Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
Really? Well, see if you can explain your position on Wikipedia which is a source Justapedia used to find controversial topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversia...
Justapedia affords editors an opportunity to neutralize those controversial articles because the big part of what makes them controversial is the lack of substantial diverse points of view. It's either WP's systemic POV or the material is rejected, and any editor who dares to change it will likely themselves groveling at one of the dramah boards, or swiftly topic-banned from that topic, broadly construed.
This sounds like semantics. Presumably GP means controversial in the sense that people argue about it, you mean non-controversial in the sense that it's well established scientifically. I think both of those takes are good.
No, you wish it was uncontroversial. Or it is uncontroversial within a carefully chosen subset of the society that agrees with the idea an its implications, but that's cherry-picking and does not actually mean it's uncontroversial (without qualification).
> Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.
How can you say that? The idea isn't controversial, but somehow only teaching it is? That's pretty obviously not true: the people who object to teaching evolution almost certainly object to the idea itself. I'm pretty sure they also dispute the "actual underlying facts" (at least historically).
Evolution isn’t controversial across the many scientific communities and nations around the world. There is no rival theory poised to capture scientific energy around the world.
Exactly. You can accurately say "evolution isn’t controversial in the scientific community" (with a qualification), but you can't accurately say "evolution is completely uncontroversial [full stop]" (unqualified).
A course-grained "controversial" tag will either apply very broadly or be inaccurately used (out of parochialism or other bias).
If it weren't controversial, there weren't as many alternative "theories". This is what the term controversial means. It is no valuation about the probability of evolution being correct or of the existence of any other sensible model.
> Evolution is completely uncontroversial.
Perhaps it should be uncontroversial is what you mean, but it certainly isn't, which makes that statement wrong.
Controversial just means the topic to be in dispute. It is a question of semantics and precision of language. In that regard the flag on a wiki site is certainly justified.
Because that isn't comparable. Evolution is controversial because it collides with a lot of other beliefs. Particle physics and gravity generally don't, if only because people aren't familiar with the intrinsics...
Teaching about evolution is controversial because it pokes holes in certain commonly held beliefs. That doesn't make any of the actual underlying facts controversial.