[hawkaw]

I disagree. Many in society do not have a clue what these definitions are all about and a lot are shocked to learn what law and theory mean in the science.

The more they are stated the better as more people will learn. Of course there are the IDers and YEC who have to close their minds at all costs to what science has to offer to hold onto their Book of Genesis beliefs.

[Mamzelle]

Establishing a definition for an abstraction is a worthwhile endeavor--but won't be achieved through rhetorical bludgeoning or spamlisting. There will always be competing defintions--words like "theory" both denote and connote many things.

If the list is an offering for discussion, wonderful. Is it? This list is not an authority, in other words. And attempts to insist upon its authority will be regularly challenged.

You know, all this "close-minded" stuff and "free enquiry" and all in the halls of science...I noticed that there was no squawking about the stunning thing that happened to the prez of Harvard these past few weeks, all for posing a non-pc question concerning women in the sciences and math.

Free enquiry met an irrational threat, and fell down dead.

But, since radical feminists are not the religious, not a squawk, squeak or fuss from the Keepers of the Holy Altar of Science who regularly inhabit the evo threads.

Makes you wonder if the agenda is pro-science, or just anti-religious.