If one defines gravity as the theory that the universe self assembled over billions of years without God’s input then many will deny that gravity is a fact. Doesn’t change that gravity is a fact.
Evolution, as defined by biology, is a fact. The theory that explains this fact is natural selection of genetic variation.
“If one defines gravity as the theory that the universe self assembled over billions of years without God’s input then many will deny that gravity is a fact. Doesn’t change that gravity is a fact.”
You are no better than talk origins which wants to play the same semantical word games to obscure the truth from logical debate:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
A scientific theory would never specifically exclude God. The existence of God is a fact. A theory cannot speculate about the existence of God. His existence is not falsifiable since you can never prove that something does not exist. So His existence has to be an observable fact or not. You could say the exact same thing about Abraham Lincoln. Science would never speculate whether he existed. Forensic science could possibly help determine a cause of death to identify who killed Abraham Lincoln. His existence will always be part of the data, not part of the theoretical construct to explain the data. Evolution proponents are always conflating facts/data with theory/hypothesis. People witnessed Abraham Lincoln being assassinated. This not a scientific fact (i.e. directly observable), but a historical fact. Based on a reasonable assumption that what people observed then is true and correct, it is possible to make scientific inquiry.
Gravity is both a law and a fact because it is a phenomenon which can be easily, directly observed and can be described by easily understandable algorithms. If you were to form a Theory of Everything (which is essentially what evolution proponents are doing with their unfalsifiable theory) and call that theory The Theory of Gravitation, and then proceed to argue that gravity is a fact and a theory, you would have the same semantical argument being made here.
The point of the debate is to remove obscurity, not hide behind it. I already pointed out that evolution has many meanings, like Obama’s position on gay marriage having evolved. You might say it is a fact that a specific species of cats “evolved” from another species of cats if you can support that statement with direct observation without extrapolating data. But this would mean that a specific instance of evolving is a fact, and Evolution remains a theory which encompasses this and other facts. Otherwise it is bait-and-switch.
When creationists argue against evolution, it is against the parts of evolutionary theory that contradict the Bible. These include man having common descent with animals and the earth being billions of years old. We do not argue against adaptation, hereditary positive mutations being preserved by natural selection, or even speciation when understood in context.
You may reasonably argue that Evolution is a well-supported theory, but in a debate over Evolution vs. Creation it is disingenuous to call Evolution a fact. It’s not... not in the sense being implied in such a debate.