Gravity is a fact and a theory as well. Physics still has theoretical issues here and there with gravity, but there's no question it's an observable force.
The claim that the opposition to evolution is not based on religion is a shallow legal fiction--a bald-faced lie. No one is fooled.
I agree with this sentence if you are using the word "evolution" in the generic sense, i.e. meaning (roughly) "change". Obviously populations of critters change over time, and have done so in the past.
The problem is that's not the definition which relates to this discussion. This kind of dishonest definition-shifting causes much (though not all) of the confusion in this debate. Let's try to stick to the original, relevant definition, shall we?
The "theory of evolution", if you want to call it that, can be loosely summarized (I guess) by the statement "all life is a product of random mutations and natural selection". This is a very interesting statement for which there is certain evidence (and heck I may even accept it as the best explanation available) but it's a theory for how life, in all its varieties, has arisen.
And that's all that will be stated in the disclaimer: "that evolution is a theory".
What's the problem?
The claim that the opposition to evolution is not based on religion is a shallow legal fiction--a bald-faced lie. No one is fooled.
P.S. This,like several other of the sentences you wrote to me, has very little relevance to our discussion. I don't know what you are referring to here. Certainly not anything I wrote.
Well, even your boy Gould makes this admission:
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty."
And further he says the following:
The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference
Seems to me that therefore, when even its strongest advocates have to admit that there is little factual evidence for evolution, the opponents of evolution do indeed have a point.
Further, his 'First argument' for evolution, is totally bogus:
First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest.
Change does not equal evolution. Only increased favorable complexity equals evolution and that has never been observed in the lab. Secondly, the moth study has been proven to be a total fraud. The so called 'scientist' after working for a dozen years on the project and getting nothing out of it, glued moths to the side of trees to 'prove' his point.