You know, I still think a lot of this comes down to the fact that most lay people do not use the word theory in the same way and with the same definition as the scientific community does. I think there needs to be more effort to make sure that everyone is actually speaking the same language. I see the word theory misused all the time on TV (even on the news), in movies, in politics, etc. To most lay people the word theory means a conjecture, a guess. The definition of theory for most lay people I have personally known means no more than " a guess." The definition doesn't even approach the meaning of the word hypothesis, let alone the true meaning of the word theory. I think if people were more educated about the true meaning of the words "hypothesis" and "theory" there might be a lot less argument about evolution vs. ID/creationism being taught. Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote: Michael also wrote: | In the meantime, why can't ID be studied in | schools? Isn't that what theology class is for? Absolutely right! But these idiots (now I'm letting emotion cloud my highly evolved thinking apparatus) want ID taught as a scientific "theory" as valid as evolutionary theory, to be taught in the science classroom and not in theology classes. Buttars' statements in June clearly indicate that he is woefully ignorant of the scientific method and thinks that ID should be included in the State's science curriculum. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com