I was responding to this statement:
Next we'll be seeing a list of the definitions that we're supposed to accept. Because they say so.
So the definition of terms is exactly on point. That poster seems to be rejecting the contention that theory is a well defined term.
Do you accept the definition of theory in the American Heritage Dictionary?
You asked me what I thought of the situation, I told you.
Go play dictionary games with the poster who mentioned definitions.
The article is not about whether evolution is or isn't a theory, or even whether it's true or not, it's about whether its fair and proper to force children to learn it.
A huge portion of teachers in St Petersburg and Moscow are old line athiests. It's wrong to subject students to aithest all too eager to use to power of the state to preach their view of the world.
If you want to debate semantics which are irrelevant to the article I posted, go for it, if you want to know why I find it abominable that students in such a climate be forced under the tutolage of athiest propagandists who will twist evolution's tenats to suit their needs I'll be happy to explain.
The problem is this...
...if you pick up a first year Physics or Chemistry textbook, you find such texts to be full of facts. There is very little science fiction in such works, and where it does appear, it is invariably a result of editors getting ecumenical and trying to defend darwinian evolution from a distance.
A first year Biology textbook, however, proclaims fact and science fiction side by side with equal force. It isn't until you undertake extensive study of the field in question (and that too only if you have a mind sensitive to the vagaries of logic and philosophy) do you realize which is which.