocean to be the highly intelligent beings we are today. Why someone would want to believe this, I do not know. If we did just "evolve", then that means this is just the end for us. I personally think believing in a God is a nice assurance or hope that we have something after we die

life ain't no monkey buisiness, there is a creator, God. Evoltion is proved time to time to be false, did you know that with all the evolving their is that they say, this history of living things would have be aroung 1500x larger than they sceintists say it is?

This issue is a dog. Teach science in science class, not religion. ID is not a scientific theory. Evolution is well accepted in the scientific community and there is no controversy as to whether or not there is a creator. This is the last gasp of the creationists, who know they are losing ground, when most main-stream christians don't believe the Adam and Eve story.

This is an legitimate education issue! "Evolution" should always be referred to as macro-evolution (Everything in existance began by randon chance....life on earth began by non living chemicals springing to live and changing into the life we see today over a supposed 3.5 billion history (earth's supposed 4.6 billion history). This theory is far from being proven..hence it is still a theory. Micro-evolution is a proven fact and creationists/intelligent designers have absolutely no problem acknowledging this! A lie that evotionists want to promote is that the theory of evolution is science and intelligent design is religion. One can spin anything to fit their agenda. There are many scientists who believe in ID due to THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and could talk endlessly about these evidences without bringing up God, Jesus, or the Bible. Both theories should be taught in the classroom..and scientific evidence of both theories should be provided only. I think it is quite comical that so called scientists/educators are so fearful of SCIENTIFIC evidence that goes against a certain theory...this is hypocritical and unscientific! I have done extensive research in this subject matter (both theories), and most of the people responding to this blog are fairly well educated in the theory of evolution, but completely ignorant of it's flaws and scientific evidence of opposing theories (ID/Creation). Since small changes have been observed...this my no means supports or refutes either theory.

Most kids don't know a stem cell from the Civil War. I doubt they'll pay attention no matter what is taught in biology class.

Actually, evolution has quite a bit to do with politics. Most school boards are politically elected; some are appointed (by politicians). Virtually none are chosen for their expertise in any facet of science or education. For example, I ripped the following quote from the National School Boards Association webpage, http://www.nsba.org: We trust that reasoned people who are not education experts are qualified to set policy and govern the schools, to represent the public in public education. After all, education, in large part, reflects community values. Who better to set the policy and direction for this values-laden enterprise than local community members? Quite frankly, this sounds like conservative code for an anti-evolution agenda regardless of what the facts may say, and it scares the heck out of me that politically-motivated school board members are more concerned with teaching 'values' than scientific theory. Whatever your opinion on evolution may be, this should scare us all.

Doesn't really have much to do with politics.

Except for the fact the fact that it has been proved correct. Anyone who has ever seen a mixed breed has technically seen evolution, the theory can be proven, creationsm cannot be proven, I would like to be taught evolution.

this theory has been proved incorrect.

Why would this be a political issue? It certainly is an issue in the science world but it should not nor is it discussed in the political circut. Politicians should not waste time discussing this topic as there are more important things out there. Although the issue of teaching evolution in schools can be touchy, again there are much more important issues.

This really isn't an important political issue. It's just plain old science. On the other hand, creation theory is a religious issue, and doesn't merit discussion in politics or education.

This isn't a political issue, as much as creationists/intelligent design advocates would like to believe so. It has no place in politics, but some people believe it clashes with their religious views, and that's where the politics comes in. Intelligent Design advocates (who are nothing more than creationists who wish to make religion sound like science, when neither have anything to do with each other) press local governments to give equal time in science classrooms, or do without teaching evolution at all; they re-write definitions to fit their own agendas and try to pass off their beliefs as science. Science has nothing to do with religion: they are completely separate. Is it so hard to believe that you in herited traits from your parents, and they from theirs, and so on, so that you are ultimately very different than your ancestors? Descent with Modification is simply that, and with greater time comes greater change. Science, Religion and Politics should not be mixed.

It is very important! Important that we get rid of this nonsense!

A dud theory.

This is a very important issue. Maybe not as important as some of the other things that our president is in the process of screwing up, but this is important non-the-less. This is about education, and unfortunately, we have jerks trying to poison our school systems with theology-based lazy thinking. The theory of evolution rightfully belongs in classrooms.

I'm glad I don't live in whatever dark corner of the Republic where this is considered a political issue.