Replies

"You don't see a difference between not wanting to be ordered to teach something they don't believe has a scientific basis versus book burning."

Yes, I do see a frame of mind akin to book burning. There are scientist who do not hold to the blank check evolution THEORIES as unchallengeable fact. They do attempt to destroy those who vary from their narrow path.

My point is two fold:

1. Evolution is still theory, not fully established as a having proven science that can be defended without any qualification whatsoever...yet the education establishment labels it as SCIENCE theat is not to be questioned. This lock-step orthodoxy is not healthy.

2. The education establishment attempt to snuff out ANY disagreement, not just ID.

1. Evolution is still theory, not fully established as a having proven science that can be defended without any qualification whatsoever...yet the education establishment labels it as SCIENCE theat is not to be questioned. This lock-step orthodoxy is not healthy.

You are apparently unaware of the meaning of "theory" within the context of science. A "theory" is the highest level that a scientific explanation can attain. There is no higher level to which a theory can reach. A theory cannot be "proven" and rise to a higher level. Scientific explanations are never "proven"; they are always open to potential falsification.

Like that fascist "gravity" theory. You need to learn what a "theory" is in science. TToE is a scientific theory, supported by hundreds of years and thousands (if not millions) of scientists. It is examined via the scientific method and subject to its rigors. There has been no credible scientific challenge to it to date.

2. The education establishment attempt to snuff out ANY disagreement, not just ID.

a. Show where or how this is true. If herewere a valid challenge to TToE it might have credence, but there is none. They can (and shold) teach ID in mythology, theology, philosophy, etc.

b. The education establishment should be teaching established science. Even if a valid challenge to TToE were to be accepted by the scientific community (unlikely), it shouldn't be taught until it is fleshed out completely. At this point if someone says "I theorize that planets in our solar system don't revolve around the Sun" and provided some preliminary credible evidence, they wouldn't and shouldn't teach that until it was fully fleshed out to what IS happening.

>>Yes, I do see a frame of mind akin to book burning. There are scientist who do not hold to the blank check evolution THEORIES as unchallengeable fact. They do attempt to destroy those who vary from their narrow path.<<

Is somebody keeping you from post or writing about religious theories? I've never had difficulty having religious beliefs but moving in scientific circles.

Not to mention that no real scientist would claim that any scientific theory is unchallengeable - they would just need to see convincing evidence. And sure scientists like any other human can be close minded but the resistance here is to the insistence that things be taught in science class without scientific evidence - you are free to teach them elsewhere.

This is nothing like book burning.

There are scientist who do not hold to the blank check evolution THEORIES as unchallengeable fact.

Yeah. That would be nearly all scientists, including evolutionists. Nearly all scientists recognize, indeed insist upon, that all scientific claims are liable to challenge.

Like the typical antievolutionist, you're gratuitously (and falsely) asserting that evolution is held as "unchallengeable" simply (and solely) because all your challenges have failed miserably. It's classic "sour grapes".

Evolution is still theory, not fully established as a having proven science that can be defended without any qualification whatsoever...

See post #425, below (I'm many posts behind).

Based on your posts, you have no clue as to what a theory is, or how science is conducted.