Originally posted by shetline
Do you stand in front of a mirror when you practice being deliberately obtuse, just to see if you get the dull, blank expression right?
You do know that ad-homs are against the forums rules right?
Let me spell it out: I thought that particular piece of satire made a specific good point about a specific issue. That has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of anything which can be satirized... and you know it.
Actually all it did was poke a little fun by practicing some slippery-slope reasoning. If South Park shows PETA loving animals to the point of having sex and marrying with them, that really doesn't mean that PETA does such things. They are taking the small bit of truth in there and blowing it up larger for comic effect. This can be done with anything and isn't a reason to disregard good statements or reasoning. In fact satire is the weakest reason to disregard something because anyone can do it to anything.
The parallel with how evolution is taught would be ?
The parallel is that evolution is seldom taught with any holes or disagreements evident. It is often presented as a comprehensive theory when it is not. Again the parallel is that we present gravity but we do not claim to know what causes the force of gravity. If a textbook claimed a comprehensive unified theory of gravity, you can bet you but the criticism of it would involve more than a sticker.
Somehow Einstein managed to come up with his theory of gravitation without someone having put any disclaimer stickers on his physics textbooks warning him to be especially careful about that terribly incomplete Newton stuff.
Yes, but Einstein nor did others ever feel his theory of gravitation was beyond reproach nor did they use it to anchor their worldview.
This is all about what gets singled out for special disclaimers -- and yes, the motivation behind the people out to place those special disclaimers has to be considered.
Why does of the person have to be considered when the result is still a desirable one? Should we claim that the motives of freedom and liberty are suspect because the founding fathers were fallible people who reflect the times in which they lived for example?
Consider again my hypothetical example of students forced to wear "This student makes errors" signs, signs that only a willfully obtuse person could defend of the basis of their factual truth. You'd certainly have to consider the motivations of a teacher for picking on particular students made to wear these signs when such abuse was investigated.
Your analogy falls short and I already explained why. I don't need to reconsider it to find it still flawed. All theories are not suffering from the same problems evolution toils under. We don't have people attempting, for example to explain why gravity works as a constant for a period of time and then seems to stop working at all for large periods of time.
Please show me an example of any high school biology textbook that claims that evolution is completely understood and that all aspects of it are totally beyond question.
I don't have a high school biology text in front of me, do you that shows have one that shows evolutionary claims and criticism as well?
Perhaps, but since there's no parallel about any such thing needing to be pointed out about how evolution is taught, you have no point.
Strange reasoning. I really don't know how to approach something so odd. If it isn't an endorsement of religion, then it isn't. I don't need parallel non-endorsements of religion. It either is an endorsement or not. Quantity does not matter.
Are you going to claim that every time someone uses a phrase like "millions of years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs" that a long-winded disclaimer needs to be attached, or else this would be a shameless example of treating every aspect of evolutionary theory as incontrovertible fact? Are you also going to clamor for disclaimers about the incompleteness of gravitational theory to be placed next to every physics textbook question about how long it take for a rock to fall 50 meters?
The age of the earth need not be tied to evolution. It is often used as circumstancial evidence since evolution itself has so little actually explaining and supporting it. Also again, this is both a slippery-slope and an attempt to discredit via intent (kill the messenger) instead of dealing with the matter at hand. You don't need to claim FUTURE disclaimers might be requested in an attempt to validate the faulty reasoning behind the ruling here. They can each be treated on their own merits. If a school board that claims rocks won't fall at a standard rate of motion, then the community will have the opportunity to vote them out next election.
So it would be okay to hang disclaimer signs around the necks of particularly erroneous students?
So it would be okay, to practice genocide? Please stop with your terrible analogy and strawmen.
I don't even buy the parallel that evolution is somehow like the slow student in a classroom of other scientific theories, but beyond that, there's a difference between recognizing a problem (that one student might not be as bright as most others) and the way you handle it (being helpful, or trying to shame the student).
You're not the only one who doesn't buy it. It is a crappy analogy that you keep pursuing. My mistake was in attempting to help you understand better through such a crappy analogy. But I'm such a glutton for punishment I guess I'll do it again.
Schools hang "labels" on students all the time. They may not be wearing them openly around their neck as they walk in the classroom, but labels like disadvantaged, gifted, resource specialist program, English learner, special needs, ADD/ADHD, etc. are put all over kids and have loads of programs created to insure each is treated individually.
I also "don't buy" your strange assertion that evolution is somehow "shamed" by the label.
You seem to like saying this a lot today, whether it's particularly apropos or not.
It is relevent considering people the number of people here who seem to believe that criticism of evolution or even pointing out evolution is a theory = religious endorsement. (the ruling judge included)
Lots of theories are incomplete. Most are. You haven't shown any examples that when evolution is taught that there's any particularly egregious way that the teaching hides or disavows said incompleteness. So, again, what makes evolution so special that it needs to be called out with warning labels? When we talk about gravity in science textbooks, we generally treat it as a matter of fact, without disclaimers galore trying to hammer home the notion that gravity is incompletely understood.
I don't have to show any examples. It doesn't even have to occur multiple times. It could occur in one book, at one time, in one community and they should have the right to label the book. Popularity or correctness doesn't need to be anecdotal or have large numbers. I've stated that evolution is likely to be singled out because of the unwillingness of the parties invested in it to subject it to the same rigors as other scientific assertions. Pointing out that it should be treated the same in not a religious endorsement.