Originally Posted by DBT
The failure isn't on the 'evolutionist' side. Evolution is a fact, theory lies in explaining the means of evolution, not the question of it....which is settled.
Quote:
''Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.''

''In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.''

Thank you for that, DBT. It’s a good example of productive, uncontentious counterpoint.

Allow me, however, to point out that your definition of a fact and NAS’s definition of a fact differ. This very much presents part of my point.

“When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
- Socrates