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.
To continue is obviously fruitless, but I'll sort out a point for the lurkers lest some of your confusion rub off.
There are facts, and there are theories about the facts. Gravity as a force is a fact. Theories in science about gravity include (as a partial list): Newton's mysterious action-at-a-distance law, Einstein's concept of the curvature of space, and the modern concept of a particle called a "gravition" mediating the force. No amount of harrumphing about the conjectural nature of the graviton or quibbling over observations of the warping of space by massive objects will let you fly around like Peter Pan after a sprinkling of fairy dust.
(Yes, we fly. All the time. But all the flying we do and will ever do is engineered in strict observance of how gravity works.)
In the case of evolution, I see you lumping all the facts under the word "change." That's too vague for my tastes. Two words we have not so far spoken are "common descent." Not only do populations change over time, but all the life we have now arose from probably just one life-form. (Whether the one last-common-ancestor form was already cellular or was something called "RNA World" is a subject still being debated.)
Common descent is no doubt part of what you wish to sweep into the bin of "theory," but most scientists would say it's more like what you're trying to explain. It's there to be seen in one line of evidence after another, so the only questions are about mechanisms. But, however uncontroversial it may appear to mainstream science, common descent is a horror to those who scream that "evolution is only a theory."
Which anyone reading this thread can readily see.