It's a thoroughly tested theory supported by mountains of evidence.
“I must have been asleep for the past x years. Seems I’ve always heard of the “theory” of evolution - I guess I missed when it was officially renamed the “fact” of evolution.
It’s a thoroughly tested theory supported by mountains of evidence.”
Oh, thanks. Which museum is it that has all the skeletal remains of the predecessors of man, males with tails, etc.?
When and if you get down to it and look at the pieces of that mountain of evidence, that is where it all breaks down. What it called fact at that level is actually consensus or a proposition stated as fact.
SOMEbody has a lot of HOPE in CHANGE.
And that's all it is.
You clearly need to brush up on your definitions and what science is all about. So here are some from your side.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.[Source]*
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity.
* source: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html
Teaching something to kids as fact that's only a theory is intellectually dishonest. It's lying to the kids about science, what it is, and how it works.
The sad part is that it has to be done under threat of litigation to the school districts.
I wonder if they're going to correct all the other errors in science textbooks as well. Then again, maybe we don't want them *fixing* the other areas of science either if this is an example of where science is heading in our country.
Our standing in the world of science education stands to plummet even further.