The state of Mississippi fronts the next attack on evolution

I heard of this story via Pharyngula, the state of Mississippi is the latest front in the attack on evolution by taking up the previously tried (and failed) tactics of adding disclaimers to any textbook that includes the teaching of evolution. This is stated in House Bill 25 under section 1 to take effect after July 1, 2009. The bill itself states:

SECTION 1. The State Board of Education shall require every textbook that includes the teaching of evolution in its contents to include the following language on the inside front cover of the textbook:

The passages they want to add are:

The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.

Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

"Study hard and keep an open mind."

Let's take this paragraph by paragraph.

The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.

There's not too much wrong with this. In science, a theory does not mean "a speculative idea or plan" that would be a hypothesis. When there is evidence to back up a hypothesis then it becomes a theory and stops being speculative.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.

This is where it all goes wrong. Evolution is not a "controversial theory". It is the backbone of modern biology and has a solid literature and set of facts to back it up. I strongly agree with Stephen J. Gould's opinion in his article "Evolution as fact and theory" that evolution is both a fact and a theory. We know that things evolve and have common ancestors – this is fact. But the larger questions and theories surround the details of how organisms do this – this is the theory part.

It is a misrepresentation to characterise evolution as a theory that "some scientists accept", the vast majority of scientists accept this theory. In my experience the vast majority of sensible people accept it too. The only kinds of people who seem to reject it are people with fundamentalist religious biases which colour them against accepting not only evolution, but a number of other scientific theories such as the big bang, abiogenesis and cosmogony.

Evolution is not a "scientific explanation for the origin of living things" that is a different field of study known as abiogenesis. Evolution concerns the progress of living creatures that can reproduce and change.

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

This is a rather silly statement. The fact that no one was present at a crime scene doesn't stop us getting rock solid DNA proof that we can use to nail the person. Also, any statements about life's origins are already theories and aren't going to be renamed to fact. We aren't going to change "quantum, theory" to "quantum fact" anytime soon. Scientists know all this too well already.

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

That's wrong. First they repeat the mistake about producing living things – that's abiogenesis. But leaving that aside, they always leave out natural selection. Mutation is random and is then selected for by the environment. How can we test this model? Maybe with computers? Say hello to the genetic algorithm (I prefer the term evolutionary computation). The model of selecting beneficial traits producing novel solutions is solid and irrefutable, these algorithms can be used to find structures for industry that a human didn't think of intelligently.

There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record;

As creationist tracts go, this one is not subtle when compare to other stickers that have appeared elsewhere in the US. The Cambrian explosion? You know there's a creationist lurking somewhere behind the scenes when this gets mentioned, and almost in the same form as Jonathan Wells states in his book "icons of evolution". There is not such think as a "sudden appearance" there are fossils that predate the Cambrian, but the reason that there is a rapid expansion of fossils in the Cambrian period (which spans tens of millions of years as I recall) is the formation of harder body parts which can fossilise. See the talk origins page "Complex life forms appear suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, with no ancestral fossils."

the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.

Again, see the talk origin's page "Claim CC200:" as an example, here are some documented transitional fossils from land mammals to whales:

1. Pakicetus inachus: latest Early Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1983; Thewissen and Hussain 1993).
2. Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).
3. Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993). Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.
4. Basilosaurus: middle Eocene and younger. A fully aquatic whale with structurally complete legs (Gingerich et al. 1990).
5. an early baleen whale with its blowhole far forward and some structural features found in land animals but not later whales (Stricherz 1998)

This disclaimer is packed with falsehoods. It stinks of creationist. There have been better written disclaimers such as this famous one from Cobb county (ala the Dover trial):

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

But the one from Mississippi is blatant and I don't see how it will pass. Anti evolution tactics have been smacked down for a long time now, this is why they need to resort to subterfuges such as "teaching the controversy" and disclaimer stickers such as these. A person uninitiated in the debate might think "what's the deal" about these. The problem is that many of them are applied to evolution only. The HB 25 bill specifically says that this sticker goes on any book that "includes the teaching of evolution". Why evolution specifically? Why not physics or chemistry?