[elmer fudd]

"You have been told time and again the significance of the term "theory" with respect to science, in that there is no label "higher" than "theory" for any scientific explanation."

You've not heard of scientific 'laws', like the 'law of gravity'? Gravity is observable; evolution is not. You doubt that gravity is a 'law'?

This demonstrates your ignorance. A law is merely an observation of fact. A theory is the explanation of the facts. Theories are generally held in higher regard than laws. This is partially because many scientific "laws" don't always hold true. Newton's laws are a good example of this, including Newton's "law of gravity".

[dandelion]

Umm, by chance are you a philosophy major? Because theory is not an *explanation* of fact - it is an ATTEMPT at explanation, a hypothesis forwarded for review. The whole idea behind theory is to try and PROVE it, thereby rendering it fact.

Philosophy finds more beauty in what *could be* rather than in what *is*. That is why I am assuming you must be majoring in liberal arts - which is not a bad thing - but it is wrong to assume that a theory is better than a fact. Theory is about finding truth - and in science, truth is in fact.

[connectthedots]

This demonstrates your ignorance. A law is merely an observation of fact. A theory is the explanation of the facts. Theories are generally held in higher regard than laws. This is partially because many scientific "laws" don't always hold true. Newton's laws are a good example of this, including Newton's "law of gravity".

It is apparent that your screen name is as appropriate for you as mine is for me.

[metmom]

When has the law of gravity not held true?