Yes, asked and answered. How many repetitions do you need?
"Evolution is a theory" is a true statement. I see nothing wrong with putting true statements in books. And I don't consider the whine "why not put this disclaimer in front of other theories too??" to be a serious rebuttal, even if you do.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with putting such a disclaimer in front of other theories too. So that's that, we're both happy.
How many times do you want me to repeat all this?
You wish, I suppose, to create the appearance of dealing with my question. It's an artless artifice.
As opposed to an artful artifice, I suppose....
You don't know or care a thing about science.
I don't? Gee, you sure know a lot about my biography from a few posts.
(These silly ad hominem attacks sure make the evolutionist side look more "scientific". Lucky for evolutionists, I don't judge them all by your behavior. But it doesn't help.)
Please keep your religion in church where it belongs.
What "religion"? When did I even bring up religion here? Are you under the impression that you know what my "religion" is? Are you certain that I even have a "religion"?
More silly ad hominem. It's rather sad because you don't have a leg to stand on either. You don't know jack about my biography and yet you're resting a huge portion of your fallacious argument on it for some reason.
The disclaimer is an obfuscation, attempting to imply that because evolution, only evolution, is "a theory,"
I never said that "only evolution" is a theory. I also think that all other theories are theories too. Please try to keep straight who you're talking to. You keep arguing with someone else (or perhaps with phantoms in your own head), not with me, because I never said any such thing.
that it should be regarded as a hypothesis or conjecture rather than a fact.
A "theory", in basic terms, is a hypothesis or conjecture: a hypothesis or conjecture about how stuff works or happens, for which there is some amount of evidence.
So actually I agree 100% with the statement that evolution (the whole "theory of evolution" shebang, not just evolution meaning "change in populations") is a "hypothesis or conjecture rather than a fact", for which there is evidence, and I think a responsible science teacher would frame it in these terms (followed by a presentation of the evidence) to her students. All of which is perfectly consistent with putting the truthful disclaimer at the front of the book, as is proposed. Best,
As we shall see, you have an issue with putting a particular true statement in books, even though you have declined to contest the truth of the statement. In fact, let's skip the bulk of your bob-and-weave and get right to it.
So actually I agree 100% with the statement that evolution (the whole "theory of evolution" shebang, not just evolution meaning "change in populations") is a "hypothesis or conjecture rather than a fact", for which there is evidence, and I think a responsible science teacher would frame it in these terms (followed by a presentation of the evidence) to her students.
You "agree" with "Evolution = hypothesis or conjecture." Here we get to dishonesty behind your little dance. The statement with which you "agree"--but who made it?--is FALSE. The truth is that evolution absolutely positively has happened and continues to happen. The role of theory is explaining why and how it has happened and continues to happen.
But you object to teaching even that evolution has definitely occurred, that there is no other plausible explanation for the overwhelming evidence. You have specifically declined to attack the statement you would not allow taught. You have declined to offer any alternative interpretation. (But there simply is nothing else.)
You hide rather behind the word "theory" in "Theory of Evolution." There's also a theory of continental drift, which explains (provides a likely mechanism for) the fact of drifting continents. There's also a theory of gravity, to explain the fact of gravity. And so forth.
But only the very existence of evolution must be lied about, if only by posturing behind literally true but misleadingly couched legalistic disclaimers. And what is going on here? Gee! It's a stumper! NOT!
The religious screech and jabber that accompanied the growing acceptance of evolution is well known to students of the history of science. The demographic composition of the current disclaimer movement is no secret either. The Intelligent Design movement is stealth creationism. This has to be one of the worst-kept "secrets" in history since the "founder" of the movement, Philip Johnson, publicly in his writings described the "wedge strategy" of prying the classroom back open for creationism with the wedge of ID.
I'll check back later and see if you've said anything that would require posting something new. So far there's no there there in your posts.