You understand, I hope, that in strict scientific language, no theory is ever "proved", right?
Instead, a falsifiable hypothesis can be confirmed by tests which are intended to falsify it.
If tests intended to falsify a hypothesis fail to do so -- in other words, if the hypothesis correctly predicted the test results, then scientists may accept the hypothesis as a confirmed theory -- at least until some future test successfully falsifies it.
That's how science is supposed to work -- nothing is ever "proved", nobody "believes" in a theory or has "faith" it's correct.
At very best, a long confirmed theory -- i.e., the Earth is globe-shaped -- may someday be observed and confirmed as a fact.
But still, in scientific language, the theory is not "proved" and nobody "believes" or has "faith" in it.
Rather it is simply accepted as a confirmed theory or observed as fact.
Such fine points of definition are important, I think, when in discourse with science deniers.
firebrand: "I am not trying to start an argument here, or add to one. Just saying. I believe in evolution and I respect the views of those who don’t."
Right, agreed, and I believe science deniers should be shown exactly the same degree of respect as they show to science itself and to scientists they disagree with.
You agree?
No, I guess I don’t agree, and that is because a literal belief in the Garden of Eden story is a religious belief. I respect those, especially those based on the Bible.
I took a “refresher” course in my faith decades ago, and one of the first questions asked was whether we should believe the Bible literally. The teacher said “You can read the Bible either way. Both ways of reading it are fine.”
When these stories were told around the campfire or whatever, before they got put into writing, I bet no one ever asked that question. Maybe they didn’t even make that distinction in those days.