The problem with this article is not that "theory" loses out -- truth to tell, the public might have the notion of theory correct ... a way of seeing the world --BUT the assumption that the language of science is somehow true (if beyond the ability of untrained mortals to understand) and that it has to be dumbed down so that lesser beings can understand the real "beauty" of causation, etc. Once again rhetoric ("public discourse" in the article) is opposed to "science" (truth + beauty in the article). If theory loses out it is only in the sense scientists tend to think that their theories are inherently closer to the truth than, say, the theory of humanists. If that is the problem, I say good riddance. And while I think making evoluiton a "law" isn't going to fool too many people (then again, renaming civilian deaths as "collateral damage" seems to have worked ... so) at least they seem to be thinking some about how to address the public.

John Lucaites