[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

False. Theories cannot be proved. They can be supported or, in some cases, disproved. Agreed. That's why I put the word "prove" in quotations.

However, many who stump for evolution treat the subject as if it were proven beyond the shadow of any doubt. In fact, I've noticed that, when it is pointed out that evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven and thus open for inquiry and scepticism (as with anything else in science), that they get themselves all in a huff about how creationists "just don't understand what science means by the word 'theory'", and the implied meaning seems to be that evolution is beyond the pale of investigation (and thus "proven").

[doc30]

However, many who stump for evolution treat the subject as if it were proven beyond the shadow of any doubt. In fact, I've noticed that, when it is pointed out that evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven and thus open for inquiry and scepticism (as with anything else in science), that they get themselves all in a huff about how creationists "just don't understand what science means by the word 'theory'", and the implied meaning seems to be that evolution is beyond the pale of investigation (and thus "proven").

Evolution is open to scientific debate. And, as in any scientific dscipline, the cutting edge is where the debate is concentrated. The problem are scientifically illeterate creationists who want to question evolution, but can't get the basic science right first. The same can be said of any theory. The theory of gravity, quantum theory, general and special relativity, atomic theory, etc., are all unproven and open for discussion.

[Coyoteman]

In fact, I've noticed that, when it is pointed out that evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven and thus open for inquiry and scepticism (as with anything else in science), that they get themselves all in a huff about how creationists "just don't understand what science means by the word 'theory'", and the implied meaning seems to be that evolution is beyond the pale of investigation (and thus "proven").

In most cases that is because the layman who opposes uses "theory" as almost the opposite of "fact" or "proved."

We have seen many on these threads who say, "Evolution is just a theory" as if to say, "There is no evidence for it; now if it was was a proven fact then you'd have something!"

This is why I post my list of definitions periodically.