I always thought that in the scientific method, theories were based on evidence and facts were the result of tested theories. But apparently to Mr. Miller, evolution is "more than fact" and thus holds a higher place than the scientific method.
You didn't understand what he said at all.
Well, he IS a professor at an Ivy League school an all; it certainly must be true he is a trustworthy agent of truth.
It might be a good idea that we kind of back away slowly and defer to his higher intellect.
(I mean, look at all the fine products we have received from the Ivy League ... Like Hillary, and Bill, and JFKerry ....)
The article is correct, but incomplete. Theories explain a set of obsrevations or facts. What a theory may eventually graduate to, after extensive testing and firm belief in its correctness, is a Law. Like Newton's Laws of Motion, The Laws of Thermodynamics, or the Universal Law of Gravitation.
Not quite. Example:
An apple falls to the ground (fact)
( Next day ) An apple falls to the ground (fact)
There is an attractive force between the ground and the apple, causing it to fall ( hypothesis. OK, not quite. Sue me )
This attractive force can be explained by this relation.....(theory)
No. "Facts" are the information we draw from observation and the results of experiments. They are very simple things, like "we added 10g of HCl into a solution of 5g NaOH & 95g H20, and 7.4 seconds later we observed bubbles in the solution" or something like that.
Facts are extremely small pieces of information, like a dot on a page. It's only when you have lots of facts, and can see a pattern between them, that you can start to guess at what the theory is. The theory is the picture that you think would involve most of those dots. Knowing a bunch of facts is good, but understanding a theory that fits the facts is even better.