It would have advanced to the status of a "Law", as have the laws of motion, thermodynamics, and others.
The THEORY of Evolution is not proven fact, by its very name, which does have scientific significance.
To elevate theories to the status of laws implies a willingness to atribute far more weight to the lowly hypothesis than is warranted.
That, in my opinion makes for a far looser cannon on the deck of scientific inquiry than one who refuses to call a theory fact.
Make of that what you will, but as a scientist, the refusal to state that any theory is fact is entirely scientifically correct.
> The question of believing in evolution as FACT can actually be answered quite simply. If it were indeed proven fact, it would not be called a "theory". ... The THEORY of Evolution is not proven fact, by its very name, which does have scientific significance.
Wow. Just... wow.
Tell me: are the results of the Thoery of Relativity a fact, or not? If an atom of uranium fissions, is there energy release? Does subjective time change for a body moving near the speed of light?
Does an apple fall according to the precepts fo Newtons theory of gravity?
Do you even knwo what "theory" *means?*
Let me clear up a few misconceptions you have. All scientific theroies, even the laws you mention, are not proven. There are no proven theories in science. Also, a scientific theory, by definition, can never be a fact. A scientific theory is an explanation for observed facts. It is the narrative that explains the observed facts. It is impossible to prove a theory. Scientific theories can only be disproven through the accumulation of facts that do not support the arguments of the theory. If newly obtained facts do not fit the established theoretical framework, then either the theory has to be modified (i.e. Newtonian physics extended to relativistic physics) or a newer theory, with more sufficient explanative properties, must be constructed. Evolution fits this definition of a scientific theory. It is testable and has been supported by predicted observations.
To elevate theories to the status of laws implies a willingness to atribute far more weight to the lowly hypothesis than is warranted.
Based on your additional statemetns regarding theories and hypotheses, you, like many people, are not scientifically literate. A hypothesis is a testable prediction that will produce additional observed facts. The results of thousands of testable hypotheses have been used to generate the facts that are used to construct theories. In the heirarchy of science: hypotheses are used to produce facts. The observed facts are organized under theories.
Make of that what you will, but as a scientist, the refusal to state that any theory is fact is entirely scientifically correct.
You are correct, but for the wrong reasons as I've listed above.