Yes, it is. The unabradged version even has a separate entry.
It's obvious, that your not familiar with science. You've ignored Ichneumon's posts . . .
As a matter of fact, I have responded to them in some detail on some occasions. The fact is, science operates in terms of observable, repeatable experiments to back up its claims. What happened 4.5 billion years ago ipso facto does not qualify as science, but as history and/or philosophy. It falls outside direct observation and experimentation and is thus subject to question at every point on a purely scientific level.
Moreover, if you believe addressing Ichneumon's posts in detail makes for a paragon of scientific knowledge and practice, then you apparently have low standards as to what constitutes science.
Please tell me why I should consider your one, or 2 liners, when you are basically ignorant about the subject . . .
Far be it from me to prescribe what you should or should not consider. Why should I pay attention to your response when it does not directly address the points I have made, but instead engages in ad hominem? Tell me how educated guesses about history are collectively worthy of the name "theory."
Of course it was the *third* possible definition, and you'd ignored the appropriate definition that was above it.
Beware of Chugabrews toting dictionaries.
The experiments don't have to be conducted back then. Tests of the physics can be made right now. Folks that know what they're doing look at ~5Byrs ago and further. The physics are the same. Your failure to know and understand what you're talking about is the reason you're still stuck on that point and why you think it's "history, or philosophy".
" if you believe addressing Ichneumon's posts in detail makes for a paragon of scientific knowledge and practice..."
You don't know the fundamentals,
"Why should I pay attention to your response when it does not directly address the points I have made, but instead engages in ad hominem?"
You think ignorance is an ad hominum? It's not. It's simply a qualifier used to denote some low measure of knowledge. I'm ignorant regarding a lot of stuff. That's a fact, not an ad hominum. I recognize where I'm ignorant and don't argue with those that aren't on the subject.
"Tell me how educated guesses about history are collectively worthy of the name "theory.""
They are not guesses about history. The laws of physics are constant. All the evidence points to that. The laws of chemistry and physics now, are the same now as they were before and will be in the future. We can see the past and look to the future(prediction). All evidence confirms that. This is basic, fundamental stuff that you've failed to grasp.
Science holds a theory that says, "the laws of physics are sufficient to describe the world." It's a theory, because all available evedence supports it. ID holds a hypothesis that says, "the laws of physics are insufficient to describe the world." It's still a hypothesis, because there's zero evidence to support it.