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.
It's not, I don't "exclude" the picture-stringing at all. I just want it to be admitted that the picture has been strung.
[Bad People, not Holy Scientists, are behind the disclaimer] Why are you pretending not to know who is pushing the disclaimer and why they want it?
I'm not pretending not to know this. I just don't care. Appeals to Authority and Motive don't mesmerize me, as they do you. I just think it's fine and dandy to put true statements in books.
[scientists say evolution is a theory] More importantly, they also have no trouble saying that it's a fact.
This hasn't been my observation. Mine is: Get scientists in a room and say a word like "fact", and "no trouble" is the opposite of what you will see. :-)
Anyway, I'm glad to see you've conceded that evolution is a theory. Now all you have to do is explain why you oppose true statements in books.
[my misunderstanding of, and eventual answer to, your "test"] I made it perfectly plain exactly what the test was and we both knew that you were going to flunk it.
Yes, like I said I misunderstood your 'plate-tectonics' proposal. Sorry about that.
I don't think that (by the measurements I imagine you're using) I "flunked" it, though. I said that between (a) no disclaimers and (b) plate-tectonics disclaimer, I choose (b). That should "pass" your "test", I think....
[why should I accept removing the evolution disclaimer] Why should anyone expect you to renounce what you came for?
Yes, especially when you haven't made any persuasive argument against it whatsoever.