Your argument is with the dictionary. Look it up. It exists.
Evolution is a grand theory, composed of a mutitude of well supported theories.
It does not even merit "well-supported theories." Well supported theories are based upon more than educated guesses about history.
The "educated guesses" are hypothesis regarding particular details.
Fine. They should be presented as such, and taught as such in schools.
The standing of the theory of evolution itself, does not depend on any of those particular details.
If evolutionism wants to present itself as "science" in public schools, then it ought have more than a collection of educated guesses in its favor. It does not. The word "theory" is abused when placed along side the word "evolution" when used to support the notion that man is a derivative of an undesigned, unguided combination of matter beginning with the simplest of life forms and progressing to a more elaborate state.
There's no such word as evolutionism. It's not in Webster's and it's not recognized as a term of science.
"It does not even merit "well-supported theories." Well supported theories are based upon more than educated guesses about history."
It's obvious, that your not familiar with science. You've ignored Ichneumon's posts, probably, because they're way over your head. The important point to note is that you don't even try to know to attempt understanding.
"The word "theory" is abused when placed along side the word "evolution" when used to support the notion that man is a derivative of an undesigned, unguided combination of matter beginning with the simplest of life forms and progressing to a more elaborate state."
Please tell me why I should consider your one, or 2 liners, when you are basically ignorant about the subject, and ignore the folks that aren't and try to teach you at least some basics? Do you realize, that you're not competent to make these simple one line conclusionsa and challenge folks that are?