So please explain to me WHY other than pushing an agenda this would be on a Science Show ABOUT EVOLUTION?[/b]

Just answer that please.

So are you gonna answer the question or dance with your hand on my ass all night?

Yes I do camlax so you asking me to state which theory is wrong just shows that YOU are the one who doesn't understand scientific theory. You are missing the point completely.

Ummmm So then maybe you could explain to us why its such a big deal to you for us to remain skeptical about parts of evolution?

So try this time to listen to what we are saying instead of TELLING US what we are saying.
Do you READ? I mean I think almost anyone in this thread by now will tell you that WE DO NOT DOUBT EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!
I have stated from the beginning that I don't DOUBT evolution, me and Iams have said it over and over again.
The reason you are so frustrated Camlax is your own fault. You keep trying to have a conversation that is not what we are talking about.

And we have stated what parts we have a problem with.

Iams,

Regarding evolution. If you are skeptical of it then you have dismissed it (as the evidence supporting it is not conclusive in your opinion) and camlax's request for an answer to why you have dismissed it is valid.

If you are not skeptical, and you say you are not doubting it, then you accept it as correct. Why then is it an agenda for this to be made clear to others who perhaps have not had your education and might still believe incorrectly that evolution is not correct?

It is not an agenda, it is education.

Iams,

Regarding evolution. If you are skeptical of it then you have dismissed it (as the evidence supporting it is not conclusive in your opinion) and camlax's request for an answer to why you have dismissed it is valid.

If you are not skeptical, and you say you are not doubting it, then you accept it as correct. Why then is it an agenda for this to be made clear to others who perhaps have not had your education and might still believe incorrectly that evolution is not correct?

It is not an agenda, it is education.

True,
These comments here lead me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about. Its been pointed out, there is only 1 theory of biological evolution. There is no which theory. Now you may well disagree with a specific aspect of the theories presentation. That is fine, but I am asking you which part to do you believe of evolution is being presented incorrectly? Which parts are being presented like we understand them beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you feel we are taking a best guess about?

If it is the whole theory, thats fine, but that is a belief. Not skepticism as a method. Do you understand that?
To answer your first question, its not a big deal. I am skeptical of evolutionary theory, the difference between is, one person's skepticism is oriented because of belief, guess who's that is? (Free smiley faces to whoever guess right first!)

Actually, I am on the same page as you true and hear what you and Iams are saying, unfortunately (turns out this is obvious to more than myself) you are not on the same page as me. I hear saying, you distrust the way evolutionary theory is being presented as fact. Got it? Did you see me type it? Good, now take a deep breath and prepare for the question.

Which aspects of evolutionary theory are being presented incorrectly? Which aspects are being presented as if we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt?
No you haven't, you have said you feel as though evolutionary theory is being presented as fact and you remain skeptical of it, though you fail to point out which parts should be presented with delicate words. You have said science (evolutionary biology) has an agenda. Leonardo ask you a very tough question about that, which you ran away from, fingers in ears. You stated Tyson's comments about conditions of the earth were presented as too factual. I asked what aspects need to not be presented as if we know what we are talking about, you conviently failed to ever address that question as well.

If you stated what aspects of evolutionary theory you had a problem with, you would have made a nice little post with a list on it. We are not mind readers, so humor us all and post a list.

Very scientist-like of you.

Like I said, it seems that maybe there is a misunderstanding of what science is not. It's like an onion, you peel the cover off and you find another layer, so you peel that layer off and you find another. I thought I was skeptical about how scientific theories were being communicated to the general public, but now my skepticism has gone a bit deeper. I am now skeptical that some scientists (Hi Cam! ) even understand how to speak properly about science and/or know what science is. And since I think someone at Indiana University did a great job of pointing out what it's not, I think we should ask our resident scientists if they agree with what science is not, and maybe then when we all agree on that we can continue to discuss why it's being incorrectly communicated to the general public.

*Removes hand* Sorry, I was just trying to pat you on the head, but since it's so far up there, I ended up patting your ass, it won't happen again.

ARE YOU BENT? I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
Do you see that? Do you see what I just wrote? Its like the frickin' FIFTIETH TIME I wrote.
Basically you are saying only YOU are allowed to be skeptical? Ok conversation over. I posted a list of WHAT I AM SKEPTICAL ABOUT.

And yet again you ignored it. So I am ignoring you. What a freaking waste of time you are.

NO
That is the whole POINT of this thread
Skepticism is a PROCESS not a POSITION. Skepticism is not a NOUN it is a VERB.

We are IN PROCESS about Evolution. At least I am I don't want to speak for others. I remain SKEPTICAL about the theory.
The fact that you equate Skeptical with DOUBT is what I was talking about. I have doubts of course but they are going to be in regard to specific things.
I'm sorry Leo but you don't understand the thread and you keep jerking it over to where you want it to go.

And I'm not budging.

If you are not skeptical, and you say you are not doubting it

I would like to acknowledge that I am happy you and Iams are no longer ignoring me though

Actually, I am on the same page as you true and hear what you and Iams are saying, unfortunately (turns out this is obvious to more than myself) you are not on the same page as me.

HAHAHA you are amusing, in that post, I wrote exactly what you said you have a problem with. You however have still failed to answer the question, hahah. You know what the funniest part about this is?

You are a victim of your own title, hypocrite, haha.

Cam and John Kerry, the two men that can be on both sides of an issue at the same time and somehow stand alone on both sides, "I voted for the war, before I voted against the war."

This from the guy who compared me to a politician.

Man, I could not PAY for material like this.

Where did I equate skepticism with doubt, True?

I made very certain they were separate and used 'AND' to indicate they were not the same thing.
Here is what I said. Break this down and you will see...

I am saying if Iams is not skeptical AND he is not doubting.

Two separate things.

Now do you understand?

Now do you see that I do understand?

Please do not assume I am not familiar with the tactics you are using to divert attention away from answering questions, nor that I am going to be provoked as you (and Iams) have provoked camlax and cimber earlier. I simply would like to debate skepticism.

Please see post #363.

I would like to acknowledge that I am happy you and Iams are no longer ignoring me though

I am skeptical of evolutionary theory, the difference between is, one person's skepticism is oriented because of belief, guess who's that is? (Free smiley faces to whoever guess right first!)

Firstly, your "stance" in this thread has conveniently changed multiple times. Secondly, you still failed to answer the question, so rather than a displacement activity, why don't you just answer the question?

Finally, People like you an theo are rather comical, with your public domain websites you have googled to see what science is and is not, yet both of you fail at grasping some very fundamental aspects of science. As pleasing as it sounds to you Iams, you don't learn what science is and isn't in a day on google. In my opinion, if you are so worried about what constitutes science then go back to school.

Got an answer yet?

I did answer the question. You asked me what part of the theory of evolution I had a problem withThe answer is NONE. I can't have a problem with a work in progress.Do you see darlin? I stated it over and over again.But I do have a problem with science PUSHING this work in progress as the answer. And I do have a problem with SCIENCE discussing RELIGION on a show called EVOLUTION?No you know something? I've noticed that other people who were arguing on here have PMed me to say they agree with my point and that they misunderstood what I was saying and had cast me as a religious person.You are spinning your wheels and you and Leo are having a totally different conversation.You have however not answered my question so I'll put it to you again.WHY is there a segment entitled What About God on a science series called Evolution?Answer that please.

And why is it ok in your book for you to be skeptical about evolution and not us?

Do you?
Why is there a segment called "What About God" on a science series called Evolution?

Can you explain that please?
And why is it ok in your book for you to be skeptical about evolution and not us?

Got an answer yet?

I am skeptical of evolutionary theory

No, actually, I am still on the same subject. Like I said, it's like peeling an onion. I'm just digging deeper.

I think we are now getting close to an answer.Now, if you are skeptical about it, do you think it's correct that something you are skeptical about should be presented to impressionable students and to the general public as concrete fact?

Apparently they are ignoring me now instead

Leo you have a tactic of going through threads and derailing them with nonsense.

Actually, you have changed from being skeptical about science to being skeptical about the presentation of evolutionary theory numerous times. I have no reason to lie or make this up, simply go back through the thread and read it Iams. You simply change which one you are being skeptical about when it is convenient for you.You change it whenever you are asked a direct and tough question, that you undoubtedly understand, but do not wish to answer.Stop trying to redirect and answer the question.

Stop trying to redirect and answer the question.

Look how you YET AGAIN TOTALLY IGNORED THE QUESTION???

You quoted the last line and ignored the question.
Here it is again


Why is there a segment called "What About God" on a science series called Evolution?

No YOU answer the question.
We've tried to answer the questions you've posed to us and perhaps we didn't do it to the best of our ability because the answers to your questions require a great deal of research that is not convenient on a message board and that to me honestly would not be worth the effort because you ignore it anyway.
But we are just asking you for your opinion.
So answer the damn questions? Because we know why you won't.

True, I have been asking you the same question for the last 10 pages and have yet to get an answer. What in your hormone overladen mind, leads you to believe you are going to get me simply drop my question by posing one back at me?

Hello, Earth calling True, Come in true.

Yes I do camlax so you asking me to state which theory is wrong just shows that YOU are the one who doesn't understand scientific theory. You are missing the point completely.

Ummmm So then maybe you could explain to us why its such a big deal to you for us to remain skeptical about parts of evolution?

So try this time to listen to what we are saying instead of TELLING US what we are saying.
Do you READ? I mean I think almost anyone in this thread by now will tell you that WE DO NOT DOUBT EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!
I have stated from the beginning that I don't DOUBT evolution, me and Iams have said it over and over again.

The reason you are so frustrated Camlax is your own fault. You keep trying to have a conversation that is not what we are talking about.

And we have stated what parts we have a problem with.

I've stated it over and over and over and over and over again. So either you are totally ignoring my posts, which is fine if you want, or you are being deliberately obtuse. And frankly for the last two days I've been wondering "Are they playing a game with you? Lets see how many times we can get her to post it! Snicker snicker"
This is THE LAST TIME I"M GOING TO SAY IT.
Here it is
Ready?
Read it carefully ok........
Are you paying attention? Because I've posted it over and over and over again.
Are you paying attention Camlax? Are you sure this time?
Really sure?
A> Its not about the Science. Its not about Evolutionary THEORY.
Its about the way it is presented as though its is PROVEN.

WE DO NOT THINK THE THEORY IS BEING PRESENTED "INCORRECTLY"

We think that its being stated as fact when its a theory. Saying life on earth evolved is a true Statement but stating behaviors of animals, based on fossils is not a fact.

# Cephalaspis was not the ancestor of gnathostomes (jawed vertebrates) or tetrapods. Gnathostomes (in the form of placoderms and acanthodians) appear in the fossil record before Cephalaspis, probably originated from, or are closely related to, thelodonts, instead. Furthermore, even though Cephalaspis was found only during the early Devonian, it is shown being pursued by the Late Silurian Brontoscorpio.
# Diictodon and Rhinesuchus are only known from South Africa, yet in episode 3 they are portrayed living in Siberia.
# In the series, Petrolacosaurus is incorrectly identified as an ancestral synaspid, when in fact, it was an early diapsid and could therefore not have been the ancestor of any synapsids (e.g. Edaphosaurus). The most basal synapsid, Archaeothyris, would have been a more suitable candidate.
Look closely because this is off the Wiki site that Shaftsbury posted. Do you see the inaccuracies?
And frankly I don't know how you have a leg to stand on when the Producers of the series issued a disclaimer that stated:
Now I didn't know all this when I posted my original comment.
But to clarify
Is everyone listening?
Since there have been lots of Agenda issues with regard to Evolution that make me wonder if the field still has retained its professional integrity. It seems to me that scientists tend to get waaaaay too emotional about people reserving judgement on the theory and they seem to always drag religion into it. It comes across to me that this field is slipping away from being a pure science and turning into an agenda driven science.

IT IS FOR THIS REASON ALONE< THAT I AM SKEPTICAL.

For example in a recent Nova Special about Evolution there was a part called What about God that basically attacked Creationists for their views.

Look here and notice that they target Christians. Christians are not the only ones who have Creation views. Jews and Muslims do as well.

This is from a Science Page. Shall we continue onward? Can you pause for even a second to SEE that there is indeed a blurring of the line between science and agenda here. If Creationism is nonsense then why are they even discussing it? What's the reason for discussing it except that they are upset that Creationists are "misinforming the public" yet when their guys do that its no big deal. Why do they have GOD commentary on a science site? Don't they go on and on about how God is not science and has no place in the classroom?
So why is it on their website? Is it because they only like to discuss God when they can have control of the conversation?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html
Here's Part of the Series called Evolution entitled What About God? And you can watch it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lLn91gRcU


So please explain to me WHY other than pushing an agenda this would be on a Science Show ABOUT EVOLUTION?

Just answer that please.
Now I'm not posting any more evidence because you all just ignore it anyway. But frankly your prejudice in favor of science is clouding your judgment because its pretty undeniable that there is an agenda here to silence Christian Creationists specifically.
Another Argument was made that Scientists didn't MAKE this show so they can't be held responsible for the content
Here are the Production Credits
PRODUCTION CREDITS

Origins: How Life Began

Hosted and Narrated by
Neil deGrasse Tyson

Produced and Directed by
Alice Harper

Narration Written by
Produced by
Joseph McMaster

Origins Executive Editor
Neil deGrasse Tyson

Origins Executive Producer
Thomas Levenson

Associate Producers
Julie Crawford
Caroline Penry-Davey

Edited by
Stephanie Munroe
Louise Salkow

Origins Project Manager
Marie Wiljanen

Origins Project Development
Larry Klein

Series Science Advisors
Alan Dressler
Sandra Faber

Writers
Alice Harper
Nigel Henbest
Major funding for Origins is provided by the National Science Foundation, America's investment in the future.
Additional funding is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to enhance public understanding of science and technology, and the George D. Smith Fund.

Look how you YET AGAIN TOTALLY IGNORED THE QUESTION???

You quoted the last line and ignored the question.
Here it is again


Why is there a segment called "What About God" on a science series called Evolution?

Leo,

How many times do I have to say, I am not discussing my skepticism about evolution, I am discussing my skepticism that origins theories being presented to the public as if they are 100% concrete, absolute fact is not being done with the, at least tacit, approval of the scientific community, or at least that part of it that has adopted the theory of evolution as it's religion.

Please don't shout, I heard you the first time.

I expect it was to reassure those who believe in God that evolution in no way denied them that belief. However, I didn't hear the broadcast as the sound isn't working on my laptop at present. Perhaps someone could confirm if that was the gist of the segment? Also, it has been mentioned before, but evolution and evolutionary theory does not cover life's origins. Maybe that also was stressed in that segment?

Ok, now could you please answer the question(s) I put to you in post #363. After all, I answered one of your questions, it's only fair.

So how is this science?

No Leonardo I cannot answer your questions and make of it what you will. We are down to the line of MAYBE actually getting the point across.

I notice that you didn't have too much to say until right now and now yet again you are trying to derail the discussion and I'm not budging.

I will answer your question after camlax answers mine. So that should just be a page or so.

One of the reasons I am not answering your questions btw is that I have already answered most of them in previous posts but you just ignored it anyway.

So while we are waiting for camlax why don't you go back and read.

Still waiting on camlax.
Two things I want to point out about why its hard for me to take you seriously Leo btw.

A. You say that I need to surely understand the reason blah blah blah but just a few minutes ago you posted that you had no sound and couldn't hear what the video stated. And yet you tell me that you have a way to simply defend it?

See here in Brooklyn this is referred to "Talking out your "rhymes with pass" and its a common practice of people to push themselves into conversation for the sake of hearing themselves talk.

B. I told you that I had replied to your questions in the thread already and that you should go back and re read my posts because as you can see I often answer questions for them to be ignored. And yet 3 minutes after my post you stated you had read every post in the thread and unless I was hiding it in obscurity you didn't see an answer.

This means to me that you didn't go back and read any of the posts. You based it on your preconceived notion. Seeing that you seem like you really want an answer to the questions and I stated to you that I had answered some of them and seeing how you keep saying you are dying for an answer I would imagine that going back and double checking might interest you.

Yes, I postulated a reason, judging by what I would do if I was explaining "What about God" with respect to evolution. I then asked for confirmation from others. Perhaps, if you have sound, you can confirm if my postulate was near the mark? I don't think you are unaware of what a postulate is, and your response seems to be yet another attempt in your efforts to make me seem to have an agenda.
I'm sorry, but how can "Read every post" be a preconceived notion? As I stated, if you did answer my question(s) the answers were not obvious. It doesn't seem that it would be difficult, if you already have answered, to clarify the answer you gave? Perhaps it will satisfy you if I list every post you made and addressed to my questions, since I posed the question(s)? I'm sure you wouldn't consider that unreasonable? Would you like to go back and re-read all the other questions that have been put to you as well so you can be sure you have answered them all? I wouldn't consider that unreasonable.

Well, this thread has taken off a bit!!!

I've been thinking more about statements of skepticism and want to ask is it actually skepticism to state you are [skeptical] of something that no claim has been made of?

For example, if someone has states they are skeptical about the theory of large bodies impacting the Earth much more frequently in the past and would like to see evidence that satisfies this. I take it that person doesn't disbelieve the claim, that wouldn't be skepticism, but has dismissed it. This is an example of skepticism, imo.

However, that person then states they are skeptical that science doesn't have an agenda to push itself upon people regardless of inaccuracies in some statements. However, where has science ever claimed this agenda to be skeptical of? If there is no claim, how can one be skeptical of it? So this is not skepticism, this is belief, imo (or maybe cynicism).

I would ask others if they agree with my claim about skepticism above (in my second sentence) and my analysis/reasoning and if they have further insight. I've tried to keep individuals out of this but I'm using these examples because I believe they present what I am trying to explain well.

Rewrite this in baby speak for me please because I'm not understanding at all what you mean.

Being skeptical to me is a method of investigation. I think you are playing semantics by way of winning a point or something.

What is it that you are asking. If you want to ignore Dawkins for example who is referred to as Darwin's bulldog by the Evolutionists themselves then fine.

What is the point in asking me to diagram something that is common knowledge that even when I do diagram it you pooh pooh it as "no big deal" and casual conversation etc etc.

Let me ask you a question. Do you state that Richard Dawkins does NOT have an agenda against Creationism?

Is that what you are stating? And what about Gould? Do you state that Gould does NOT have an agenda against Creationism?

Because they themselves clearly state that they do.

I'd also like to point out completely OFF TOPIC that some of the reason why I don't post evidence is that if something is very well known, its very easy for you to confirm or deny what I am saying. I don't like "googling" proof. That's not how I operate in thinking.

I'm not trying to PROVE TO YOU that I am skeptical about evolution, why is it that you want me to? I know where I stand. You can think differently and that is fine.

But for me I am skeptical because I think its not really about science in a lot of ways. I don't trust the integrity of the field any more and it causes me to question everything that comes forward and to carefully examine what is said.

Basically I'm sorta on PAUSE. Does that make more sense?


You know I just realized something very important.

You all are asking me for proof suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about. But in fact you don't. Its pretty common knowledge that Gould and Dawkins as figureheads take on Creationists and turn Evolution from a science into an agenda.

Its very common knowledge.

So you pretending not to know this or demanding piles of proof is odd to me.

Just friggin' wiki them if you need to.



ETA

Yes I know Gould is dead so please don't digress into yet another irrelevant argument.

"A method of questioning a claim based on an understanding of both the subject and the evidence provided supporting the claim."

Do you agree with this analysis? If so then please state why an opinion about science having an agenda qualifies as skepticism when science has made no claim to such an agenda.

If you do not agree with my analysis then please would you say why not and your reasons for doing so?

What I've noticed on this site for example is that some of the most strident "so called" skeptics, will make claims that they run from when true skeptics bring the information to the table and it turns out the "skeptic" was wrong. They are not interested in being confronted with reality or the truth. They rather react as if being a skeptic, is the same as being a doubter or one who challenges religion specifically. And while that is one of the definitions of skepticism, its a weaker and less intelligent one in my book.

Great post. But who is the one that does this? Do you rely on other people's information or more specifically systems. For example the argument is made that evolution is FACT. But how much of what is accepted as fact in evolutionary theory is actual proven fact. The argument was made that you can't go back but isn't that the very basis of the evolutionary theory?

Where do you draw the line? I use this as an example of course and would rather discuss the concept of skepticism than debating evolution theory.

An agenda is based on a disconnection from others and a judgment. So in saying "Those people over there are not like me because I would not do this because this is wrong" is just a way of segregating people into the piles of the "Good and Bad" without......and here's the key, without ever having to actually DEAL with any of the people.

The idea of skepticism is one that has always been that tiny thing that seems to set some people apart in a conversation in that they are willing to listen to the other side, because they ahven't already made up their mind that they are wrong.

I am a skeptic. Unless they can prove it then its just theory to me. It might BE the ANSWER. I'm not suggesting that its definitely NOT the answer.

I see what I'm not being clear on Leonardo.

I'm SKEPTICAL that the science community (those who specialize in relevant fields) is not pushing an agenda.

I'm not necessarily skeptical about their science, because as you stated we can't really be skeptical about the actual science of it since it is so complicated for a layman like me.


But what I am skeptical about is the way in which they suggest that SCIENCE is impartial and objective.

As you can see in the posts above it is not. They clearly have a desire for their theories to be accepted as fact and tend to trample over people who resist doing so.

That is not science. That's emotion.

I take it [skepticism] as a method. This is probably why so many people wind up debating about things.

Doubting whatever is presented to you is kinda silly

When someone says that evolution is no longer just a science but an agenda pushed by the science community, (and by evolution I mean it in general, not the proven aspects of evolution but the whole thing, macro and micro) it is a fact.


Let me say that again, its a FACT that the sciences connected to evolution theory are being pushed on the general public as a fact where scientists, renowned scientists in their field, will flat out make fantastical statements about this topic with no conclusive evidence.

It is not my belief that scientists are pushing the agenda. It is a fact. Pointing this out hopefully will encourage people to pay attention to this. And encourage the community to be more objective about it.

And finally I would say what would constitute proof to me is if NO SCIENTIST ever again made statements like the ones made by the Nova show scientists. No scientist ANYWHERE EVER AGAIN made a declarative statement based on conjecture and presented it as science.

And if on the off chance that some rogue scientist DID, there would be an immediate condemnation from prominent scientists in the same field.

I'm SKEPTICAL that the science community (those who specialize in relevant fields) is not pushing an agenda

Definition:
Agenda
3. personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias
Of course she's in favor, but then she has her own agenda.

lol i just saw this and thought about my beliefs, the improvability about god, however thats FAITH not FACT, and thats why i dont believe, because i am really skeptical about improvable things. i dont have faith, i have facts. it gives me comfort to have an absolute answer that you can prove. and disturbs me if there are phenomenon that i cannot describe or explain. . .

Never mind Shaftsbury, they seem to have us on a rotation system. You'll get responded to soon

http://www.realityspoken.com/skeptic.htm
This article and recent conversations I have had with people online have made me really think about what it means to be a skeptic.

I see all sorts of people who claim they are "skeptics" only to see that they treat Skepticism like its the same as cynicism. In the article above it states a very important thing:
What I've noticed on this site for example is that some of the most strident "so called" skeptics, will make claims that they run from when true skeptics bring the information to the table and it turns out the "skeptic" was wrong. They are not interested in being confronted with reality or the truth. They rather react as if being a skeptic, is the same as being a doubter or one who challenges religion specifically. And while that is one of the definitions of skepticism, its a weaker and less intelligent one in my book.
Another example of the "sacred cow" mentioned in the article is the way in which anyone who is skeptical about evolution, (meaning that they want to see it examined more carefully and are not swayed by supposition and theory) is regarded as a fool. Is this not in direct opposition of the scientific method?
Are you a skeptic that simply challenges the status quo? Or are you a true thinker? Would you be willing to put your own beliefs to the test. Or do you view being a skeptic as being skeptical about everything everyone else has to say and sure of what you believe?
Do you consider being a skeptic a position or a method?
What say you?

To me most of the skeptics are just opinionated fools, that won't ever bother taking in whatever is offered, because in their arrogany mind, they are right period. Now, some skeptics, actually use logic, prove certain points that makes you think. That's cool. but the arrogant are nothing more that pains in the asses

To me most of the skeptics are just opinionated fools, that won't ever bother taking in whatever is offered, because in their arrogany mind, they are right period. Now, some skeptics, actually use logic, prove certain points that makes you think. That's cool. but the arrogant are nothing more that pains in the asses

To me most of the skeptics are just opinionated fools, that won't ever bother taking in whatever is offered, because in their arrogany mind, they are right period. Now, some skeptics, actually use logic, prove certain points that makes you think. That's cool. but the arrogant are nothing more that pains in the asses

You are hopping on us to present theory why not start it off. Could you please post WHICH theory of evolution has been proven? And I'm not saying proven 100 percent, but just basically beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why is there a segment called "What About God" on a science series entitled Evolution?

Now, if you are skeptical about it, do you think it's correct that something you are skeptical about should be presented to impressionable students and to the general public as concrete fact?

Very scientist-like of you.

The idea of skepticism in science is to try and prove things wrong. Poke as many holes as you can in to as many theories as you can. It's through falsification that theories are fine tuned and made more accurate. Although I gather from your post that you believed he was implying he was skeptical of the theory because he doubted its veracity (as in, it being a position rather than a method, which is false).

And once again, I was not touching the theory or theories (apparently whether it's one theory or a variety of theories depends on what scientists want to attack or protect so...) I was talking about how scientific theories, especially origins theories are presented to the general public as concrete fact, when from a scientific standpoint, that cannot EVER be proven, since science is NOT about proving things.

I didn't say you were touching on the theories, but what you wrote seemed to imply that you believed Camlax was skeptical of the theory because he had reason to doubt it as it stands. Maybe I'm wrong there. I addressed the idea that conjecture is being taught as fact in my last post (messily, but there you go).

It just seems like a weak argument against science to me. The odd TV Show that makes this mistake isn't going to spawn any repercussions. If you can point me in the direction of any educational establishments that are directly misleading their students, I'd be interested to see it. As far as I've seen the only components of evolutionary theory (or any theory, for that matter) that are taught as facts, are the facts.

It's not a process which produces certainties, or absolute facts.
Science is a process which can only produce "possible" to "highly probable" explanations for natural phenomena; these are never certainties. With new information, tools, or approaches, earlier findings (theories, or even facts) can be replaced by new findings.

I do not hate science, I actually am a huge fan.

OK, here we go. Again, taking a look at Indiana University's article: What Science is NOT. We'll look at #6: OK, so since science does not produce facts, exactly what facts of evolutionary theory are there to be taught?

I didn't say you were touching on the theories, but what you wrote seemed to imply that you believed Camlax was skeptical of the theory because he had reason to doubt it as it stands. Maybe I'm wrong there. I addressed the idea that conjecture is being taught as fact in my last post (messily, but there you go).

It just seems like a weak argument against science to me. The odd TV Show that makes this mistake isn't going to spawn any repercussions. If you can point me in the direction of any educational establishments that are directly misleading their students, I'd be interested to see it. As far as I've seen the only components of evolutionary theory (or any theory, for that matter) that are taught as facts, are the facts.