> SC: I rather suspect most people - with the apparent exception
> of you - will be able to understand that when something is
> being stated definitively and backed up with evidence then it
> can be understood as being factual. If something is presented
> as hypothetical with little or no evidence then it is an
> unproven hypothesis. It's not difficult.
In your book, is the RVT "stated definitively" or is it "an unproven hypothesis"?