Replies

A few evolutionists claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact is not very impressive. If it were a 'fact', there would be no reason for them to refer to evolution as a theory; would there?

There are a lot of people who would just as readily claim that creation is a fact. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true; does it?

A few evolutionists claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact is not very impressive. If it were a 'fact', there would be no reason for them to refer to evolution as a theory; would there?

I think a lot of this fact/theory confusion goes back to the late S.J. Gould. He advocated the distinction between what he called, "the fact of evolution" and "the theory of evolution".

The "fact of evolution" is the empirical record of the succession of the various epochs of life on earth as recorded in the fossil record and informed by radioactive dating and other methods.

The "theory of evolution" is the body of fact and speculation informing the causes and mechanisms of this succession. His position was that the "fact of evolution" was unassailable on a rational empirical basis, whatever the uncertainties might be in "the theory of evolution."

I have always thought that it would be better to refer to "the facts of earth history", so that it would be clear that we are leaving "the theory of evolution" out of the picture when we discuss them. Note that Cuvier formed a picture of the epochs of life on earth which presumed a succession of cataclysmic events dividing these epochs, amounting to a non-biblical SERIES of "special creations".

A few evolutionists claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact is not very impressive. If it were a 'fact', there would be no reason for them to refer to evolution as a theory; would there?

There are a lot of people who would just as readily claim that creation is a fact. Repeating something over and over again does not make it true; does it?

I am neither a evolutionist or creationist. You assume something you don't know. To deny the empirical evidence for evolution though would deny most of biology and its premises. No fact ever thought or thought to be has ever been 100% proved. However if anything could be proved 100%you would still deny the obvious and any empirical evidence because you are absorbed with your own opinion which is not a new thought but a refuted one. Most similar to the prime mover. But your repeating something over and over again does not make it true; does it?

A few evolutionists claiming that the theory of evolution is a fact is not very impressive. If it were a 'fact', there would be no reason for them to refer to evolution as a theory; would there?

This has been explained at least a dozen times now. Why do you continue to pretend it hasn't?

There are theories of evolution about the processes involved in the fact of evolution. It's not an "either/or" situation.