Originally Posted by RayF
Originally Posted by DBT
If there are 'no reservations about its truth,' evolution is a fact. "No reservations" means beyond all reasonable doubt, ie, factual: a fact.

There are "no reservations" as to the reality of evolution.

Let’s see how you arrived at that:

Originally Posted by DBT
”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.''

I believe you misinterpreted this. Not expressing reservations on a topic is not the same thing as claiming the opposite is true. If the intent was to claim its accepted as true, this would have been more direct in saying so. It’s actually supported in the below statement:

Originally Posted by DBT
”'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.''


It’s carefully crafted and the bias is restrained, but it is apparent. The writer implies evolution as a fact, but falls short of openly stating it. I appreciate that he/she defines “fact” and utilizes the term “evidence” instead of “proof”.



You are playing the semantic shuffle. It can be pointed out how and why evolution is a fact in several ways. It has been explained in a number of ways. But none of these ways can be acceptable for those who prefer faith.

How else is creationism to be defended except through semantics and denial?

Anybody who considers the evidence for evolution objectively can see it's reality, that evolution, well beyond all reasonable doubt, is a fact.