[Dimensio]

Seriously, why is it "silly" to define the scope of what the ToE addresses?

Defining the scope of evolution isn't a problem. I have to do it frequently when creationists ask how evolution can explain things in cosmology. The problem is in claiming that evolution is somehow "limited" because it doesn't explain things outside of its scope.

[KMJames]

The problem is in claiming that evolution is somehow "limited" because it doesn't explain things outside of its scope.

Well, come on now - certainly we agree that there are biological "things" outside the scope of evolutionary biological science. This point is made time and again on these threads: furball4paws reiterated it again to me in post #170.

Now why on God's green earth (colorful language intended) is it so friggin' unacceptable to articulate this point regarding biological "things" - to students who are there to learn about biological "things"?