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.

Hi all!! I just rejoined after years of being away - life got too hectic and I just wasn't able to spend much time on-line. Not that I have more time now, but I've missed cooking and talking about cooking, so decided to return! Anyway - hubby has high blood pressure, I have cholesteral issues, and we both needed to lose some weight, so I changed a lot about how I used to cook and have really improved on our health. Everyone has their own taste, however, and what works for one might not work for another. Case in point - I switched to Smart Balance and absolutely love it! I initially switched from using butter to Promise spread. It was the only "margerine" I ever used that I could tolerate. However, I find I like the Smart Balance even better. I use the light. I never use butter anymore except at Christmas, when I go all out. We only have those things once a year, so I figure it won't kill us. I have basically switched to using EVOO exclusively unless I stirfry, and then I use canola. I never fry anything, other than stirfrying, and even then, I try to use much less oil than most recipes call for. I substitute chicken stock for a lot of the oil in recipes as well - I use a combination of EVOO and chicken stock when I make my shrimp scampi now where I used to use mostly butter. I find my tastes have changed and I really like the "lighter" flavor. When I eat anything really oily now I actually get queasy from it. I just can't tolerate that amount of fat. It's unfortunate as well because I could make a meal out of a good loaf of bread, dipping it in EVOO with fresh ground pepper and sea salt, maybe a little parmesan grated in, however, I simply can't tolerate eating that much oil anymore. I've started using a new, Greek yogurt called Fageh - I might have the spelling wrong on that! Anyway, the 0% fat free is thick and rich and you would not believe it's fat free. I mainly eat it as a "dessert" now, drizzled with a little honey, but I've used it in place of sour cream and I recently used a third light mayo - again, I just started using Smart Balance, omega 3 or something like that, or I use Cain's light - and the rest this yogurt, to make chicken salad and it was fine. I'm not sure how the yogurt would be in tuna salad, however - haven't tried it yet. I've also tried to get away from using prepackaged food, altho I admit I still use some things, like rice pilaf mix, my son loves those noode-roni side dishes - things like that. My problem is finding the time with working full time to make everything from scratch. I've greatly reduced the amount of beef we eat, upped the fish (we always used chicken as our main meat source) and I've increased the amount of salad we eat, as well as vegetables. As I said, I'm trying to incorporate more whole grains, and I want to start making my own starch side dishes instead of relying on packaged ones. I don't really keep any sweets in the house and other than bread now and then, don't really bake much so making those things lighter hasn't been a focus for me. We switched to turkey bacon simply because I stopped eating pork. It doesn't taste as greasy to me, but I really don't know the actually fat content comparisons between the turkey and regular. I stick to turkey or roast beef for cold cuts, so those haven't been an issue. Like many others here, my one weakness is cheese. I LOVE cheese!!! I gave up eating meat altogether for close to 3 years and I lived on cheese during that time. I've tried some lowfats that are good and others that were horrid. I've basically just cut way, way back on the amount I eat and use it more as a treat now and then. It's the one part of eating light and reducing fat that I really miss. Really, the only way to control fat/salt, etc., is to cook from scratch. And I'm no doctor and am not advising people to not bother, but my husband's doctor told him that salt and high blood pressure is greatly overblown. Of course, he takes medication, other people might not, but the doctor told hubby that as long as he takes his meds, not to worry about salt. I don't use much salt in cooking to begin with, and since I don't use all that much prepackaged food, salt hasn't been a big issue. I realize it is touchy for some people tho, but if you're on medication for high blood pressure anyway, I don't think it's as big an issue as making other changes, such as lowering fat and hence, losing weight. Anyway - glad to be back, am enjoying reading everyone's posts already, and hope I can contribute some cooking tips of my own! Lisa

There will never be a winner in the front vs top load wars. There will be peace in the Middle East and the Vikings will win the Super Bowl long before people agree on them. And there will be frost warnings in hell before some folks will admit that their machine is not necessarily the perfect one for me. I gave up hoping for that resolution long ago. One thing that always happens is someone will come up with exaggerations either way. I stand by my opinion and admit it's an opinion, that a PROPERLY USED top loader will get your clothes clean as will a PROPERLY USED front loader. Reminds me of my Dad who fought getting a color tv. "I'd rather watch a GOOD black & white than a BAD color tv!" I'd always respond that I'd rather watch a GOOD COLOR tv than a BAD black & white! There seems to always be some similar theories thrown out. There's differences in using the two technologies it seems. It also sesms that sometimes someone can legitimately have trouble with a type of machine and find it's not for them. Often when people change technology they learn a lot more about washing clothes too. If they took that knowledge back to the prior technology, I'd suspect a dramatic improvement. Allergies and sensitivities are personal things. I get a kick out of seeing people who could wear fiberglass insulation for underwear who come out swinging when someone mentions that they're having trouble or concerns with rinsing. When you don't have a skin sensitivity, you wouldn't know. And if you or I don't have the same sensitivities it's back to an apples vs oranges comparison. I'm sensitive to a lot of detergents. I found a brand that was OK for 2-1/2 bottles worth, then all of a sudden I itched like crazy from it. Tried a brand that bothered me 20 years ago but it doesn't bother me now. Extra rinses can help with sensitivities but not always. And btw, my rinse water goes clear when I dose the load properly, (and when I don't, I'm not so arrogant as to blame the machine, or worse, the DETERGENT! LOL) and I have one of those dreaded top loaders that strike fear into the hearts of so many. Again, I laugh when people overdose on a top load, go to a front load, decrease the doseage after a few suds locks then talk about how the top load never rinsed well! LOL Machines vary, even the same model. Water varies, fabric varies, allergies vary and more. My suggestion is to be sure that whatever machine you get has at least one extra rinse available for you, if for no other reason than your own peace of mind. And good luck being able to separate speculation, theory, conjecture and personal bias from fact. I do understand your frustration. I'm experiencing some myself.

For health benefits, you might want to try Chinese Black Vinegar. I generally buy it at a Japanese market, and so it is the Japanese version made from rice, but it has a very interesting flavor. It is low in sodium, and yet it can take the place of salt or soy sauce - not with exactly the same flavor, but with the same complexity of flavor as soy sauce. Sorry I don't know anything about making wine vinegar, but I thought you might be interested in black vinegar. You can drink it straight from a tiny shot glass, which I used to do for a while, hoping it would help with hypertension and cholesterol, but I stopped for some reason. Lars