[Dimensio]

How you choose to define "theory" is not relevant to this poll.

I am not the one who has defined the word theory.

The definition of "theory" is far broader than the limits you impose here.

The word theory has multiple definitions. A specific definition is used when speaking of the "Theory of evolution". This definition does not apply to "Intelligent Design". As such, speaking of "both theories" when speaking of evolution and intelligent design involves a false equivocation.

Only if you choose to believe that one theory is superior to the other.

It is not a question of superiority. The matter is over the applicability of definitions.

The fact remains, both theories share the common characteristics of being unproven and relying on speculation to be believed.

All scientific theories are "unproven". This does not mean that all unproven speculation rises to the level of "theory".

[Rokke]

"I am not the one who has defined the word theory."

I didn't say that. I said, "how you choose to define "theory" is not relevant to this poll". You didn't define theory, but you did choose to narrow the definition of theory in order to support your argument. Again, your assumptions concerning what is and isn't theory are not relevant to the data presented in this poll.

"All scientific theories are "unproven"."

All theories are unproven. I think I've already said that. That includes the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. Again, if you firmly believe one is superior to the other, than you should welcome both being presented in an academic environment. If both are presented objectively, the superiority of one theory over the other should be clear regardless of how you define "theory". Everybody wins.

[WKB]

All scientific theories are "unproven".




That should be the end of this discussion then.