[Mamzelle]

re: not even allowing for the possibility that you might simply be mistaken as to the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context)))

Theory certainly has more than one definition, and is an abstract term that connotes more than it denotes. So does "evolution"--evolution may not mean speciation, but it is closely associated and when discussing one, the other comes to the party. That's how language and rhetoric work--and, ethical absolutist I might be, meanings are always and inevitably in the mind of the beholder.

Dispute is not mistake.

[Dimensio]

Theory certainly has more than one definition,

I'm well aware of this, thanks to creationists who frequently selectively quote dictionary definitions of the word while deliberately ignoring other definitions. Apparently they believe that they can choose which definition of "theory" applies to evolution and the science will disappear accordingly. The idea that the word "theory" in a scientific context might have a different meaning -- yet one that appears in the same dictionary that they have quoted -- never seems to occur to them.

and is an abstract term that connotes more than it denotes.

Explain this.

So does "evolution"--evolution may not mean speciation, but it is closely associated and when discussing one, the other comes to the party.

I admit that "evolution" has multiple meanings, though it should be clear on these discussions that at the very least "evolution" here almost always refers to biological events. I try to make it clear when I'm referring to the theory of evolution or events called "evolution" when I fear such ambiguity can arise.