[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.

[Mamzelle]

re: 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.)))

Don't fear it, make it work for you. Before John Kerry came along, before the libs took the word and ruined it, "nuance" was a nice word. It doesn't just mean weasel-ly, it meant layered meaning. Language is a gift, not a straightjacket.

I define "theory" as a hatrack. I have all these hats that make no sense, but when I put them on the rack, they are orderly and meaningful. I can see which one works for what. Theory is a model, evolution is a model. I don't see how you can teach beginning biology without talking about the relatedness of living things. However, once the Tree is mastered, there really is no need for a "belief" in evolution either from students or teachers. Science and biology can move quite profitably without loyalty oaths one way or another.