Here we go again.
Here is a link to a good discussion of the scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
When discussing scientific methods, it is best to be aware of these guidelines.
For a starter, there are billions and billions of facts out there, but there is no such thing as "evidence" (better try a courtroom). A theory organizes these facts into a framework. Might be right, might be wrong, might be ridiculous. But, how do we know which? Well, lets test it!
From this theoretical framework one can derive hypotheses (i.e., one can make a prediction). For example, "Rocks are hard. If I bang my head against a rock it is bad news for my head but not for the rock." That hypothesis can be tested. Chances are your head will suffer more than the rock. From this observation you can (if your head has survived) confirm the hypothesis; in other cases an hypothesis may be rejected, and in still other cases its a draw (no data, try again some other way).
A good theory allows accurate predictions (i.e, hypotheses which are supported when tested).
This leads us back to the statement "evolution is 'more than fact' and thus holds a higher place than the scientific method." This is nonsense. Evolution is a theory based on facts and confirmed hypotheses or predictions. The attempt to say that evolution is only a theory is bogus--of course its a theory. But then, so is electricity, and I wouldn't want to bet the rent money against that one!
Lets try again. I believe that the moon is made of green cheese. That's my theory. Well, if that is true the six Apollo landings should have found some evidence of cheese. Nope! No cheese. Hypothesis not confirmed. My theory is either wrong or seriously in need of revision.
So, these are the rules. If you want to play this game you have to play by these rules. If not, start your own game and make up your own rules. However, the success of your efforts (the accuracy of your predictions) will determine your credibility.
Many of the comments following the evolution posts attempt to twist the rules. As quoted above "theories were based on evidence and facts were the result of tested theories." This is obviously incorrect: theories are based on confirmed hypotheses, which in turn attempt to organize and explain facts.
I have provided a link to a good summary of the scientific method. If you don't want to play by these rules, fine. But at least have the honesty to admit where you are coming from and don't claim to be doing science.
Unfortunately, I don't have the slightest hope that this post will make any difference.
Carry on, folks.
That was the BEST post I have seen on the "Fact-Evidence-Hypothesis-Theory" fog. Thank you! I hope you intend to stay around and help enforce those rules (and maybe enlighten us some more). Are you a tecaher? That was an excellent description of the issue.
No, the moon may still be made of green cheese -- the Appollo folks may have just landed on the outer covering of the cheese. All you can say is that your hypothesis is neither confirmed nor rejected by the facts currently available. Newtonian mechanics was not rejected by facts until the motion of objects at close to the speed of light was examined.
Good post. What test shows that an oak and a coyote have a common ancestor?