Yes, that is correct. And it’s quite obvious that I never claimed to be an “arbiter” of Discovery policy in either of these senses. The “arbiter” of Discovery policy is Discovery itself. I merely record and report what Discovery has said.
Please move all your future comments on this subject to the new discussion George has created. I will not respond to any future comments on this subject here. It’s a slight to Terrell’s efforts to drag the discussions of her question off-topic in this way.
An inference to design is not enough to qualify for public school instruction.
No, Eddie, you make explicit claims about what is official and what is not official.
Explicit claims backed by every statement of education policy issued by Discovery since at least 2005. If you can produce counter-examples, then do so. Otherwise, concede that I have reported the policy correctly. That’s what someone who goes on endlessly about respecting empirical evidence ought to do, since the empirical evidence of the Discovery policy (i.e., the texts published on the Discovery site, and identified there as policy statements) is overwhelming.
I have given links to some statements in the other discussion, the one started by George. If you want to comment on those statements, or continue this discussion, do so there. I won’t be monitoring this thread any longer.
They’re still claims about what is or isn’t official. Thus, you are posing as an arbiter, not a reporter.
But at least we agree that the official position is to deceive people about the definition of the term "theory " in science.
I’m going go ahead and close the thread so you can keep it to one thread. You can always link back to posts here if you need to reference. Again, sorry that this is a little messy, that’s my fault.
Look up the word “caviling,” then look in the mirror.