The evidence is extremely strong - now I might be wrong here but I would think the reason why it's not a scientific fact - instead it's a scientific theory - is something to do with the fact that all the tons and tons of extremely strong evidence is circumstantial ? Is that perhaps the reason or is there another reason, etc?
As Dawkins has said, to quote from the Dawkins wikipedia page:
' In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know". When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English." '
EvF
As Dawkins has said, to quote from the Dawkins wikipedia page:
' In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know". When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English." '
EvF
