[Strategerist]

There is a reason we still call it a theory after all these years.

And there's a reason why Relativity is still called "The Theory of Relativity" though it's been experimentally proven and has a wide variety of practical uses in science.

The basic problem is the scientific definition of "theory" has little resemblance to the misunderstanding of the definition of "theory" to the scientifically illiterate public.

What the average Creationist thinks the definition of "theory" is, a scientist would call a "hypothesis" not a theory.

[Tench_Coxe]

"When a thoroughly ideological Darwinist like Richard Dawkins claims, "The theory is about as much in doubt as that the earth goes round the sun," he does not state a fact, but merely aims to discredit a priori anyone who dares to express reservations about evolution."

The article's author's aspersions aside, do you not consider statements such as this, by Dawkins to be reckless?

[Tench_Coxe]

"What the average Creationist thinks the definition of "theory" is, a scientist would call a "hypothesis" not a theory."

Very true. And what certain evolution folks tout as scientific 'fact' is what a scientist would call a theory.

[nonsporting]

What the average Creationist thinks the definition of "theory" is, a scientist would call a "hypothesis" not a theory.

I couldn't help but notice from the article that "the great philosopher of science Karl Popper suggested that the standard version of evolution even falls short of being a scientific theory, being instead an untestable tautology". Untestable tautology. He also called it a "metaphysical research programme" (Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151).