What the Jesus is this? I'll tell you what it is, it's a proposed bill that a Mr. Gary Chism wants passed in Mississippi which would require all school textbooks on evolution to carry a disclaimer. Astounding. Well, let's be rational - maybe he has a valid point. Why don't we look carefully at the proposed disclaimer, and see if it has anything to offer us.

Let me begin at the top:

The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles.

Well, that's certainly true. "Systematically organised knowledge" is a fairly good description of the meaning of the term in a scientific sense ("knowledge" being a fairly key term). Although it's a bit weird to mention all of the non-scientific meanings of the word on the front of science textbook, isn't it? That's just going to confuse the issue... I'm sure Mr. Chism is about to clear things up, though.

Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world.

Observations? Yes. Assumptions? Well, that's a fairly vague claim. Yes, there are issues with theory-laden observation and unconfirmed auxiliary statements, but it hardly seems fair to claim that scientific theories are "based on ... assumptions". At least that needs some in-depth philosophical argument, and is by no means obvious (or even necessarily true).

They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

That is certainly true. It seems like Mr. Chism knows all about how science works!

Now we get to the good stuff:

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things.

Wow. Ok, this single sentence is so entirely false, that I'm going to break it down even further.

evolution, a controversial theory

No. Evolution is not a controversial theory. There are still open questions within evolutionary research, but it's not exactly controversial.

some scientists present

"Some scientists"? Those are weasel words if ever I heard them. I'm not going to deny that someone who has been university-educated has disagreed with evolution, but "some scientists" suggests that there's at least a sizeable minority of peer-respected scientists who are on the other side. The AAAS doesn't think so, neither does the IAP. They're definitely not the only major academic organisations who completely advocation evolutionary theory, just the ones I found in 3 minutes of actually looking.

scientific explanation for the origin of living things

This is just flat-out wrong. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. The clue's in the name. Perhaps Mr. Chism isn't too hot on detecting clues, though.

Ok, now comes:

No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.

Yes. Absolutely true. What does this have to do with evolution again?

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things.

"Unproven". Using that deep understanding of the nomenclature of the philosophy of science again. "Unproven" like the theory of relativity, and the theory of Romans, I guess? And I'm not sure who's claiming that undirected forces somehow "produce living things"... I'm not even sure that makes sense... If only Mr. Chism had imparted his understanding of the matter to us...

There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook...

"Origin of life" stuff creeping in here again, what a shame. And what's this? Unanswered questions in science? What a valid point!

Study hard and keep an open mind.

Yes. That really is good advice. But make sure you keep the "mind" part of "open mind", because otherwise you might end up as a Republican representative.

[Found via Ed Brayton. More discussion on his blog.]