The idea of evolution predates Darwin by several decades, if not more. Darwin provided a particular _explanation_ of evolution: descent through variation and natural selection.
There are alternative non-biblical explanations of evolution. Darwin's explanation currently dominates science and science education, but I doubt it is sufficient. It is fair to portray Darwin's explanation of evolution as a theory, but I think it invites the closure of minds to portray evolution as just a theory. Should we say biblical creationism is just a theory? Harry revtec at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Akira Kawasaki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "vortex-l" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 4:30 PM >> Subject: FW: WHAT'S NEW Friday, January 14, 2005 >> >> >>> 3. CREATIONISM: COURT ORDERS WARNING STICKERS REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. >> >> While I am not suprised by this ruling, I am certainly dismayed. Darwin >> himself referred to his work as theory on pages 205, 206, 209, 211, 218, >> 219, 229, 230, 233, 292, 313, 309, 316, 323, 339, 341 and 343 of the paper >> back as well as other places. It has been called the "theory of > evolution" >> for over 100 years! Until the last decade or so the word theory was >> prominently connected to the word evolution. This forces me to ask "What >> blazing discovery of the past ten years has propelled the "theory of >> evolution" into the relm of indisputable fact?". On the contrary, recent >> discoveries, and the lack thereof, have, if anything, cast more doubt than >> confirmation on the theory! >> >> On page 222 Darwin admits to "grave cases of difficulty, some of which > will >> be discussed in my future work". He never produced a future work! >> >> Jeff Fink >> >>> The constitutionality of a creationist message got a court test. >>> You will recall that in Cobb County, GA, stickers were placed on >>> high school biology texts warning that evolution is "a theory, not >>> a fact" http://www.aps.org/WN/WN04/wn111204.cfm. Yesterday, in >>> ordering the stickers removed, a federal judge said "the stickers >>> convey an impermissible message of endorsement." >> > >
