I don't wish to waste time with a purely sematic debate. I mean by a "scientific fact" a "well confirmed observation". BTW I don't consider evolution to be a "scientific fact," but then neither is heliocentrism. Both are too complex and too general. The facts are that the planet Mars is observed at such and so a polar coordinate at one time, and at different specific polar coordinates at other times. Heliocentrism (and other relevant theories) explains those facts. That's what theories do -- explain facts.
Scientists do not sit around thinking up stuff. They spend their time proving or disproving things by experimentation, observation, and any other way which can help them determine the truth of a situation.
Actually scientists DO "think stuff up". There would be no point in doing the experiments or making the observations otherwise. Those are tests. There has to be some kind of theory, hypothesis, or a generalization of some kind, or there is nothing to test, and no way to determine the signifcance of the result of an experiment or observation. Facts simply are, as they are, as they are. They bear no scientific significance, apart from their sheer reality of being, in and of themselves, but only as they are shown to be consistent, inconsistent or artifactual wrt to some theory about them.
You deny heliocentrism? On what basis? What is the alternative? Geocentrism has certainly been proven false.
Actually scientists DO "think stuff up". There would be no point in doing the experiments or making the observations otherwise. Those are tests.
You are agreeing with me while saying you disagree. Scientists do think up stuff but then they have to back it up. Everyone thinks up stuff. Heck if thinking up stuff was what science was about perhaps the Enquirer or the Star should be our greatest source of scientific information. I do not believe that's the case.