I understand the comparison fully. A table of contents is a shorthand reference guide to a book, it is not the book itself, it is by no means a complete representation of the book, but will help you to understand and navigate the book. That is an absolute perfect metaphor for the Creeds.
People in science ARE clear about what they mean, but very little of science can be dropped down to one sentence. The goal of science is not efficiency, it's precision and accuracy. All scientific investigation is about coming up with the most accurate and precise explanation of that subject possible, and if that explanation can't be done efficiently well that's too damn bad. The goal is the total truth, a complete understanding accurate in all it's parts, by it's very nature this will not be efficient.
Evolution is not vague, and not a superstition. It is a very young science that has a lot to learn, I haven't demonstrated anything about evolution. I've told you repeatedly that I do not have the background to make a useful statement on the current dominant theories of evolution. I also lack the background to make a useful statement on the current dominant theories of orbital mechanics, doesn't mean either is vague, just means your demanding the wrong answers from the wrong person. Evolution is CLEARLY science, and the fact that the only method you can find to fight it is by making unreasonable demands that NO science could accomplish proves it.
If not one, then two, or three. And no scientist would agree with you. If it takes two chapters to explain a theory, then either there is no theory, or you are attempting to explain everything at once, even if someone did not ask for every detail.
Evolution is not vague, and not a superstition. It is a very young science
Evolution seems superstitious both in that it claims to be science yet defies description, as we see on numerous threads here, elsewhere, and down through recent history, and in that it seems an imperative, even if left undefined, particularly if left undefined in the realm of the mysterious. Is it science? If so, how does the basic statement of the theory read? even if one dares to grant a similarly vague 'fact' if only for sake of argument. State the theory.
Science is science. And speculative philosophy and pseudo-religion is just that. Is evolution a science?
You're just cutting and pasting your posts, at this point? You want the last word, I would assume. Have at it.