Ok David, we're definitely on the same page then. :-) Let me reiterate my Disclaimers by emphasizing that my post is *not* to be interpreted as an attempt to "forbid science to claim to have explained anything until we have a theory that we are sure will never be superseded". I just wanted (partially for my own sake) to clear up what evolution-proper is ("new adaptation"), and that it need not include an explanation of origins ("first replicators"). Because my impression was always that they are independent from one another, and in particular we can be more sure of one than the other with no contradiction.

You acknowledge, I think, that we are less sure of the first-replicators explanation than the adaptations part that is evolution-proper. You state that we should still teach the former as part of the explanation and indeed that the different-surenesses don't matter to this conversation. I agree with only the former statement; by all means let's teach "amino acid soup+lightning" as our first-replicators best explanation, but if in doing so we don't acknowledge that we're *less sure* of it than of evolution (or, "less sure of this part of evolution" if you like), we leave ourselves open to the obvious line of attack: "You're presenting a theory as fact when even you acknowledge it's far from certain that it's true!"

I'm concerned with staving off that line of attack which is why I'd say, let's divorce the "evolution" part from the "origins" part. Evolution does not stand or fall with the origins explanation: it is true (indeed, quite obvious) whatever origins explanation is correct, or even if you select some *wrong* origins explanation. The theory of origins thought to go along with evolution, meanwhile, can (and should) be taught as a best-explanation we're relatively less sure about.

Yes all science consists of best-explanations that need never be "final", but that doesn't mean science hides the relative status of its various explanations from observers, does it? (Even if those observers are behaving in a misguided, unscientific and reactionary way - as creationists are.)

It seems to me that if you insist that "amino acid soup + lightning" (or whatever) is part of The Theory Of Evolution, it becomes one of the main chinks in its armor, and then if you still stand there and insist that "all of evolution is true, there can be no doubt!" you're, like I said, overplaying your hand. Since it's nonessential, and has a lower-certainty-value, why not split it off and call it a Theory Of Origins?

The Theory Of Evolution is obvious and true. The most-often-pushed Theory Of Origins to go with it, is certainly a reasonable explanation (and made far more plausible because of the facts of Evolution) but is far less obviously true. Am I wrong?