Replies

I think, I explained where the hoax lies very clearly.

A hoax implies deliberate deceit. You have not explained where this deliberate deceit occurs.

Fossil record is not proof of evolution in the same way in which physical or chemical phenomena are proved.

The fossil record is not "proof" of anything apart from the existence of fossils. It is, however, evidence for common descent, given the arrangement of the fossils in the fossil record. As I have said, nothing in science is ever "proven", and as such there is never anything in a scientific explanation that constitutes "proof", and no scientific explanation for any observed phenomenon can be "proved".

May be there is a better proof, but it is not taught, and the result is that science education suffers as a whole.

You have not only demonstrated a lack of understanding of the means by which science operates, but you have also failed to demonstrate that evolution is taught as you claim. You have admitted that your claims were based solely upon uninformed speculation. I do not understand why I should consider you a credible source on this matter.

You have not explained where this deliberate deceit occurs.

The deceit is deliberate because if the educational cabal is asked to attach a disclaimer that would say what you yourself admit, -- that the fossil record is not proof but evidence, -- then they go hysterical and run to the courts. If they wanted the preent the "evidence" for what it is, "evidence" they would not have resisted a request to do so.

nothing in science is ever "proven"

Yes it is. This kind of nihilism is another demonstration of the harm the evolution superstitionists inflict on high school education. A high school student of physics can prove that electromagnetism exists by demonstrating that a radio operates and explaining its operation in electromagnetic terms. He probably has seen, or could have seen, a crude radio built right in the lab. A high school student of evolution cannot put two lizards in a jar and produce a fish, no matter how much fossil pictures he'd looked at.

you have also failed to demonstrate that evolution is taught as you claim

I did not run a survey. But I had a kid in high school (and more are on their way). If anything beyond fossil records is shown them as proof of evolution, show me that textbook.

You have not explained where this deliberate deceit occurs.

It occurs here:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning. The philosopher who find no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics: he is also concerned to prove that their is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do--The philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.
-Thomas Huxley (Grandson of Aldous Huxley)

As I have said, nothing in science is ever "proven", and as such there is never anything in a scientific explanation that constitutes "proof", and no scientific explanation for any observed phenomenon can be "proved".

Then scientists need to stop teaching something that cannot be proven as *fact*, which is what's happening.

On these threads, I've seen many bemoan the fact that people don't trust science or are skeptical about it and then they turn around and say that nothing can be proven. You can't have it both ways. If nothing in science can be proven, then scientists have no basis for criticising people for not accepting lock step their latest pronouncements on how the world is.

We're told that scientists are always willing to change their theories when new data comes up yet anyone who expresses skepticism before that moment is branded as anti-science and anti-intellectual or worse. Today's latest scientific discoveries will be in the trach heap in a few months or years. Today's scientific *fact* will be tomorrow's *creatinist lie*.