This guy just does not give up. In his latest, he completely ignores the substance of my response, pretending that it didn't exist. But he does throw in this one bit of stupidity:
Ed also had this little gem: "I'm not against the government mandating that evolution be taught as a theory in schools at all." I wonder what happened to the relentless anti-creationism crusader?
What on earth is this idiot talking about? Of course I am all for teaching evolution as a theory in public schools. I spend a great deal of time and energy defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. I have no idea why he thinks this conflicts with my being anti-creationist. The only thing I can figure is that he thinks that the phrase "as a theory" is somehow problematic for an anti-creationist, but that's just ignorant. Evolution is a theory and should be taught as such. All scientific explanations are theories, and should be taught as such. But we should also teach the proper meaning of theory in a scientific context. Perhaps that would help folks like dlamming to avoid making fools of themselves.
- Log in to post comments
He probably got the idea from this case, where a federal district court held unconstitutional the placement of stickers in biology textbooks. The stickers read:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
That said, I am sure what you mean by theory, and what the authors of this sticker and dlamming mean by theory are very different things. As the opinion reveals, the intent behind the stickers was just about the opposite of what the stickers actually say.
The only thing I can figure is that he thinks that the phrase "as a theory" is somehow problematic for an anti-creationist, but that's just ignorant.
It for sure is that exactly. The bastardizing of the definition of "Theory" is such a tired and lame tactic by the creationistas / IDiots.
"This guy just does not give up. In his latest, he completely ignores the substance of my response, pretending that it didn't exist."
This is the modus operendi of many on that side of the isle: fixate on minutiae that are at best only peripheral to the argument, while ignoring the substance. They seem to think this constitutes good argumentation. I find disturbing that there are apparently many people who find this persuasive rather than merely tiresome.
I suspect that he took that first sentence and missed the word "not." If that's the case, it would show how unhinged some creationists are becoming.
---OFF TOPIC---
But speaking of idiocy...what the heck is going on over at Dembski's blog? At least 2 posts have been recently been Orwellized (or "topic revisited" and "updated") to use their terminology, and a despicable portrayal of Kevin Padian in a KKK cartoon made. At least they withdrew tghe cartoon and sorta recognized that as going too far even for them.
While Dembski appears to be going off the deep-end with the Padian thing (what else is new), and meanwhile Sal Cordova appears to be even too unhinged intellectually for DaveScot in trying to stretch Dembski's explantory filter to the breaking point and beyond. Sal knows the EF is used all the time, because he found a quote by Bill that says the EF is used all the time. What more do you need?
I mean how bad is your argument when even DaveScot is saying dude, that's not right?
I agree with Raging Bee -- I think the double negative in the sentence he quoted addled him. Had you written the virtually equivalent statement, "I'm in favor of the government mandating that evolution be taught as a theory in schools," he might have caught on. Maybe.
I think wheeler got it. The common understanding of the meaning of "theory" is the source of his rant. As in "I've got a theory about why she divorced him". i.e. An opinion I've formed based on little or no real information, but mainly based on my own biases, hunches, rumor, and a touch of my own life experiences.
It's the slipperiness of words in the English language. Many people disliked the study of science in school, and so seem to turn a deaf ear when actual science is presented. My experience is that few really understand the concept of the scientific method. Superstition, and pseudoscience are more comfortable, and naturally easier to understand.
Seriously, I don't think the guy has any concept of the scientific definition of "theory". I feel what we need is a concerted effort to explain to the public just what a statement of scientific theory actually means in terms of knowledge and understanding. Hammer on concepts they take for granted, like the theory of gravity, which still has many gaps, just like the theory of evolution.
Sadly, it seems one need not have a basic understanding of science to get into a Harvard science program...