Here's a follow-up to Edna DeVore's column ~6-7 posts back : Evolution: It's Only a Theory, But One Worth Teaching By Edna DeVore Director of Education and Public Outreach posted: 03 March 2005 06:13 am ET My prior column was composed at 35,000 feet above North America as I surveyed the landscape from the air. The patterns etched by geological evolution are visible at altitude. Closer up, fossils tell the story of earlier life upon our continent. Gazing to the heavens, astronomers gather evidence of the evolution of planets, stars, galaxiesthe whole universe evolves. Natural history museums host large collections of extant and extinct life that document biological evolution. Yet, as I noted, teaching evolution remains controversial in America. A flood of email ensued. Many were supportive; some asked questions. Several negative and hostile emails were openly critical of my assertion that American schools should teach evolution in science classrooms to "leave no child behind". In addition to rejecting evolution for religious reasons, several people claimed that there was not sufficient evidence, that scientists could not all agree, or that evolution is "only a theory" which they equate with an unfounded idea. Evolution is supported by evidence. There are several thousand peer-reviewed scientific journals where the evidence is presented in article after article. Natural history museums house large collections of fossils that document the history of life. Geologists and astronomers have a massive amount of observational evidence of the long-term change in physical systems: stars, galaxies, planets, interstellar dust, asteroids, etc. Biologists observe and document the patterns of the evolution of life: for example, the fossil record, DNA, and the observation of evolution in action such as the adaptive evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that now pose a serious threat to human health. Selective breeding in agriculture generated our crops and domestic animals over thousands of years; agriculture is evolution in action. Certainly, there are continuing debates among scientists about the particulars of cosmic, planetary, and biological evolution. The nature of science requires continual questioning of ideas, evidence and theories. Theoretical scientists consider what we know, and pose new ideas and models to explain the natural world. New models and ideas generate new scientific tests of theory: observational experiments at Earth and space-based observatories, high-energy collisions of particle physics, deep-sea dives at the plate boundaries, and lab experiments in molecular biology to cite a few. Science is based upon observational and experimental evidence. Concepts that dont match observations are altered or tossed out. Its an iterative cycle. Likewise, if a scientist makes an observation or does an experiment that cannot be replicated, the results are suspect. Scientific explanations of the natural world are tested against nature, and discarded if they do not work. Consider cold fusion. Science is a self-correcting system that provides humans with powerful descriptions that allow us to understand and predict how the natural world works. Consider Johannes Kepler, a mathematician who is often cited as one of the first modern astronomers. He took observational data collected by Tycho Brahe who was a terrific observer and had mounds of measurements for Mars. Brahe challenged Kepler to make sense of these Mars data. Tycho had his own ideas, but he didnt have Keplers mathematical skills. Kepler spent months trying to fit the Mars data to the circular epicycles and deferents that explained planetary orbits in the astronomical tradition of his day. The data just didnt fit. Unlike his predecessors, Kepler took a leap toward modern science. He elected to trust the data, and abandoned the ancient model of circles upon circles for a new description of planetary motion. His ideas can be condensed into three statements which we call Keplers laws. In their simplest form, they are: planets orbit on elliptical paths with the Sun at one focus; the period of a planets orbit is proportional to its distance from the Sun; and a planets speed in orbit is proportional to its distance from the Sun (equal areas are swept out in equal time). Kepler didnt know why the planets orbited as they did, but he could describe their orbits and make accurate predictions about future positions. The next big step came with Isaac Newton who explained that why planets orbit the Sun: gravity. Only Mercury didnt behave as predicted by Newtons physics. Einstein remodeled physics once again with special and general relativity, and was able to explain Mercurys motion. The theory of gravitation is a powerful explanation of how objects interact in space-time. Its heritage goes back to Keplers description of planetary motion based upon Brahes observational data. Its funny how no one argues that gravity is "only a theory," yet many dismiss evolution as "only a theory." At a fundamental level, popular English and scientific usage are at odds here. In popular culture, a "theory" is understood to be a guess or speculation that may or may not be based upon evidence and analysis. In science, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science,National Academy of Sciences, 1998: 7). A scientific theory is the larger explanation of how the well-tested "laws" fit together to describe the natural world. Dismissing evolution as "only a theory" is, at the simplest level, a misunderstanding of the meaning of "theory" in science. But, in the current controversy, discounting evolution as "only a theory" is more than a semantic debate. Its a political statement at the heart of the attack upon teaching evolution in science classrooms in America. Science is a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, and has a dominant role in modern economics and culture. Scientific theories are at the heart of the enterprise. In the science classroom, children should learn about major scientific theories such as gravitation and evolution. Science is a way of knowing, but not the only way of knowing. There are things that science does not address. For example, music, art, emotion, and religious beliefs are all outside the domain of what science can address. I find it unfortunate that the controversy over the theory of evolution continues as science offers all humans a way to know about the natural world and how it works.

I sent in my list today. I have to say that there are more write in votes that I would have had if I were allowed. 'Creature of the Night' I got rid of this one because it was a flopper in my garden but it looked great this year in a neighbour's garden with adequate support. 'Elegant Candy' I find the individual blooms kinda boring but it does make a statement in a clump. It had some of the best branching and budcount in the garden. 'Flying Trapeze' This one has big beautiful blooms that you can see a long way away. 'Shores of Time' It took forever for this one to look good and this year it made the jump to great. Colour was vibrant and almost all of the blooms opened well. 'Victorian Lace' Pretty blooms that opened well but performance was marginal. It is in because I felt the need to have 5 off the ballot. 'Elegance of Summer' I have a lot of excellent full form yellow daylilies but this is the best. Every northern gardener should have this one. 'Yellow Monkey' BEST SPIDER EVER!!! This one was my most photographed daylily this year and it was the bud king with 41 buds on a scape. 'Belle of Ashwood' I have a lot of excellent full form pink daylilies but this is the best. Every northern gardener should have this one. 'Thieving Magpie' This one draws me to it every day it blooms. It is a striking flower. 'Purple Kaboom' This one is loud and proud. It was certainly named well. To me it looks like a Munson daylily on steroids.

Try the "Ultimate 100 hostas 2008 edition?" started on July 17 by Caliloo.

I am a 38-year-old (I think, hard to remember at times!), female with 2 young children and a full-time (overtime required) job with no nanny/grandparents/help. My youngest has finally reached the blissful age of 5-years-old, so I can finally let him out of my sight for a few minutes! I've had more time for hobbies this year than the past 9 years combined. I don't remember when I registered. I know I lurked on several forums starting around 2005 before I finally registered. Whenever I searched for information on things like appliances or kitchen renovations, gardenweb posts always appeared on the search engine. I started saving myself some time by searching this site first. I think Vip (vcheethi) said what I have been trying to articulate for years. As I have always suspected, this board leans heavily toward the still active, empty-nesters. I can't keep up. I do read and try to retain information for later. I've found lot of great ideas that I hope to use later. (Lately you all have me pining for a sewing machine. That may have to be my next project/hobby for my next block of free time.) Peaceful state ... yes, that is it exactly. I pop in and out of here as my time permits. Decorating is a fun "extra" to me so it comes last after all my responsibilities. I received a lot of help recently with my library. It is looking good (at least I think so). Last weekend I took the plunge and bought new curtains. Once I have them in place, I will post new pictures. I *thought* I'd have them up by now, but as always, life throws a curveball. FIL is in ICU right now. I popped in tonight for a distraction since I can't sleep anyway.