But it ISN'T a fact, though
that's the problem. It is conjectural.

Also, it's "real-world" meaning IS scientific.

I know I may be debating semantics - and I see your point - but in the case of this word, to suggest we should allow this because that's what it means to "most people" (actually I'm not convinced that's true either) doesn't wash.

I'll happily accept misuse of scientific definitions by the general public in non-scientific arenas, but in this case you're talking about a complete misuse of a word's meaning within a context whereby ONLY that meaning is valid, and that's not acceptable, at least to me.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 17:10, 1 reply)

I agree that it's not a fact.
And I never meant to imply that I thought it was. Apologies if that's how it seemed. I was presenting the anti-evolution argument as it is often presented.

The thing is that it's not a guess either, which is much closer to what "theory" means to most.

I will happily accept that one should not say "it's not a theory" because strictly it is. It's rather like saying a pumpkin is not a fruit. The fact that it is does not mean you should put it in your fruit salad.
( Ugi , it's a game of give and cake, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 17:25, closed)

YEAH!
There's a difference between a conjecture and a shot in the dark.

Evolutionary theory is the former. Creationists treat it as though it was the latter.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 17:44, closed)

I agree
I'm just refusing to give up on correct meaning because of how fuckwits interpret it ;)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 19 Mar 2009, 18:05, closed)