It may be backed up by "SOME" evidence, but not enough to make it a law. In other words, a theory is just someone's guess, usually an educated guess, about a body of evidence. Until there is enough evidence to prove, beyond any doubt, that under the exact same circumstances, the same body of evidence will yield the same results every time, it is still just a guess. The reason scientific laws are laws is the indisputable fact that the same actions will yield the same results every time. On the other hand, theories are unproven, and one has to accept their premise based solely on faith because there is no observable proof. In that mega-dump posting earlier in this thread, all of that information was impressive, but not even the author can state that his assertions are true based on observable evidence while his supposition was occurring. His evidence comes from the fossil records, but I can state that the fossil record does NOT show evolution, but a series of individual creatures who have similar attributes and my theory is just as valid as his. After all, I observe that the creatures exist in the fossil record, I observe that there is a similarity, but my conclusion is different. If my theory is not as valid as his, explain why.
quote Please show me ONE textbook that teaches evolution as fact, not theory. /quote
A theory is taught as one of many interpretations. If there are no alternatives supplied within a source material, then one must conclude that the only material supplied is factual, not theoretical.
Oh, in lieu of providing any examples you make up a bunch of tripe.
Now I understand how you come to the conclusion that the Bible is fact.
A scientific theory cannot become a law. Even if we went back in time, and confirmed common descent of species, etc, etc evolution would still be a theory.
No. In order for a theory to be so, it must have some proof of validity. The strength of the proof determines it's rank as fact. The number of theories is irrelevant as far as strength of fact goes.
The strength of the proof for evolution has determined it's rank as strong fact, in a field of one. The stregth of proof is why the field contains only one theory.
Well really it is that the same actions have so far yeilded the same results every time. A law could potentially be disproved. The first law of thermodynamics which basically states that energy can neither be created or destroyed could be shown false one day for example. A scientific law is not absolute truth. It hasn't been proven.
His evidence comes from the fossil records, but I can state that the fossil record does NOT show evolution, but a series of individual creatures who have similar attributes and my theory is just as valid as his. After all, I observe that the creatures exist in the fossil record, I observe that there is a similarity, but my conclusion is different. If my theory is not as valid as his, explain why.
Because your theory does not explain why fossils are found in that particular order.
A theory is taught as one of many interpretations. If there are no alternatives supplied within a source material, then one must conclude that the only material supplied is factual, not theoretical.
Does this apply to a textbook on Atomic theory too?
A "theory" and a "law" are two different animals. A 'theory' does not, ever, become a 'law'.
Your theory is not as valid because it does not offer testable predictions to support or refute it.
What makes you believe that theories are only valid in the presence of, or that the scientific method exclusively relies on, observed phenomena? Science is based on our human ability to see patterns and extrapolate data as well as other deductive and inductive reasoning.
"A theory is taught as one of many interpretations. If there are no alternatives supplied within a source material, then one must conclude that the only material supplied is factual, not theoretical.
Only if considered without critical thinking skills. Further, if you make that kind of inference, it is evidence of poor understanding of science and its methodology.