[Old_Mil]

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.

[Ken H]

The problem is this...

I was addessing my post to this statement:

Next we'll be seeing a list of the definitions that we're supposed to accept. Because they say so.

Do you accept the American Heritage Dictionary definition of theory, quoted in an earlier post?

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.

Would it be accurate to infer that you are confident that you realize which is fact and which is science fiction; and that you believe evolution is science fiction?

[RunningWolf]

proclaims fact and science fiction side by side with equal force....
(and that too only if you have a mind sensitive to the vagaries of logic and philosophy) do you realize which is which

Thanks for that Old_Mil. I think many minds are sensitive to that which you state.

Wolf