I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Fatheaded Ed is up to no good again

Fatheaded Ed Brayton says,

I'm hearing from sources in Florida that there is a movement going on behind the scenes to "compromise" on the new science standards by adding the phrase "theory of" anywhere the word "evolution" is mentioned. Apparently there is support among those with a vote for doing so. Since evolution is, of course, a theory, this seems perfectly reasonable, but we all know why this is going on: because to the average person 'theory' means "wild guess" and thus it will quell some of the controversy.

If this is done, however, we should insist that the same thing be added to the science standards in reference to every other scientific theory and that all of them begin with an accurate scientific definition of theory. This is just another dishonest game being played by the anti-evolution crowd and it needs to be stopped.


Ed, the proposed "compromise" already includes adding "scientific theory" to every other scientific theory in the proposed science standards. Of course, this needs to be done in only a few key places, not everywhere the theories are mentioned.

As for giving the scientific definition of the term "theory" everywhere that the term is used, do legal documents give the legal definitions of terms everywhere that the legal usage differs from the common usage? For example, what about the term "process serving"? No, Ed, in a legal document, it does not mean a serving of process cheese. In legal documents, sometimes the meaning of a word must be determined from the context, e.g., here are legal definitions given for "demise": 1) v. an old-fashioned expression meaning to lease or transfer (convey) real property for years or life, but not beyond that. 2) n. the deed that conveys real property only for years or life. 3) n. death. 4) n. failure. Should a definition of "niggardly" be given every time the word is used? Remember that one? And what about defining usage of the word "chink" when saying that other pro golfers need to find the chink in Tiger Woods' armor? You should remember that one -- it was on your own blog. And you didn't remove that stupid comment even though you kicked me off your blog permanently because your preconceived notion disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule.
.

Labels:

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for giving the scientific definition of the term "theory" everywhere that the term is used, do legal documents give the legal definitions of terms everywhere that the legal usage differs from the common usage?

Better than the alternative of letting the creationists portray certain theories as no more than hunches, guesswork or leaps of faith as part of their campaigns to discredit them, rather than 'accepted as fact until overwhelming evidence that shows otherwise' which is what 'theory' actually means in the scientific community.

Monday, February 18, 2008 3:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like Larry is going into his breathtaking inanity phase again.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous the evilutionist said...

If the fundies want to play the word game with scientific terms for their war on reality, then creationism, intelligent design, whatever contemporary incarnation of creationism the Discovery Institute whips up should be relegated to "myths and legends."

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of Ed Brayton, I am collecting some of the insults I have received and listing them under message #71 on my "Why Banishment" thread.

Enjoy!

john.a.davison.free.fr/

John A. Davison

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

Monday, March 03, 2008 11:04:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home