It isn't just a "semantic difficulty". Steve is trying to redefine the scientific method.

But Steve says: Of course, if you do say a theory is true and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory.

So what does it become? I presume he means it becomes The Truth. This is not science.

The null hypothesis rules! Assuming that something must be false unless there is evidence. This principled approach (and I know I'm being a bit of idealist) has the virtue of allowing science to claim genuine truth when it finds it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis is compared with an alternative hypothesis to see which is more probable. It does not allow anyone to claim genuine truth.

Some useful stuff about the scientific method here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The creationists come with a health warning; they have FRUITLOOP tattooed across their foreheads. Steve speaks as a scientist so his misrepresentation of science is potentially for more damaguing.

Sorry that you find my style heavy handed, Brendan. Would you prefer me tu use Steve's style.

By the way, Steve, neither your fig tree nor your statement that there is a fig tree in your garden (and far be it from me to doubt you) are a scientific theory. Your fig tree is an aspect of the physical world and your statement is an empirical observation.