It appears that you and I are doing a good job of misreading one another. In order to avoid further misunderstanding, I would like to list some points on which I think we agree, and which are actually on the original topic of this post:

1) The Buttars Bill was wrong to single out one theory of science.
2) The word “theory,” as used by most Americans, means “an idea that is unsupported, conjecture, a guess.” Scientists often use the word differently, and in many cases it refers to an idea that is almost universally accepted among scientists.
3) Scientists do not assert that theories or laws are perfect or unchangeable (aside: Nonetheless, paradigms form).
4) Most scientists believe that evolution applies to all species, not excluding humans.
5) The disagreement among scientists over evolution is “played up” by opponents of the theory. (aside: akin to atheists pointing to the disagreement among religions about God and concluding that this shows there is no God.)
6) (This one I am largely inferring) Students in a science classroom should be taught about science (definitions, critical thinking, testing, scientific method) as well as the prevalent beliefs and findings of science.

Now, to partially respond to your comments:

My misuse of the word “proof” in post #31 was intentional. I was using language that non-scientists incorrectly use when trying to describe how scientists work.

In post #43, when you wrote, “today a law or a fact are basically just theories we hold to very strongly” I took that to mean that you do not think scientists today make any distinction between law, fact, and theory. Based on that understanding, I posted a few links to show that scientists do make a distinction.

Then in post #48, I understand you to be making a different assertion. You wrote: “While “enough proof” isn’t something I’d agree with, I think if you changed it to “enough evidence.”” I now take it that you affirm the following:

“Theories graduate into (or are called) facts or laws once they have gained enough evidence.”

If that is what you are saying, then we do have a disagreement. I should add that I think Jeffrey Giliam in the last paragraph of post #51 is agreeing with you.

But if that is what you believe, then I am confused by the fourth paragraph of post #48:

“The second link you gave doesn’t address the point I made. Rather it was discussing whether law, theory, and hypothesis were linked in a hierarchy. Which of course I never asserted.”

I am confused by this statement, because if theories can or should become laws once they have ample evidence, as I thought you and Jeffrey Giliam said, then that implies some kind of hierarchy and progression. It also implies that some laws, such as Newton’s, should be demoted to mere theories once an exception is discovered.

Note: before posting this, I actually wrote a lengthier response to your post #48 and the last paragraph of Jeffrey Giliam’s post #51. I decided against posting, however, for a couple reasons. One, it was a really lengthy post, even longer than yours {smile}. Two, based on my first sentence of this post, I’m not sure if we’re understanding one another well enough to have any disagreement.

Once again, Clark Goble, in post #50, has not only beat me to the answer, but also worded it better than would I anyway. In post #46, I should have said, “…scientists agree that all species including humans undergo dramatic change over time, they just don’t agree on how or why.”

In the last few days, I have tried to learn what Rep. Buttars has to say. Let me quote directly from Rep. Buttars himself:

“By Chris Buttars
Senator, District 10
“What I have wanted to do all along is stop opinionated teachers from teaching human evolution as fact. Scientists disagree on the origins of humankind. Young students should have a fighting chance to appreciate the difference between theory and law.”

Buttars misrepresents or misunderstands the disagreement among scientists. True: scientists disagree on the origins of mankind–and I think Jeffrey Giliam (post #51, points 1-3) words this (again) better than I could.

Also, john f, I am afraid that I am doing a poor job of explaining why the bill bothered me. How would you feel if similar laws were passed:

In Worlds Religion Class: “When teaching about the religions that follow a centralized governing body, it must be stressed that not all Mormons support Pres Hinckley.” (Why single out Mormons?)

In Physical Education: “When teaching different sports, it must be stressed that not all americans like baseball.” (Why single out baseball?)