Fatheaded Ed is up to no good again

Fatheaded Ed Brayton says,

I'm hearing from sources in Florida that there is a movement going on behind the scenes to "compromise" on the new science standards by adding the phrase "theory of" anywhere the word "evolution" is mentioned. Apparently there is support among those with a vote for doing so. Since evolution is, of course, a theory, this seems perfectly reasonable, but we all know why this is going on: because to the average person 'theory' means "wild guess" and thus it will quell some of the controversy.

If this is done, however, we should insist that the same thing be added to the science standards in reference to every other scientific theory and that all of them begin with an accurate scientific definition of theory. This is just another dishonest game being played by the anti-evolution crowd and it needs to be stopped.

Ed, the proposed "compromise" already includes adding "scientific theory" to every other scientific theory in the proposed science standards. Of course, this needs to be done in only a few key places, not everywhere the theories are mentioned.

As for giving the scientific definition of the term "theory" everywhere that the term is used, do legal documents give the legal definitions of terms everywhere that the legal usage differs from the common usage? For example, what about the term "process serving"? No, Ed, in a legal document, it does not mean a serving of process cheese. In legal documents, sometimes the meaning of a word must be determined from the context, e.g., here are legal definitions given for "demise": 1) v. an old-fashioned expression meaning to lease or transfer (convey) real property for years or life, but not beyond that. 2) n. the deed that conveys real property only for years or life. 3) n. death. 4) n. failure. Should a definition of "niggardly" be given every time the word is used? Remember that one? And what about defining usage of the word "chink" when saying that other pro golfers need to find the chink in Tiger Woods' armor? You should remember that one -- it was on your own blog. And you didn't remove that stupid comment even though you kicked me off your blog permanently because your preconceived notion disagreed with my literal interpretation of a federal court rule.
.