I guess you could have a law that things evolve, but what we look at as a theory of evolution is too complex for a concept as simple as a "law". The problem we have with any theory is the issue of what is a theory, especially the nonsense hypothetico-deductive "model" presented in high school and freshman textbooks.
You have a "Law of Gravity", but that lacks any real connection to the theory that explains why it is so. Thus a "Law of Evolution" is fine, but it cannot replace theory as to why it is so, or it's consequences. We certainly seem to know a lot more about why evolution happens than why we have gravity. Rob Hamilton "So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible" John Milton ________________________________________ Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 >>> Malcolm McCallum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/16/2006 8:56 AM >>> I wonder if it is time to stop calling it the "Theory of Evolution" and = start calling it the "Law of Evolution," and to stop referring to = "evolutionary theory" and surplant that with "evolutionary law."=20 =20 Lets face it, there has to be more evidence for evolution than there was = for Gravity, etc. when they were moved to law status. =20 Do we know of any case where organisms were not adapted by or succumb to = some outside force? =20 =20 Sounds like a law to me. =20 =20 VISIT HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY www.herpconbio.org = <http://www.herpconbio.org>=20 A New Journal Published in Partnership with Partners in Amphibian and = Reptile Conservation and the World Congress of Herpetology. =20 Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas A&M University Texarkana 2600 Robison Rd. Texarkana, TX 75501 O: 1-903-223-3134 H: 1-903-791-3843 Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html =20 ________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Ashwani Vasishth Sent: Tue 8/15/2006 10:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Commentaries on science and on evolution There are two commentaries in the current issue of Bioscience that I = thought worth considering, in the particular context of the current = "debate" about the teaching of evolution science in our schools The first, by Ross H. Nehm, "Faith-based Evolution Education?" (638 = BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org) argues = that scientists, generally defined, have limited themselves to = generating belief statements on evolution, rather than scientifically = and systematically addressing the misconceptions inherent in lay beliefs = and in creationist rhetoric. In addition, we need to get much better at = showing people why a knowledge of evolution science matters, to everyday = folks, on an everyday basis. The second, by Margaret Wertheim, "Who Is Science Writing For?" (640 = BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org), argues = that science writers, generally defined, are not positioning themselves = where the readers are, in America, but rather are catering to a very = narrow (and quite small) self-selecting cluster of individuals who = actively seek out science-related material. We need to get better at = doing what she calls "missionary work." Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 Department of Urban Studies and Planning, ST 206 California State University, Northridge http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
