[Uri’el-2012]

XS>If you would have ever taken a course in the "Philosophy of Science" You would know that the "Theory of Evolution" has never advanced past a hypothetical construct.

From an NSF abstract:

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have [emphasis added].

Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.

223 posted on 12/17/2005 11:30:07 AM MST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)

Do you understand the concept of Deconstruction or Post-Modernism?

[Alter Kaker]

Do you understand the concept of Deconstruction or Post-Modernism?

Oh tell me faltzani, when exactly did Derrida force scientists to consider evolution a scientific theory? You're just talking out of your ass and I think you know it.

[stormer]

One more question: When you go to your Mensa meetings do you folks discuss the merits of Jack Chick?

[Stultis]

Do you understand the concept of Deconstruction or Post-Modernism?

Uh, yeah. They're (heretofore traditionally leftist) intellectual "leveling" tactics that aim to eliminate or confuse distinctions between rigorously accumulated objective knowledge and pure prejudice, by basically claiming that all knowledge is prejudicial, or deterministically associated with cultural/ethnic/religious/economic or other identity groups.

We're familiar because we see antievolutionists using the same tactics here on every thread. Most recently you.