[donh]

If I say that a fact is a well observed occurrence and that a coherent set of supportive facts can be offered as proof of a hypothesis then I am using different definitions for fact and proof than you are. My set comes from my background and are understood and usable in my environment.

Uh huh. And when you stand up before a school board to defend science, what set of definitions of the word "proof" do you think will make the most sense? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If "proved" doesn't mean unquestionably true, than it means questionable. The theory of evolution is, by your lights "proved", ie. questionable. And the theory of creationism is also "proved" in that sense. So they are even. So both should be taught.

What you have achieved, by the sloppy use of the word "proof" in your circles, is an abdication of the responsibility to explicate the very conditional nature of scientific acceptance, just when it needs to be most carefully understood in educational circles, if they are to avoid being pulled back into the Middle Ages by creationists, flat-earthers, and astrologers.

[Ophiucus]

And the theory of creationism is also "proved" in that sense. So they are even. So both should be taught.

Creationism is in no sense proved - it only has a limited interpretation put forth by an equally limited sect of one biblical writing.

What you have achieved, by the sloppy use of the word "proof" in your circles, is an abdication of the responsibility to explicate the very conditional nature of scientific acceptance,

What we have achieved is scientific principles and proofs necessary to develop new life-saving drugs, new surgical techniques, and the understandings of disease that once killed millions. Not bad for an abdication of responsibility.

just when it needs to be most carefully understood in educational circles,

It does need to be understood - not just in abstract terminology but concrete examples of the scientific method and the very real results it produces.