The hypothesis of common descent, like the many hypotheses of gravity, have yet to be demonstrated.
We are not talking about common usage. We are talking about how terms are used in science. There is often a substantial difference between the two.
The fact that a penny drops is a...fact. This is matched on the evolution side by the observation that genetic change occurs between one generation and the next. Both are examples of "fact" or "data."
The theory part comes in as an explanation for the many facts (or many thousands of facts). This is done according to the following definitions:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)From our past conversations I gather that you do not accept the theory of evolution for religious reasons.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
That's fine. But your religious belief does not constitute scientific data, nor does it negate scientific theory.
spam placemarker
Neither am I, which should be obvious from the content of my post. I expected more from you than a conditioned response.
Save your list for some one who needs it.
That's fine. But your religious belief does not constitute scientific data, nor does it negate scientific theory.
My religious beliefs are irrelevant to what I posted, and if you judged my post based upon the merits of my argument, you would have concluded the same.
Again, I'm very disappointed....but thank you for the response anyway.