Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[Doctor Stochastic]

As I understand it most of the "scientific" evidence Darrow presented in defense of Scopes has now been found to be false.

I have to agree here. Darrow's primary evidence giver was Williams Jennings Bryan. I'm glad to see that you believe that Bryan's testimony has been found to be false.

[Tribune7]

Bryan was questioned as a expert in the Bible. You're now claiming the Bible to be a science book?

[Doctor Stochastic]

For the record: I'd have disclaimers for all theories, if I had my druthers.

Disclaimers for Group Theory, the Theory of Equations, Analytic Number Theory, Graph Theory, Multiplicative Number Theory, Chaos Theory, Probability Theory, K-Theory, Complexity Theory, Information Theory, Queueing Theory, M-Theory, Set Theory, Class Field Theory, Represenation Theory, too?

What is there to disclaim in these theories?

[Aric2000]

I see, so if ANY scientific theory might possibly bring your bible into question, then it must be a load of BS?

I see, OK, well at least I understand where you stand, but I actually already knew that.

Oh, and by the way, PROVE it's ALL a bunch of BS, I would really like to see you try, or did some church elder tell you that and of course you believed him blindly? Never mind, I think I know the answer.

Good little sheep that I believe you are.

[Doctor Stochastic]

No. Just happy that you decided that Bryan had been proved wrong.

[js1138]

Is Leslie, by any chance, your mother's maiden name? That's how I got my middle name.

[Aric2000]

I believe that all that needs to be done is that the TRUE definition of Theory is taught at the beginning of each science class.

This would put it all out front and NO one could say that they didn't have a clue what a theory actually was, and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats. but, as was said, they would never agree to such a thing. It would not go well with their religious agenda.

[Tribune7]

If you don't feel the Bible is a science book, then what did you take my words "scientific evidence" to mean?

[AndrewC]

and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats.

I read that you home school your children. How can anyone shove anything down your throat in that context?

[Aric2000]

The bible is NOT a science book, it is a religious book, a philosophy book if you will. It is definitely NOT science.

God is not a part of science, God cannot be. god cannot be proven nor disproven, therefore it is a question for philosophers, NOT scientists. Therefore the bible is NOT scientific.

The most you can say for the bible in a scientific type fashion is that it is a history book, but science? COME ON, give me a break.

Sorry Tribune, thanks for playing.

[Tribune7]

The bible is NOT a science book, it is a religious book, a philosophy book if you will. It is definitely NOT science.

Hey, you're arguing with the wrong guy. Tell Doctor Stochastic.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Disclaimers for Group Theory,

"Group Theory" is mathematics. It's not a scientific theory. Not applicable.

the Theory of Equations,

What's that? Which equations? Anyway, also mathematics.

Analytic Number Theory, Graph Theory, Multiplicative Number Theory, Chaos Theory, Probability Theory, K-Theory, Complexity Theory, Information Theory, Queueing Theory, M-Theory, Set Theory, Class Field Theory, Represenation Theory, too?

Ditto, ditto, ditto...

These are all mathematical (not scientific) theories, so this list is a total red herring. The word "theory" is not being used in the same way in mathematics as in science. Don't you know that?

What is there to disclaim in these theories?

Well, one could (and should) say that they are subject to whichever mathematical axioms apply....

But they're not scientific theories, and therefore (despite the apparently confusing-to-you fact that they have the word "theory" in their names), not even relevant to this discussion in the first place. Sorry, you seemed to have tried so hard on your post too. Have a nice day.

[Aric2000]

And that is why I homeschool, because of a bunch of crazy zealots that try to shove their religious dogma through as science, and when they can't, want a disclaimer for the offending science.

Public schools have been turned into an indoctrination facility for governments and whomever else can get in there with their agenda. Me, I decided that I would not allow my children to be a part of that. PERIOD.

I will teach them what they should know in order to THINK.

I will teach them science as science, without disclaimers, because if you are sure of the definition of THEORY, there is NO need for one.

I will give them some knowledge, but most of all, I want them to learn how to THINK, not just spout facts.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I believe that all that needs to be done is that the TRUE definition of Theory is taught at the beginning of each science class. This would put it all out front and NO one could say that they didn't have a clue what a theory actually was, and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats. but, as was said, they would never agree to such a thing.

Speaking only for myself:

I would definitely agree to such a thing. Sounds like a good plan to me.

[Aric2000]

My apologies, sorry about that.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The claims of WJB, which, as you pointed out, have been shown to be false.

[Tribune7]

I believe that all that needs to be done is that the TRUE definition of Theory is taught at the beginning of each science class. This would put it all out front and NO one could say that they didn't have a clue what a theory actually was, and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats. but, as was said, they would never agree to such a thing.

I don't have a problem with this. I can't think of anyone who would. So, why isn't being done?

[Doctor Stochastic]

In what way is the word theory being used differently? Certainly many people doing math or physics or chemistry or biology or geology use theory in the same way. I do.

Perhaps you should learn a bit about how the word theory is used. You seem to miss the concept completely.

[Tribune7]

No prob.