[Dr. Frank fan]

[they are PUTTING A TRUE STATEMENT INTO A BOOK.] This is an inadequately pursuasive [sic] point.

That is an autobiographical statement on your part.

Here is an example of a true statement that is freighted with intent. "It is true, isn't it, that you haven't beaten your wife in the last month?"

So you put an implicit backhanded charge of wife-beating on the same low level as calling evolution a theory.

This is the same puzzling approach that VadeRetro takes; you both seem to think that there is something dirty or shameful about saying evolution is a theory. But why? "Theory" (unlike "wife-beater") is a value-neutral term.

I have no objection to labeling ALL scientific theories as speculation. I object strenuously to labeling just evolution as speculation.

Is that what is happening?

For all we know, the book in question already does label things like "plate tectonics" as theories. That has been my guess, anyway. You are assuming otherwise? On what basis?

[donh]

This is the same puzzling approach that VadeRetro takes; you both seem to think that there is something dirty or shameful about saying evolution is a theory. But why? "Theory" (unlike "wife-beater") is a value-neutral term.

You have a truly annoying way of sidestepping an obvious point with unrelated rudeness. At least it's refreshingly more subtle than Mr. Blue's non-compos mentos act.