Based on your performance thus far, I'm sure you'll understand if I'm a bit skeptical. Nevertheless, to spell it out a simply as I think I can, in deference to you, you have asserted that there are "legitimate criticisms" of the theory of evolution, and that the theory should be "examined critically" - presumably in light of those "legitimate criticisms", else the whole thing makes no sense at all. After all, if there are no "legitimate criticisms", how exactly should one proceed critically? And what are those "legitimate criticisms"? Well, gosh darn if you just don't feel like talking about them right now. But they exist and they're real, you betcha - we'll just take your word for it.
Right. Did I leave anything out, or do you plan to cap this tapdance with something else?
There's debate about lots of things, and yet it's only this one thing that seems to be singled out for special treatment.
Gosh darn it, so many people have said this that I figured my copy of the Constitution must be flawed.
Gosh darn, it's Jubilation T. Cornpone hisself. When you're done patting yourself on the back for what I assume you consider to be witty repartee, perhaps you'll be good enough to go back and try reading my previous posts for comprehension. Did I mention the Constitution in that question? Of course not. Will referring to the Constitution provide you with an answer to the question of why this theory is being singled out above all others? Seems doubtful, as you appear to note upon your reading of it, although given your ability to read my posts I'm rather doubtful you had much better luck parsing your way through the Constitution.
So, now that that silliness is properly disposed of, perhaps you'd like to answer the question as asked. Although I'm sure nobody will blame you for continuing to duck it, as a serious answer is likely to be an even bigger disaster for you than your current lambada routine is so far.
Maybe I'm slow, but I just can't seem to complete the exercise.
At this point, I'm inclined to accept your self-characterization. Shall I proceed monosyllabically, or do you think you can keep up with the current format?
How "examine this material critically with an open mind" conflicts with any provision of the Constitution is beyond me.
The answer, of course, lies in the question that you are ducking, thus far rather inartfully. Why this theory, and no others? Take as much time as you need.
The existence of universal traits that provide only a marginal reproductive advantage.
What on earth does that mean? Surely a "marginal" reproductive advantage is better than no reproductive advantage, don't you think? How, pray tell, do you imagine such a concept indicts the theory of evolution as it is currently understood? Be sure to refer to specific examples of such traits where appropriate.
The existence of systems for which at least a prima facie case can be made are irreducibly complex.
Ignoring, of course, the problem that the whole notion of "irreducible complexity" is garbage, soup to nuts. Disagree if you must, and I'll hold your hand and walk you through why that's so.
This is it? These are the "legitimate criticisms" you have in mind? Please say it's not so - please tell me you have more arrows in that mighty rhetorical quiver of yours.
Sheesh.
Now, people have answered some of these examples, and were this debate about the merits of evolution we could go a few rounds over them.
This debate, at least in part, is about the merits of evolution, or the lack thereof, as claimed by you - not especially successfully, but there you go - and by those who would promote the stickers. I rather understand why you don't wish to discuss that subject, as it's tolerably obvious it's not one you're particularly well-prepared for.
A secondary effect of this thread, of course, has been to highlight a point I've made a couple of times: to many, evolution is a religion, to be defended at all costs, whose critics are to be ridiculed and scorned as heretics.
Phew. Pretty heady stuff you've got there. Mind your fingers, that you don't cut yourself on the razor's edge. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for these wild-eyed radicals you have in mind here, although I guess I should warn you that they're really pretty thin on the ground in these parts. Practically thin enough to be a figment of your imagination, as a matter of fact.
You're arguing -- with a straight face! -- that telling children to keep an open mind is unconstitutional!
Sigh. About the best I can do on your behalf here is allow that you actually believe that. Sorry. It's the best I can do.
It's easy for me to verify the consistency of my own position by imagining such stickers on, say, a physics textbook.
Of course, that's the problem - all you can do is imagine such a thing, since there's no serious proposal to do anything of the sort. Indeed, to do that would defeat the purpose of the stickers as they currently exist, which is, naturally, to portray the theory of evolution as being somehow different from, and inferior to, other scientific theories.
This whole discussion reminds me of debates I had with liberals...
No doubt. In the interests of full disclosure, your argument here is hardly novel - it's been done to death on these threads long before you graced them with your presence. Do try to think up something original. Perhaps some more witty repartee - it's not exactly reasoned discourse, but it may allow you to distract from that with a little comedy routine.
And now I wish I hadn't mentioned the criticisms, because they're a distraction. All the high priests of evolution are pouncing on the heresy and ignoring the real question of the constitutionality of stickers that say "keep an open mind." It's complicating what's a very simple issue.
After all, if there are no "legitimate criticisms", how exactly should one proceed critically?
Everything should be approached critically. There are no legitimate criticisms of the claim that the earth is (roughly) spherical, but a student should never accept the fact uncritically, should never believe the earth is round because Teacher says so. He should be presented with the evidence and should use his own critical faculties to reach the conclusion.
Did I leave anything out, or do you plan to cap this tapdance with something else?
I'm afraid it is you who is wearing the tap shoes. The question at issue is whether it is unconstitutional to call for students to keep open and critical minds, and all you want to do is sneer about those who have doubts about evolution.
Did I mention the Constitution in that question? Of course not.
I agree, of course not. Don't be silly! I mean, after all, the Constitution is the issue here, and if you mentioned the Constitution, why, then you'd be addressing the topic rather than ducking it! And what's the point of that?
Will referring to the Constitution provide you with an answer to the question of why this theory is being singled out above all others?
No. It'll provide me with an answer to the question of whether singling out one theory above all others is forbidden by the Constitution. Which it isn't.
The answer, of course, lies in the question that you are ducking, thus far rather inartfully. Why this theory, and no others?
Why that question, and no other question? Why not ask me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? It's exactly as relevant.
Surely a "marginal" reproductive advantage is better than no reproductive advantage, don't you think? How, pray tell, do you imagine such a concept indicts the theory of evolution as it is currently understood? Be sure to refer to specific examples of such traits where appropriate.
I already gave an example of such a trait. And the relevance is that the less of a reproductive advantage a trait provides, the more time it would take to become universal. The theory of evolution involves the stringing together of long chains of improbable occurrences. This is usually finagled by saying, "well, it happened over a very very long time", but while the amount of time involved may indeed have been long it was not infinite. When very small probabilities collide with very long numbers of trials, the result may be near certainty or vanishingly improbable or anything in between. To the best of my knowledge nobody has yet sat down and made an exhaustive calculation of the probability of evolution having proceeded as it allegedly did.
Ignoring, of course, the problem that the whole notion of "irreducible complexity" is garbage, soup to nuts. Disagree if you must, and I'll hold your hand and walk you through why that's so.
I must disagree. Take my hand.
This is it? These are the "legitimate criticisms" you have in mind? Please say it's not so - please tell me you have more arrows in that mighty rhetorical quiver of yours.
I can understand your desire... after all, the more arrows I fire from this particular quiver, the more targets you can focus on rather than paying attention the the real issue. The existence of legitimate criticisms has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the stickers. Stickers on physics textbooks saying precisely the same thing would be equally constitutional.
This debate, at least in part, is about the merits of evolution
The debate in the courtroom has nothing to do with those merits, at least it should not, as the Constitution is silent over whether speech is forbidden or permitted depending on its merits.
I'll be sure to keep an eye out for these wild-eyed radicals you have in mind here
I'm sure that Galileo's inquisitors did not consider themselves to be wild-eyed radicals... and I'm sure they would have had apoplexy over the notion of cautioning students to approach the geocentric theory with an open mind.
Sigh. About the best I can do on your behalf here is allow that you actually believe that. Sorry. It's the best I can do.
Of course it is; you're incapable of conceding that you are in fact demanding exactly what I claim you are demanding: that warning students to keep an open and critical mind is unconstitutional.
Of course, that's the problem - all you can do is imagine such a thing, since there's no serious proposal to do anything of the sort.
And if there were, I'd say it was stupid. As you are more than welcome to call Cobb County's stickers stupid. But only one of us is as disrespectful of the plain meaning of the Constitution as to twist it to his own ends.
In the interests of full disclosure, your argument here is hardly novel ... Do try to think up something original.
Now that is something truly novel, in admiration of which I remove my hat to you. Arguments become flawed when they are no longer novel?
Perhaps some more witty repartee...
Second time in this post you've used those exact words... they're hardly novel. Your own rhetorical quiver getting a wee bit bare?