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.

An interesting observation. Though an occasional visitor only, one of the reasons I return to this forum (and other Gardenweb forums) is the general upscale level of maturity on it, likely combined with intelligent moderation. There are the usual veteran members who post good advice and try to help folks out. I used to frequent many, many forums only to watch then descend into complete (insert negative connotation here) matches, and then gave up completely because of what a pointless exercise it had become. I think that (besides the state of the world in general), the whole computer demographic has changed somewhat with the computer becoming much more of an "appliance". Therefore expectations are somewhat changed from what they used to be. (I can make that statement based on what I'm seeing as a service tech on the job.) Fortunately I work with some very qualified people who are much more likely to explain why they will or will not agree with you, rather than get into a yelling match. Hopefully this concept will prevail here and the trend you mention is only a minor aberration.

Unfortunately I have no idea what their plan was. I felt bad because my communication was clearly not getting through, which is why it took so long to get even those basics across. This suddenly reminds me of a story I heard years ago, probably an urban legend, but here it is. A newly arrived immigrant family goes to the grocery store and ends up buying a can of crisco, fully expecting it to contain fried chicken parts as pictured on the label! I don't know if they realized the turkeys were plentiful because of thanksgiving or if they just thought that this was a regularly stocked item. I figured at the time that they were trying to get into the American spirit of things but looking back, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd only been in the country a few days and had no idea about Thanksgiving! I just have to keep telling myself that if they were brave enough to buy it, then they would be able to figure out if it was done after three hours or not.

I recently had a stone sill placed on my kitchen window that isn't too different, dimension-wise, from yours and it was no problem. Both my GC and the fabricators had zero issues with it and, at the time, I had no backsplash under the window (3x6 subway tiles have just been installed). I wonder if your GC isn't familiar with stone sills or if your fabricator is concerned about too long of an overhang? My original wood sill/frame measured approx 70" x 3.25". I don't have a very good photo of the wood sill removed, but you can see from the photos below how simple it actually was to install the stone sill. They were able to keep the thickness of the sill the same as my countertops, 3cm. Before (the wood sill to be removed includes the unpainted part below): During (entire bottom of window frame removed): After: I would've liked the overhang to be about an inch or two longer than it turned out and my fabricator wouldn't have had a problem with it... I just gave them the leeway to make it however they wanted. I know that when they ripped the walls out under the window, there were about 2 wall studs below that my stone sill may be sitting on. Can you post a pic of your current window sill/ledge?