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?
And now I wish I hadn't mentioned the criticisms, because they're a distraction.
No, in fact it's quite clear that scientific criticisms of the theory simply do not exist except in the minds of those who have some ulterior motive for denigrating this particular aspect of biology. Your own inability to come up with anything other than the picayune (asserting - without support, no less - that "marginal" improvements are somehow a problem) and the nonexistent (irreducible complexity) is rather clear testimony on that score.
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."
LOL. Really, now - you've abandoned the moral high ground on the issue of dodging questions some time ago. Polemecist, heal thyself.
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.
I think you misunderstand what school is for. As much as it pains me to shatter such fundamental illusions, the point to school is to impart to children a factual base of information, our current best understanding of subjects such as history, mathematics, science, grammar, and so forth, so that they may have something to think critically about. You, apparently, would prefer to put the cart in front of the horse, but the point of school is not to turn class time into little junior roundtable discussions, a sort of sixth-grade version of the Trilateral Commission.
And so I say, begone! The Sixties are over, man, and I really doubt there are many people interested in your vision of little empty-heads sitting around and opining on things which they don't know a damn thing about. Knowledge, sir! Knowledge! Someone attempted to impart it to you once upon a time - do not deny it to your charges merely to satisfy some misguided sense of fair play.
The question at issue is whether it is unconstitutional to call for students to keep open and critical minds...
Oh, no, no, no. The question at hand is why this theory has been singled out from all others. You want to stand at the door on the first day of school and hand out fliers that say "Don't believe everything you hear"? Be my guest. But that's certainly not what's happening here, your clownish attempts to conflate the two propositions notwithstanding. This is not some general admonition to be critical we are presented with - this is specifically targeted at one particular subset of the science of biology, and so I ask again, why? Will you now, after all this, finally answer the question? Why this, and no other?
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.
Gosh, I'd sure like to live in a world where motive doesn't matter. Think of the fun we could have.
Sheesh. This is what passes for "conservative" in your neck of the woods - willful blindness?
I already gave an example of such a trait.
You most assuredly have not - you have merely asserted that such traits exist. Perhaps you'd like to take a moment and review the definition of "example", and then be so good as to actually provide us with one.
I must disagree. Take my hand.
Very well. Let us begin from first principles. Define "irreducible complexity".
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.
The Constitution seems quite vocal on the issue of of state agents promoting some set of religious beliefs to the exclusion of others. Perhaps you may wish to update to the amended version.
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.
No, I'm afraid that's not it. See, as a conservative, I'm interested in excellence, which means teaching them by providing them with the best available information, and not in rap sessions or fair play or critical-thinking-without-anything-to-think-about. YMMV.
Arguments become flawed when they are no longer novel?
I merely inform you that this argument of yours was stillborn a long time ago around here. Take that as you will.
Second time in this post you've used those exact words... they're hardly novel. Your own rhetorical quiver getting a wee bit bare?
Guilty. What can I say? This combination of galactically overweening pomposity, cheap sophistry, and abysmal ignorance with which I am presented is dull and uninspiring. Sue me.