I deny that common descent is a "fact", sure. But that's not what you said I denied in your lying post to Rightwing. You said that I denied (rather, "intend to deny", reading my mind for the umpteenth time...) "connecting the dots" or "inductive reasoning".
For the record, again, I don't "deny" inductive reasoning (whatever that would mean). I've said several times that I even think, based on that inductive reasoning that you think I "intend to deny", that "common descent" is the likely story! I don't deny it at all!
I just don't think that inductive reasoning applied to some evidence makes something a "fact". Yes, I deny that "common descent" is a "fact". If you had said that to Rightwing I wouldn't have been able to call you a liar. I guess the most generous interpretation of your lie is that you simply misspoke.
[on why it's not ok to call theories "theories", they must be called facts] Science cannot bend over backwards in such a fashion and neither should science textbooks.
I think you're wrong. And I think scientists would disagree with you.
No honest scientist would have one iota of a problem with calling evolution a "theory" in private. (Of course as this thread proves, if they're aware they're talking to creationists, some of them become more defensive and circle the wagons....)
The real question here is why it's so important to you to call it a "fact" rather than a "theory". And why you think that calling a theory a theory is somehow "bending over backwards". I don't know any actual scientists who feel this way. You're a Braver Defender of Science than scientists are.
Furthermore, we know who is pushing the disclaimers and why they are pushing the disclaimers and it's actually not good science education policy to let such witch doctors start scribbling in the science books.
It's bad to allow true statements to be printed in science texts if the people wanting to put those true statements in science texts are not the right people. Got it.
You're really something of a science cultist, ain't ya? Scientists are your priests. Only things they touch are holy. Even true words are unclean if they don't come from Scientists. It's just fascinating.
What I have defended to Rightwing and everywhere else on this thread is exactly the right of science to say that the evidence looks a certain way because this initially controversial idea is obviously true.
I will go to the grave defending the right of scientists to say this, as well. And you know what we call such a statement from a scientist?
A theory.
What you are saying, on the other hand, is that any sufficiently organized Luddite group can label anything in science, however well established, as conjecture
Actually, I said "theory", but go on....
and By God get a warning label pasted in the front of a science textbook so stating.
For the zillionth time, why do you think the word "theory" is a warning label? It's the word that SCIENTISTS WOULD USE. Don't you know that?
OK, since you have no problem with evolution, I propose to replace every occurrence of "evolution" in the disclaimer with "plate tectonics." "Origin of life" will similarly be replaced with "configuration of land masses" and so forth. This will make you and the rest of the disclaimer crew just as happy and we'll all laugh about it and go away, right? Because all you really want to do is raise awareness of theory, right?
Right!
If the textbook of the state in question doesn't already say that plate tectonics is a theory, then put a disclaimer for plate tectonics, too. That's my view, and it was clear several hundred posts back.
But you know what? I'll bet that plate tectonics, if it's at all covered, is identified as a "theory" in that text, already. Just a hunch.
Why do I get the feeling that this proposal isn't going to fly?
Because, just as with all the other times you've tried to read my mind and guess aspects of my biography, you're completely wrong. And prejudiced: I'm arguing with you, so I must be a Creationist. I'm arguing with you, so I must disagree with your "plate tectonics" proposal.
The reason you got this erroneous "feeling", and all your other erroneous feelings about me, is because you've prejudged me in your zealotry to defend Science even more than actual, real scientists ever would.
Actual, real scientists have no problem with saying that evolution is a theory. Hate to burst your bubble; I know you think you're on their side and everything.
Then why are natural selection, DNA, and fossils "unobjectionable" but stringing any meaningful picture (the E word) from same is specifically excluded?
No honest scientist would have one iota of a problem with calling evolution a "theory" in private.
I've quoted two now publicly calling it a theory and a fact. The Gould article has been posted to you before. Somehow it didn't get through. You're still screeching the same screech.
(Of course as this thread proves, if they're aware they're talking to creationists, some of them become more defensive and circle the wagons....)
Your mask is slipping. Ranting about the vast evo conspiracy is for the non-stealthies.
But you know what? I'll bet that plate tectonics, if it's at all covered, is identified as a "theory" in that text, already. Just a hunch.
A "hunch?" You're looking about as phoney-baloney as I expected, but I'll be fair and give you a chance or two more.
What's the difference? Do you accept plate tectonics as a revision to the disclaimer, replacing evolution, or not? If you do not, what's your story now about what you are here yelling about?
After all, you probably have no more idea what the high school textbooks say about the epistemological basis of plate tectonics than about evolution. You have specifically disavowed any intent to target evolution, remember? You just want the kids to be aware of what is a theory and it's just a coincidence that you're yapping along with the Young Earthies on the quest for this particular disclaimer.
For the zillionth time, why do you think the word "theory" is a warning label? It's the word that SCIENTISTS WOULD USE. Don't you know that?
Why are you pretending not to know who is pushing the disclaimer and why they want it?
If the textbook of the state in question doesn't already say that plate tectonics is a theory, then put a disclaimer for plate tectonics, too. That's my view, and it was clear several hundred posts back.>
Not "too." Instead. Because you never gave a damn until I brought it up about plate tectonics, so I'll have to insist here. Not "too." "Instead." Or you need another story.
Actual, real scientists have no problem with saying that evolution is a theory.
More importantly, they also have no trouble saying that it's a fact. But you do.
They also don't have much trouble saying it's a theory scientists accept with a very high degree of confidence--regardless of the perceptions of the average bottle-fed voter. And, therefore, deserves no more of a fuss made about it than does any other commonplace scientific theory we operate on. Any such extra-curricular fuss, in the politically charged halo surrounding public discussion of evolutionary theory, is baldly a political victory for creationists, not an objective bit of pedogogical hygiene.