Replies

So if it isn't found yet, how could we teach it? "Well, here's the scientific evidence of evolution. Uh, well, we don't have any, but we're confident some will be found!" (Shakes head)

Indeed. On a similar point, I haven't had time to participate in this thread much, nor even the time to read back through it all now, but I've been wondering if anyone has asked the following yet: Now that a bunch of folks want "alternate theories" to be taught in class, has anyone asked them exactly *what* alternate theories they're talking about? Unless someone has come up with one finally when I wasn't looking, there *aren't* any "alternate theories". There are a lot of alternate *speculations*, of course, but none at all that actually rise to the level of a *theory*, in the same way that evolution qualifies as a scientific theory...

Furthermore, even if we lower the standards and allow alternate *speculations* to be taught, what, exactly, would be the curriculum for "ID" or whatever they want to label it this week? What in the heck are they going to teach as the positive evidence in favor of "ID", when there *isn't* any? (Hint for the slow kids in the class: Alleged evidence *against* evolution is *not* evidence *for* ID -- epistemology doesn't work that way.) You can't "support" ID through a process of elimination, nor by invoking the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy (which goes, "since *I* can't think of any other way this could have happened, it *must* have happened the one way I *can* think of...)

I'm just dying to see what these folks imagine a curriculum for their favorite "alternate (non)theory" would look like. Other than the usual, of course: "we hate the idea of evolution, so kids, please consider the following possibility even though it's unsupported by the evidence..."

So if it isn't found yet, how could we teach it? "Well, here's the scientific evidence of evolution. Uh, well, we don't have any, but we're confident some will be found!"

(Shakes head)

I'm not sure what your point is in this statement nor can I see why you would be shaking your head at me....

Don't you remember correcting me before with this statement...???

I see nothing in your link that indicates any of these scientists ever made statements that Wollemi is definitively extinct. In fact, few scientists would ever make such a statement; 'apparently extinct' or 'most likely extinct' is far more in line with scientific usage.

Let's look at your statement again shall we?

Example of one question: "When Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.”

Not to be nitpicky but this is a declarative statement, not a question, which makes this:

the question doesn't make any sense, does it?

nonsensical

But I digress... In light of your previous lesson to me in scientist speak wouldn't it have been more appropriate instead of

Since there is none,

maybe,

"apparently there is no evidence..." or
"no evidence has yet been found to support...." or
"We scientists are not aware of any evidence to support..." or
the standard "Darwinism doesn't address the initial design of life yada .. yada.. yada"

Consistency is your friend...