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.
In science, neither fact nor theory are the same as hypothesis or conjecture.
Au contraire. This is exactly what I want. You're the one who wants otherwise.
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.
Well, I don't think so. This may be because you and I use the relevant words differently, as is becoming clear.
The truth is that evolution absolutely positively has happened and continues to happen.
Assuming you're not doing a dishonest definition-shift again and using "evolution" to mean just "change", you can't prove this. It's a hypothesis with lots of persuasive evidence behind it. AKA a "theory". Just like I said.
But you object to teaching even that evolution has definitely occurred,
Again, which "evolution"? Like I said, I agree that "change" has occurred. Namely, change in the genetic makeup of populations of critters. When did I ever say I "object" to teaching that genetic compositions of populations have changed over time and continue to do so?
This all doesn't mean that these changes (i.e. the straightforward result of mutation + natural selection + drift) ARE DEFINITELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF SPECIATION, which is what "the theory of evolution" says. Do you understand the distinction because "change has occurred" and "it explains all differences"? If not, to continue here is fruitless.
You have specifically declined to attack the statement you would not allow taught.
You are very confused. For one thing, there aren't any statements I "would not allow taught" as far as you know. When the hell on this thread did I cite any statements I "would not allow taught"?
For another thing, I "declined to attack" the statement in question ("evolution, meaning change, has occurred") because I agree with it. Why would I "attack" it?
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.
True, and true. (Yawn.)
But only the very existence of evolution must be lied about,
What do you mean the "very existence of evolution"? Its existence as a theory? No, I don't think the theory's "existence" "must be lied about". Where the hell do you get that?
And what is going on here? Gee! It's a stumper! NOT!
How old are you, just out of curiosity? I remember when I used to talk this way.
The religious screech and jabber that accompanied the growing acceptance of evolution is well known to students of the history of science.
Um, are you still talking to me? You are going off on quite a tangent. This has nada to do with anything I wrote. But oh, I get it, this is the part where you pretend to know my "religion" again... Yup, you're a mind-reader all right.
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.
Seriously, WTF are you talking about, and why are you saying it to me?
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.
Perhaps that's because you don't understand them, given that you shift the definition of words from post to post and indeed from paragraph to paragraph. This is further proven by the fact that you resort to ad hominems about what you think my "religion" is, and spout off random gibberish about the "demographic composition" of such-and-such, rather than actually reading, digesting, and logically responding to what I actually wrote.
The above is absolutely false and you know it. No one, but no one, has ever observed evolution happen. There is no billion year old man to tell us that. What we see happening, on a daily basis, millions of times, in every species we look at, is that the progeny are like the parents. Every birth is refutation of evolution.