In science, theory isn't the same meaning as the common usage of "theory" (i.e., an educated guess), it means a model that's supported by evidence.
And now if we could get every Anti-evolution/Inteligent Design nutjob to realise this life might get a bit easier.... That or they stop believing in the theory of gravity and float away...
Somehow I don't think it would matter - these types of pseudo-science arguments are never grounded in reality or common sense anyway. If the common usage of "theory" went away, there would be a whole slew of other nonsense arguments put in their place (although perhaps it might make it more difficult to convice school boards to buy into it).
I think you're getting me backwards, because of how I was coming at it yesterday. What I was saying earlier today was that all processes -- dead or alive -- "compete" to "obey" these laws. It's not just "as far as current scientific knowledge goes", because it's not just a theory, it's a law. Of course, you're still ignoring the spontaneity aspect, which sounds like so much reverse anthropomorphism, so it can't be quite right either. Surely you're not going to accuse me of saying that smoke and fire are alive. LOL.
My anthromorphism comment was mostly due to ascribing to these processes a "purpose" (as in a directed plan or goal, or some sort of reason other than naturual laws for existing). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "purpose".
My qualification of "as far as current scientific knowledge" was to leave open the possibility that such laws are open to modification by later discoveries - and mdwh pretty much summed up what I would have said about "law" and "theories".
I'm not sure what you are getting at with "spontaneity" either, unless you are touching on free will or something. For the record, I tend toward the philosophy of Mechanism, and am fairly convinced that free will is an illusion, an artifact of how our brains work.