Yes, we do not disagree on folks incorrectly putting Evolution aside as being a theory only. The fact is that it is a fact, and not a theory. Allow me to say that about half the scientists do not use the term theory for Evolution, the other half does.

Scientists are not allowed to enter the religious fields, and I have to remain adamant that they cannot enter the religious field via language either, John.

This is a very important aspect that belongs to the minds of many scientists. I kid you not. The structure in which they think contains the God position and their use of language shows that structure. We should not support that.

Gödel already made clear that when starting out with any setup, the overall setup (the view at the top level) contains an incompleteness.

In other words, the God position ends up even when we start out with the scientific ground rules. Many scientists do not like that and push Gödel aside, but they bring few arguments. It really is a power struggle (see my example of Rome and Constantinople, which is an example about power, not truth).

When scientists said they were looking for the Theory of Everything back in the mid eighties of the last century, I almost fell of my chair (in amazement). I could not believe that they actually wanted a scientific theory of everything in which unification was the goal. That is like sitting in God's chair, and a good scientist knows better than that.

So, we find ourselves in a good and actually fascinating battlefield, John. Scientists make up language which is their prerogative. Yet theory is a scientific word to begin with. And when it is not to their liking they cannot turn it so it has a new meaning that is distinct from (and contradicts) the actual meaning.

I am correct that you are implying the word theory means field, right?

That is then like a lead balloon. Meaning, it is not a balloon.