I am sure we are both getting tired of this. I am going to stand fast on the premise that one of our most popular and broadly published scientific popularlists is capable of constructing a simple sentence in simple words that in fact means precisely what it says and nothing more. He does not require you to speak for him. Is it so hard for you to accept that a scientist will dare to question? How would science progress under your dogmatic refusal to test accepted theories? Or to imagine a noted scientist doing same.
I submit that it is you, sir, who is trying to redefine "is"
And now, if we are both comfortable with our own closing statements, I suggest we call a truce.