I don't think it's spam. I think it's a valuable contribution to people who just do NOT understand (or who stubbornly ignore) the meaning of the word "theory" in the context of math and science. They think it means "conjecture," or speculation, a notion how or why something may or may not have happened. That's NOT what "theory" means in the scientific sense or in the mathematical sense. Coyoteman can't post this stuff enough, if you ask me. I love the evolution threads because they are so educational, and Coyoteman is an excellent source of info. I believe in God and I accept evolutionary theory. The two are NOT exclusionary. Refusal to see that they are is based solely on human pride.
For all practical purposes (and with all due respect to Coyoteman, and science in general) that's exactly what theory means.
Here's the definition (per Coyoteman's post) of theory again:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Take particular note of the underlined:
"A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory."
That means, no matter how well substantiated the explanation is; no matter how organized and accepted the system of knowledge may be; no matter how many facts or laws are incorporated; no matter how testable the priniciples are; no matter how long the accepted history and the confidence it inspires....It all, very well, could be a false premise. which again, for all practical purposes, amounts to nothing more than speculation and conjecture...regardless of how complex, impressive, or elegant it may seem to be.
Your syntax here is contradictory, to wit:
"Refusal to see that they are (exclusionary[understood]) is based solely on human pride.
Anyway, your statement is no more or less indicative of hubris than the position you're criticizing.