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.
I don't think I have said otherwise in this 800+ post thread.
And, therefore, deserves no more of a fuss made about it than does any other commonplace scientific theory we operate on.
This is only true if evolution already actually is identified as a "theory" in books with the same blase sobriety as other theories, such as the current favorite "plate tectonics" example, are. The problem (apparently) is that it is not identified as a "theory" at all, which (if true) I think you have effectively agreed is scientifically irresponsible.
After all, if it were identified as a theory in the text in question, this controversy would not (could not) even exist.
The people who "singled out" evolution are the authors who wrote a text and (apparently) neglected to point out its theory status (for some unknown reason). The disclaimer is merely a corrective measure to set things straight.
Any such extra- curricular fuss, in the politically charged halo surrounding public discussion of evolutionary theory, is baldly a political victory for creationists,
Maybe, but I don't care. People who care about this - including scientists - are not operating from any scientific considerations, but rather political ones. It's fine and dandy to say "I don't want creationists to have any political victories", but this is not a scientifically valid statement. It's a political one.
a political victory for creationists, not an objective bit of pedogogical [sic] hygiene.
You speak as if the two are mutually exclusive. I beg to differ. Putting a true statement in a book which (irresponsibly) neglects to identify "evolution" as a theory is, on the face of it, pedagogical hygiene. This is true even if Knuckle-Dragging Creationists want it to happen.
Appeals to Motive, Authority, and saying "the wrong people want this to happen!" are not scientific or objective statements, but rather, are little more than demonstrations of thinly-disguised bigotry.
For pete's sake: they are PUTTING A TRUE STATEMENT INTO A BOOK.
Exactly. This discussion is not going on in a vaccuum. It's beyond absurd to pretend that it is.
Total balderdash. All you folk know how to say is that everyone says evolution is true. Science is based on evidence. Everythime I ask you folk to discuss the evidence you run away. Let's see the evidence, enough rhetorical nonsense.