OK, lets take this a bit at a time. Here is what TIA actually said -

There is an observable *fact* of evolution, and a Theory of Evolution that attempts to explain it (theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis).

In the part of that up to the opening parenthesis, TIA makes a clear distinction between the "fact" of evolution and the theory which attempts to explain that fact. I have asked Steve if he agrees with that but he hasn't replied. Immediately after that, TIA says theory being a very very well tested, but still only provisionally "true" hypothesis. Here he* is clearly talking about theories in general but it seems pretty clear from the context that he is including the Theory of Evolution amongst them.

I condensed this into Of the Theory of Evolution he says that it is 'a still only provisionally "true" hypothesis'. I do not see that I have misrepresented TIA in any way. Steve will probably repeat that that is because I am out of my depth. If anyone else (including TIA) feels that I have, please say.

TIA did take exception to something I had said in that post but not that. I had said What he neglects to mention is that scientific theories never get beyond 'provisionally "true"' to which he replied -

Actually no... I have pointed out many times (on many threads - particularly the predecessor to this one) that what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.

I apologised that I had only meant that he had not specifically said it in that post.

So, Steve, do you still think that I misrepresented TIA and do you agree or not with TIA that what sets science apart from religion is that science is *always* provisional.?


* sorry, can't be bothered with gender neutral pronouns.