I'm back, I guess.

[Endo]

---

On the whole, yes. I can say that evolution is a scientific fact. I'm not denying that. Put in that specific light, I agree 100%.

However, there are numerous claims made by scientists all the time that fall under the banner of evolution. Some of these pan out, some don't. Thus, I am hesitant to say that every claim under the name EVOLUTION made by scientists is indeed a FACT.

Please allow me to explain my thought process here, it's lead to some apparent self-contradiction on my part.

Theory: A claim or statement. This specific meaning of theory stems from the connotation that the common person has; "It's JUST a theory," equivalent to a hypothesis, an untested thought that could possibly explain something, but is otherwise unsubstantiated by evidence.

(Scientific) Theory: The "true" meaning of the word theory, as used by scientists and in the scientific process, a thoroughly tested and backed up claim or statement. Small holes or caveats are acceptable (seen in various attempts at refining various cosmological theories that are otherwise at odds into a Grand Unified Theory) are acceptable, as the theory is able to make relatively accurate, testable predictions and calculations.

[hide]Fact: For me, any claim that I can make based upon my own observations. The wall next to me is white. Fact.

Assuming my sensory facilities are operating properly and in correct context, I am able to verify observations and their continuity, making an observation a fact. If I were to see the wall at night, I would not assume that "The wall is white" is no longer factual, because the lights would be out, and my eyes would not be operating under the correct context. If I were to see the wall as being red tomorrow, then I must assume 2 things: Either the fact is discontinuous, or my observations must be in error. The latter would be quite disconcerting, but I have had the wonderful fortune of not experiencing that yet. If a person were to tell me that the white wall were painted over by workmen to be red, then that would be a questionable and testable claim, but the wall would be observed to be red, and if observed to be red tomorrow, then I could say that the wall is red. The original color of the wall could be called into question, but if it was white for more than one observation, then it is highly plausible that the wall was in fact, painted over. So, for an observer of the wall's painting, it would indeed be a fact, but for me, the painting of the wall would be a scientific THEORY.

In this way, a scientific theory is just one increment of "truthiness" below a personally observed fact for me. I hold scientific theories (evolution included) in high regard and consider properly vetted theories worthy of that term just as viable in making statements about the universe and nature as my own observations.

Welcome back! I don't remember you from before, but I was traveling a lot last year...

You're wrong in saying a scientific theory is a "claim". Rather, it's a series of explanations and predictions. Maybe you should start a thread about it; we're not supposed to get debate-y in the Intro forum

---

Yes, I suppose this is quite debatey, much more that I wanted to have here.