At which time it moves from theory to fact. Until then, it's a theory, because we do have observed micro-evolution, and we do have some observations called fossils.
I agree, it has not been confirmed because the observation has never taken place. So it shouldn’t be sold to the public as having been confirmed, is a fact, is true, etc., as many on FR have claimed.
I don't think anyone would dispute micro-evolution as a fact; no need to look beyond different dog breeds, or ring species. That is an established fact.
Macro-evolution is still a theory; anyone who claims otherwise is scientifically wrong. However, general relativity is still a theory as well. Should it not be taught?
ID does not have any examples NOR observations to even warrant a rigorous definition of a hypothesis, let alone a theory. How come it should even be taught in a school?
I fully concede evolution is a theory; what evidence do you know of that would give ID the standing of a theory? Without that standing, why is there even a debate about ID being taught in schools, other than from a purely theological/religious viewpoint?
It has been oft asserted as more than a theory on FR and many other places. It has been called truth, fact, and all sorts of terms which are reminiscent of Algore's 'settled science'.
I don't think anyone would dispute micro-evolution as a fact; no need to look beyond different dog breeds, or ring species. That is an established fact.
Agreed, except for the ring species part. That is just a redefinition of the original concept of species to include cases where the organisms are still able to mate and reproduce.
Macro-evolution is still a theory; anyone who claims otherwise is scientifically wrong. However, general relativity is still a theory as well. Should it not be taught?
The issue is not whether the TOE is a theory or not; it is whether or not it is called 'fact'. Adaptation and Natural Selection are facts because they can be tested, observed, and falsified. Not so for the TOE, though.
ID does not have any examples NOR observations to even warrant a rigorous definition of a hypothesis, let alone a theory. How come it should even be taught in a school?"
I don't call ID a scientific theory -- as many on FR do. I think it's an interesting idea to discuss but it can't be tested using scientific principles so it shouldn't be called science.
I am all for using the same standards for any theories -- that is, the classical approach where theories have to be tested and observed in controlled conditions. By this standard ID cannot be considered science but neither can the TOE be considered fact.