"I'm no fan of the woman and I only made it through 2:28 so maybe I missed something. But, I do agree with her that the 'theory' of evolution is just that; a theory, but schools and science tend to treat it as fact. No transitional forms have ever been found to support Darwin's theory and Darwin himself said that his theory was baseless without them.

Kevin g"

I'm sorry, you've repeated a number of creationist canards, and I felt compelled to respond.

1. "the 'theory' of evolution is just that; a theory, but schools and science tend to treat it as fact."

You are right that it is a theory--just like the theory of gravity, and the germ theory of disease. But scientists do not use that word in the loose way that non-scientists do. Non-scientists use the word "theory" to mean something like a guess, an unproven idea, a hunch. When scientists use the word "theory," they are referring to a something far more than a guess or a hunch. The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease, does the best job of explaining the facts currently known (and constantly being discovered) in the area of inquiry in which it has developed: inquiry about the diversity of life.

Schools and science do work with the theory of evolution without offering other theories. That is because there are no other scientific theories to work with. Try as they might, the so-called "Discovery Institute," (which has discovered nothing) and the proponents of so-called "intelligent design,' which is just judeo-christian creationism in a new wrapper, have failed utterly to disprove or discount the theory, and have further failed to propose an alternate theory that can handle the facts. All of their arguments have been dealt with (usually by scientists who really have better things to be doing with their time), from the question about the bacterial flagellum, to the one about the development of the eye.

2. "No transitional forms have ever been found to support Darwin's theory"

This statement is commonly known as "the greatest lie of the creationists." It is either used out of sheer wickedness (an outright wish to deceive), or ignorance of the facts, or, perhaps more benignly, a failure on the part of the creationist to understand what would constitute a "transitional form." Many, many transitional forms have been found, described in great detail, studied, placed in museums for the public to have a look at, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

3. "Darwin himself said that his theory was baseless without them."

This is a favorite bit of quote-mining that creationists have used through the years. Several false assumptions underlie its use here, and I'll start by arguing against what seems to me the most obvious: even if Darwin intended this statement to mean what creationists spin it to mean (he did not), it would still have zero bearing on the modern understanding of the scientific theory of evolution. Why? Well, when did Darwin last draw breath? What has changed since then? One major change that Darwin could not have predicted is the merger between modern evolutionary theory and modern genetics. That's just for a start.

This may be the passage that you mean to indicate, from Darwin:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

As you can see, Darwin in no way intends to argue against the theory here; once the context is presented, the reason for the statement becomes clear. The question is presented rhetorically, and is answered theoretically--with an answer that later swarms of fossil-hunters and scientists would come to validate, even while filling in a great deal of the record via the discovery of all those so-called "transitional fossils" listed in the link above. (Tiktaalik is a great one, currently all the rage.)

So, to sum up, if someone says that they believe evolution should be taught as a theory, I'll say they're in agreement with the facts; however, when the words "just a theory" show up, it is plain to me that the person is not in possession of the facts, nor do they understand the scientific definition of just what constitutes a theory.

If Christine O'Donnell wants schools to offer alternative explanations in science class, then she is simply ignorant of what science is and does. She may as well ask that local school boards be allowed to teach alternative theories accounting for gravity (theory of gravity) and the causes of disease (germ theory).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs&feature=fvsr

Respectfully, but with a generalised animosity toward the idea of religion being taught in the public schools via the back-door method of "teaching alternative ideas,"

Herring405