It depends on the meaning of “theory.” Most people learn about “theory” in geometry class where a theory is anything that is proposed but a theorem has been proved.
by your same defintion Darwinism/evolution can not be considered a theory either: it can not be definitively proven, and always subject to new evidence also.
>>
It depends on the meaning of “theory.” Most people learn about “theory” in geometry class where a theory is anything that is proposed but a theorem has been proved.
That’s correct, using the math definition
My point, though, was that the scientific definition is different. And since pretty much everybody who graduates high school has had geometry but most have not had high level science it is natural that there is misunderstanding over this.
Science theories are not proved but they must be well substantiated and a useful theory must make verifiable predictions.
Its easy to get the terms confused.
Many of the arguments presented rely on words having multiple and often ambiguous meanings. It is the foundation of sophistry.
A "fact" can refer to observed data (Apples fall and hit Newton on the head).
A theory can be (depending on how loosely one uses terms) either a mathematical relation encapsulating the data (F proportional to ( m1 * m2 )/ r12**2 ) or a model framework which *yields* those mathematical relations.
It's a good idea if the mathematical relations actually end up approximating experimentally observed results.
So "evolution is a fact" might mean "We have observed data (fossils) which indicate that traits are propagated over time within populations" and the "theory" is whatever variant of Darwinism is popular today. But nonscientists take such a statement to mean "the current fad within Darwinism *must be true* beyond question" -- and they get indignant.
Kind of like Anthropogenic Global Warming...
Cheers!