Ok, you win. I've done my homework and you are right...according to current scientific standards and the scientific method...evolution is actually broadly accepted as a scientific fact.

What do you mean by "scientific fact"? Unlike religion, science doesn't claim to know the truth. Evolution is a theory which is used to explain and predict nature. Theories can be adapted if new knowledge is found, and they can be discarded if better theories are developed. Sometimes, several different theories exist to explain the same thing. Are Newton's rules of gravitation correct? No, Einstein proved them wrong, but for most cases, they work to predict what happens if you let something fall. So they can't be considered to be factual, but they are good theories nevertheless. Most scientists consider evolution to be the best theory explaining how species develop. Update: Somebody wrote a rating claiming that Newton's rules were "not wrong, but very accurate approximations". Approximations *are* wrong, even if they were very accurate, and Newton's rules are all but accurate once you leave "normal" speeds and approach light speed. They are effectively wrong. I never claimed they weren't useful or usable, but they're still wrong. Update: Some people rated this down, saying that Newton wasn't wrong. I especially liked this somewhat weird comment: "Einstein never proved Newton's theories to be wrong. Stop trying to sound smart". Fact is: Newtons formulas assume time to be independent from speed. For Newton, time and speed are orthogonal concepts. Newtons formulas are useful for all normal usages, but they're wrong, as Einstein has shown. Wikipedia writes this: "[Einstein's] final lecture climaxed with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity." That's how science works: If you find better theories, they replace older ones. Whether I'm trying to sound smart or not is not even relevant here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#General_relativity

First let us address the term "theory". In non-scientific terms the word theory usually means an idea that is a possible answer or a possible description of something. In police investigations detectives will develop theories to help solve a crime. These theories are possible leads, one of which may lead to the solution of the crime. In science the word theory refers to the current "best guest" that explains our current understanding of the observed natural world. Contrary to what most people think science does not deal in absolutes or facts. So there is no such thing as scientific fact - shocking isn't it? The reason is that science is a process of discovery which unlike religion, science is self-correcting. If science dealt with absolutes it would never advance. For instance, in the early twentieth century Einstein discovered relativity. Einstein's theories made predictions, these predictions were confirmed through experiments - which helped to verify the theory's accuracy. However, general and special relativity only explained the observed properties of universe at large - such as gravity. But in the 1930s a new form of physics emerge called Quantum physics whose theories explained the inner workings of the atom and sub-atomic particles. These two "theories" do not work well together and currently there is a search in science for a unifying theory or the "Theory of Everything". So you can see that in science theories are pliable, they are changed, merged, updated or thrown out based on what we discover. So for practical purposes all scientific thought is composed of "theories". There is the theory of gravity (jump off the roof of your house if you doubt gravity, because it is technically just a theory), theory of light/energy, and so on. One of the theories in biological science is evolution (theres is also physcial evolution which deals with the evolution of the universe). Biological evolution states the all living things evolved or developed from previous living things. Contrary to what misinformed, fundamentalist Christian's would have you believe there is a plethora of evidence that evolution is a real natural process. For instance, we can observe evolution in organisms that reproduce very fast like bacteria. We can see that organisms adapt to new stimuli. For example, bacteria, even insects become resistant to antibiotics or insecticides. The resistance developes through beneficial genetic mutations which select for populations that can survive the new stimuli. We can even see evolution at work when we domesticate animals. This type of evolution is called microevolution. Nontheless, there is plenty of evidence for macroevolution which results in speciation or the development of new species. It is clear to any person with an open mind (that rules out fundamentalists Chrisitans) that there is a close kinship between living animals and extinct animals. For instance, most people think that dinosaurs are extinct, well next time you see a robin, lark or mockingbird you are looking at the direct descendants of reptialian dinosaurs. The lineage between dinosaurs and birds is filled with many transitional fossils that document the evolution of mordern birds. The fossil of Archaeopteryx clearly shows an ancient, small dinosaurian reptile with feathers. Since Archaeopteryx there have been many more transitional fossils discovered. But all you have to do is take a look at the scales on birds feet, the general strutures of their skulls (many dinosaurs had beaks) and pelvis and their relatioship to dinosaurs is unmistakable.Like birds, biological science has docuemented many more examples of macroevolution. Technically speaking evolution is "just" a scientific theory that at the moment best explains the observed natural kinship between all living organisms and the process through which they are created. Since science does not deal in absolutes the best it can do is provide theories. If you want absolute answers to the universe you need to go to you local church, temple or synogogue. Mike de la Flor

No, facts are better described as verifiable data. Examples: The sun emits light. The earth has an atmosphere. Light reflects off mirrors. There are fish in the ocean. These can be experimentally verified, but they are measurable data - facts - not theories or hypotheses. They do depend on definitions... Scientific theories, on the other hand, graduate to that status when a scientific hypothesis passes enough critical testing that the (nearly?) unanimous consent of the scientific community is that the explanation is correct. A "scientific hypothesis" is a guess as to why something is or behaves a certain way. A scientific hypothesis (in the classical, historical, philosophical, "scientific method" sense) must be disprovable by repeatable experiment. If not, it is not a "scientific hypothesis," and can never be a "scientific theory." Many use the terms hypothesis and theory in different ways, but the way I was taught the scienific method, these are the rules. Things can certainly be true and right without being scientific. "Evolution theory" is a guess about pre-history. The past can not be repeated under controlled conditions. History can not be verified by scientific measurement or experiment. Macro-evolution is neither a scientific hypothesis nor a scientific theory and can never be a "scientific fact" because it can never be measured, repeated or verified. Only if we could build a time machine and repeatedly, independently observe all the steps could we categorize evolution as a fact. Of course, if we had the time machine, some could argue that our observation changed the process (it is said you can not observe or measure a system without changing it) invalidating some aspect of the hypothesis...

Evolution is an accepted fact that is described by the "evolutionary theory." There is debate among biologists on the mechanisms and details of evolution, but there is no debate that evolution occurs.

There are several independent aspects of evolution... The basic tenets of evolution theory as I understand it is taught (approximately): 1) mutations (essentially genetic copy error during reproduction) happen 2) individuals with "better" genetic make-up are more likely to survive (natural selection) 3) all life has evolved from lower life forms 4) the original life form(s) grew out of simpler organic chemical processes that just started happening. #1 is a fact. We know mutation happens and have observed copy errors in laboratory situations. #2 is statistically defensible and logical, but is not a certainty. Sometimes a genetically superior individual does not survive or does not reproduce. #3 is not subject to the scientific method. It can not be tested or repeated. It is speculation based on observation and deduction. It assumes without evidence that no external intelligence could have possibly influenced life/biology in the past. #4 is pure speculation. No evidence points to this. No experiment has duplicated it. It is often taught as if it was a fact. It is assumed true by those who are philosophically or religiously committed to atheistic evolution because it is necessary for their position to be defensible.

Facts, laws and theories are three different things, in science, and one cannot turn into another. Facts are simply "things that happen" or "things that are", established by observation. Laws are consistent rules of behavior, derived from observation. Theories are the explanatory framework for facts, which tackle the questions of *how* and *why* the facts are as they are. Hypotheses may be promoted to the status of a theory, if they are wide-ranging enough in their explanatory power and if they withstand extensive testing. Some examples might make how it works plain. Massive bodies behave in a certain way with regards to each other, from apples falling towards the planet to planetary orbits. That is a fact. The "laws of gravity" are derived from observations of this behavior, and include things like Newton's famous Inverse-Square law (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongrav.html ). The Theory of Gravity is our attempt to explain how and why gravity behaves this way, and contains hypotheses still being tested, such as the existance of gravity waves (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GravWaves.html ). Diseases can be observed being passed from one individual to another, or sometimes from things in the environment to an individual. This is a fact. Laws can be expressed as calculations of disease vectors for types and degrees of contagion; these calculations simply describe the behavior of different kinds of diseases, and allow us to make predictions. The explanatory framework for how and why disease spreads in such ways, however, is the Germ Theory of Disease. Materials have been known to fail catastrophically and collapse under weight or pressure. That is a fact. The rules governing this behavior, derived from observation of numerous materials and instances, include a number of the laws of specialised areas of physics. However, the explanatory framework for how and why materials behave that way is known as Stress Theory, and understanding of this theory has allowed engineers to plan everything from bridges to skyscrapers for a couple of centuries now. None of the theories listed above will ever be anything but theories, no matter how well-tested and useful they are. However, they have attained the status of theory *because* they are well-tested and useful -- as have Atomic Theory, the Theory of Relativity, Computational Theory, Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism, and a large number of other foundations of modern science. Similarly, evolution involves facts, laws, and the Theory of evolution. "The descent of species with modifications from a common ancestor" can be said to be the fact of evolution; this has been established by observation, and is not under debate within science. Laws of evolution are laws of genetics and inheritance, as well as laws which have been formulated to quantify how much populations modify in response to different pressures, with the restraints of what biological flexibility is available to them (as, for example, quantification of the mode and tempo of change discussed here: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/36.Tempo&Mode.1.HTML, or here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGrates/Rates.htm). The Theory of Evolution is the explanatory framework for how and why this all works the way it does, and although it has gone far beyond Darwin to include things like genetic drift and lateral transfer of genes, Darwin's ideas about natural and sexual selection are still key concepts. What many Creationists protest is not so much the Theory of Evolution (although that is what they usually target, generally by equating "Theory" with "unproven guess" as that is what the word means outside the fields of science), but the fact of speciation. They usually claim that speciation has never been observed. This is not actually true; speciation has been observed in the wild numerous times even over the last century, in North America in plants in the madder and sunflower families, in Hawaii in the allopatric and sympatric speciation of Drosophila fruit flies as they spread along the island chain, and in East African lakes in cichlid fish. Creationists either deny that this has happened or declare it unimportant because "they are still fruit flies" or "they are still fish" or "they are still sunflowers" -- but this relies on ignorance of basic biological principles. The Theory of Evolution predicts that once speciation has occurred, the reproductively isolated populations will continue to accrue differences which will eventually lead to the formation of populations which are clearly different genera, and eventually higher-level taxonomic differences. We have not been observing speciation and evolution for long, but so far observations would appear to bear out these predictions. Other tests and predictions of the Theory of Evolution, such as the prediction that we will never, ever find the fossil of a mammal in Pre-Cambrian strata, and that certain crucial molecular pathways should be conserved through all related species with a degree of difference directly related to the time since the related species split, have all borne out the theory, so far. So what it boils down to is this: asking if the Theory of Evolution is a fact is the wrong question. Evolution, as the descent of species with modification from a common ancestor, is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is "merely" a useful and well-tested explanatory framework for the observed fact.

Evolution is a scientific theory that fits observed facts. In the same way that the theory of gravity is a scientific theory that fits observed facts. The term "theory" has a very specific meaning in a scientific context: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena." What most laymen seem to think "theory" means is more in line with the definition of "hypothesis": "a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations."

Upfront, I will identify myself as a "young earth" scientific creationist. Facts are, well, facts. Not really debatable. In the context of the question, an example of a fact would be "fossils exist which are the remains of animals which lived sometime in the past". This fact is available to both evolutionists and creationists. Theories are scientific statements, "hypotheses", which have substantial experimental support. In general use, a "theory" is speculative. In the scientific definition, a theory is well established and accepted. That two masses will be attracted to one another is an example of a hypothesis with sufficient experimental support to be a theory. The expansion of the hypothesis to include a quantification of that attraction is of course part of Newton's theories of gravitation. I consider evolution to be neither a "fact" nor a "theory" but a "paradigm". What is a paradigm? From dictionary.reference.com: "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline." Evolution is not itself a testable or falsifiable hypothesis. Too much of it would have occured in the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Other parts of it would take place over too long a time frame to make for a practical experiment. That one species can change to another by an long series of infinitesimal changes which each give a survival advantage is simply not observable in any practical timescale. Other components, such as that non-living matter can beome living matter, have no experimental support, or are even discredited by experiment. A paradigm is useful for interpreting and organizing facts and theories into a meaningful body of knowledge. A paradigm can be based on a strongly supported theory--in which case the paradigm can itself be overturned in time--or it can incorporate untestable philosophical assumptions, in which case it will always require an element of faith. Evolution and creationism, then, are paradigms by which the established facts and theories can be interpreted and organized. Neither can be ultimately disproved scientifically, other than in some components. I think some of the basic assumptions of evolution--self-creating matter and life by random processes--have poor scientific support, and that is in one sense why I am a creationist.

Evolution is both fact *and* theory. See: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/18430

As ever, things are not quite as black-and-white as that! Evolution is in the grey area in between! Strictly speaking, nothing presented by science is a "fact"- science cannot prove anything. It is based on a balance of probability gained on the basis of experimentation and observation. We can't even catagorically prove that atoms exist! However, evolution is not just an idea thought up one night down the pub. It is supported by archelolgy, geology, glaciology, astromony etc. and no other testable theory has been presented that can provide a better explanation.

Neither, it doesnt exist!!!

Our being born a human being confirms existence of Evolution theory. Imagine the situation at the time of the Big Bang ... all Atmans souls getting scattered in the entire Cosmos with a blast so potential that it is beyond the comprehension of a normal human being. This Cosmos is always and ever expanding and shall continue to do so until it again dissolves back to its original shape (the time of Pralaya ... the dissolution of the Cosmos). Now if we try to venture out to the extreme periphery of the ever expanding Cosmos ... the concept of time fails us ... as there is nothing beyond the boundary of the ever expanding Cosmos? There is nothing beyond the boundary of the ever-expanding Cosmos we can measure in terms of time. The concept of time (Kaal as we call it in Hinduism) exists only within the periphery of the ever-expanding Cosmos. Not beyond. The concept of time is as real as we Human Beings! If you consider Human Beings to be pure energy then the concept of time does not hold good! For, in that case everything is energy ... and the need to measure any form on the scale of energy would not be necessitated. If we consider Human Beings as we are ... the physical self ... the self controlled and governed by the senses and the mind ... this physical form of a Jiva (a manifest being) cannot survive without the concept of time ... in the earlier days when the clocks were not yet developed ... the life on Mother Earth was guided by movement of the planets and the sun and to some extent the stars. People used to get up with the first rays of the sun and as the sun set it was time to bid goodbye to work. The scale of measurement of time has changed but the importance of time remains valid always and ever. More here- http://www.vijaykumar.com/human_evolution.html

Ok, lets start with Genisis, " in the begining GOD Created the heavens and the earth" -Not " in the begining pond scum sprouted legs and walked onto the earth that somehow magicaly appeared." See where I'm going with this? It is a theory, and a fairy tale. Although as interesting as it may be, it is nothing more than a creative mans dream.

Evolution is a Theory in the scientific sense. In science, a Theory is a Hypothesis which has stood repeated and rigorous tests. A Fact is something which can be measured - it is a Fact that the boiling point of water is 100C - you can verify that at home. Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was initially a Hypothesis to explain the variety of species observed. Now, having been extensively tested, it is a Theory - like the Theory of Gravity which explains the solar system and the many Theories of Thermodynamics which explain how engines work.

Like everyone else said, theory is based on fact, so maybe you meant fact or speculation? It is both fact and theory.

Evolution, i am pretty sure, is a scientific theory. there really is not enough proof that shows that evolution is fact. thank you.

Macroevolution, although MANY rogue university professors would like to indoctrinate it as a fact, remains a theory ... and NOT fact. ... here are a few videos on the subject of Macroevolution and Intelligent Design. Thank you.

I am offended that they still teach evolution in school!!! I fully know that it is a thoery because that is what it has always been under. It's like the school force-feeding Satanism to the kids-would you like that?!

Well its called the evolution theory, as a christian i think its a insult to God.

Scientific Theory, but in Science that is just about the equivalent of a fact in any other field just does not have the Q>E>D

If you stay within the guide lines and parameters of the theory, then there are facts to support it. You step outside of those parameters then arguments ensue. Currently, evolution is both fact and theory. Look somewhere else if you want certainty.

Fact. We see it happening before our eyes every day. We would not be worried about bird flu mutating if evolution were not fact. Medicine, biology, in fact all the science revolve around the principles.

theory, not everyone agrees with it

error

theory

What constitutes a fact is that it is indisputable. Not, "No one has come up with something better, so. . . ." A theory can be, and, in fact, is often disputed, and for good reason. Then there are beliefs. They can be disputed, unless, that is, you are talking to the believer. Evolution is a mixture of the later 2.

personally, fact.

It depends on what your talking about. Evoution is a real thing. Yes it is real. Every single thing that we know has its own evolution.

It is the simplest and most likely answer to how we got here. The simplest answer is very often the correct one.

Evolution can only ever be a theory. Scientific method teaches that a hypothesis (in laymans' terms, a guess) becomes a theory when some proof appears to support the hypothesis. But a theory can only become a fact when the experiment can be replicated under scientific conditions. Evolution cannot be replicated under scientific conditions, because, by its own nature, it takes place over millions of years. it might interest you to know that many top scientists (and not just christian ones either)do not believe in evolution, or only partially support it, because there is much in the geological record that does not support it. Only a few hundred years ago, many scientists believed in Lamarckianism, whereby it was taught that an animal could consciously change itself gradually to adapt to its environment. That is no longer held even as a valid theory. When I was at school we had a very enlightened teacher. She taught us five theories of creation: biblical, Lamarckian, Darwinian, Von Danieken and modern evolutionary theory. I learned a lot from comparing the different views. It helped me formulate my thoughts, which have shifted even further away from classic evolutionary than when I was younger. Especially having studied anthropology at university and found how much we were not told because it was too difficult to explain.

I am sorry to add to this already very long series of comments, but I felt I had to jump in here. I never imagined so many people really didn't believe in evolution. I am afraid I am assuming you are all American, beasue in Britain I have never met anyone who disbelieves in it, and 'Intelligent Design' is looked upon as a mighty joke believed in by nutters. I am an osteoarchaeologist and have probably seen a great many more of the actual bones than most people, and I am continually amazed by the beauty and brilliance of evolution. For all who talk of missing links, archaeologists are digging up new bones all the time, but we are working in terrible conditions in quite often war-torn countries trying to find things that are millions of years old and incredibly fragile. And yet we have found thousands of bones bearing testament to the gradual evolution of apes into humans - our gradually more upright posture, our increasing brain size, changes in our jaw. I do not see how anyone could throw hundreds of years of our research, revealing one of the worlds great truths, into the bin in favour of the bible, a work of fiction of unknown authorship.

It's a theory supported by a shedload of evidence. For people who object to the word "theory" - Quantum Theory is, as the names suggests, a theory. Without it your PC wouldn't work and your monitor would be black right now. Are people going to tell me that Quantum Theory is nonsense just because it's a theory?

Is (Macro) evolution a fact or theory? First what is a fact, and what is a theory? A fact might be best described, in this context, as the quality of being. In other words a fact is dependant on the evidence. I may not be able to prove that I am sitting here typing this, however, even without the proof it would appear as fact to those around me. A theory is not like a fact at all. A theory is a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument. A theory is then subjected to analysis in an attempt to prove it as fact. One reason evolution is a theory and not a fact is because there aren’t any facts that directly support it. In fact, if one takes a simple look around it would appear that all the things we can see work in exactly the opposite manner. For example, we do not see order coming from chaos. We do not see things around us winding up. Products wear down. Things grow old, not young. Spin a top and it will eventually stop spinning. If you left a top in space, all by itself, how long do you think it would take for it to start spinning all on its own? If there isn’t anyone or anything starting the universe in motion, how do you think it got to where it is today? Another reason why evolution is still a theory and not a fact is because we find that if we take successive steps backwards we end up with a situation where one can’t go any further back. Evolution requires small steps in order to progress and make sense. But there is a problem when it comes to the cell. It can’t be broken down any further without it ceasing to function. Obviously if the cell can’t function in a more simplified form then it can’t exist to make progressive steps. Still another reason why evolution is not a fact is because logic dictates that it is impossible. You cannot get something from nothing. People that believe in evolution seem to believe in it because of how similar species are and because they cannot possibly conceive of any other way of figuring out how we got here. But not being able to understand how we got here isn’t evidence of evolution. I have asked people here and elsewhere that believe that evolution is fact, for a fact that shows that evolution is, well, a fact; but so far, nothing. It would seem to me that if evolution was so obviously true and factual that one could produce a fact that indicates such. When I offered reasons why evolution was not a fact the first response I got from answerbag was “fallacious”. And that was it. Subsequently DavidHume had nothing of substance to add. Besides insulting me his main reason for believing it was that everyone else does. When confronted with the logical impossibility of getting something from nothing, Aristocles said, “Logic and introspection have no place in science”. Well, if that is the case, and it surely isn’t, then evolution has just been proven to be something other than fact. Evolution cannot be a fact if logic has been tossed out. You can’t even have facts without the help of logic. Even major scientists have jumped ship. I believe this answer thoroughly explains why it is a theory and not a fact.

Evolution is a theory, but a well and heavily supported one.

i believe in evolution - think about how similar we look compared to monkeys - we are just bigger less hairy versions :) :)

Evolution is a well-supported theory about the development of species, not the creation of life. And on that note: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/155476

We've seen evolution happen among the more fecund lifeforms with strong selection pressure. Bacteria, in particular. I'm also told that headlice used to be much larger than they are at present. I can't actually verify this, but if it's true it would be some pretty solid evidence in favour. It's also worth nothing that most of the arguments against evolution are fallacious and have been debunked numerous times. Evolution is not concerned with abiogenesis, but merely how already existing lifeforms change over time. Abiogenesis is a difficult problem for science at present, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It -MAY- be that a deity was responsible for abiogenesis, and this is certainly a more plausible religious concept than denying evolution.

Evolution just like Creationism is a theory. There is no diffinitive proof of either. You believe what you want, it's all based on faith. Personally I believe that God created the Heaven and the Earth along with all that inhabit it. Others have faith that what we started as amoebas. Ah vell, can't prove them wrong or right. Don't care too, either. Wouldn't know the truth till the end!! Great question. God Bless, <:))))<><

Darn, how many times do we have to have this question? It is, indeed a theory, with a lot of supporting evidence, but the theory itself is constantly being reworked as parts of it become untenable. Darwin would not recognise it now.

I don't think it can ever really become a fact until we see a known species of fish start to walk out of the ocean someday.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Changes in allele frequencies in populations over time is a fact (ie: changes due to copying errors in DNA during reproduction). We've called that 'evolving'. The Theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation we have for the current diversity of life and what we see throughout the fossil record and DNA history. It doesn't cover "how life began" - only "how life changes and got to be where it is and where it might go". "How it all began" is the study of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is currently better understood than the theory of gravity...

I believe mankind is part of an evolutionary chain otherwise we would not exist at all.How creation began I cannot say,for I never studied it. Anyways he's the lighter side of this issue,please don't be offended ,it's only for fun.

both. It is a scientific theory which is not the same thing as a non-scientific theory. Scientific Theory definition: In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. Non Scientific Theory definition: contemplation or speculation. 7. guess or conjecture.

Actually, its a load of bulls*** in the way you obviously think of it. We have evolved, just as God intended..

I think many people just disagree with the evolution of Humans because there are a few missing links from the Australopithecus to modern day Homosapian Sapian. And people want to feel special and want to believe they were created by god.

Slothmister, whether you or I agree with it is not the issue here, but the fact that you said that evolution is a scientific FACT. The Law of Gravity is a scientific fact, that the earth revolves around the sun is a scientific fact, but Evolution is still the THEORY of Evolution, as science has not yet established it as a fact. Just saying it is does not make it so.

It's like father christmas, stork's. If you wish to live outside of reality it is permitted! Darwin existed and Jesus Christ! Faith and belief is personnel and if you argue and fight about it, it causes wars! M xx

There are many reasons why many disagree with evolution. They all centre around your comment! To claim evolution as scientific fact is spurious! It is an uproven theory that has many evidences that point to the fact. It's opposers also make similar claims to be fact when the best that they can do is agree that their view are also unproven theory with many evidences that point to their particular viewpoint. It is all a matter of which evidences you choose to believe and then we must try to be unbigotted in our understanding of equal? and opposite theories. That is the answer to good science and faith being able to intermingle.

You say poor countries dont have a chance? Well Ethiopia has some of the best long distance runners in the world and is also one of the poorest countries in the world! But point made :)

The word 'fact' is subjective. Society constructs truths, and more often than not splits over them.

Sorry if I rant a little this is basically a simple reason why Evolution is not even possible. 1)Nothing plus Nothing Equals Nothing then why is there something? For something to exist it needs a Cause if there is no Creator (fist cause) then there should be no Creation, and because there is a Creation logical there should also be a Creator? sounds logical right? Then the question goes? Where did ‘God” came from? the Atheist (“trump card..”) There can not be a infinite number of regresses of Causes for a Effect, so logical there must be a Uncaused Cause, Time, space, matter Had a Cause well if this Cause made this effect (TIME) Then logical this Cause would not be held to the laws of time of needing a Cause or aging etc. You get my point. Basically this would mean that "God" Would not need a Cause because he or "the Un-Caused Cause" created time and existed before time it self. follow me? so if this un-Caused Cause Created the world what’s to say he could not speak into existence Man, animals, water, and oxygen? 2) Second “Simple” argument Intelligence can only come from a Intelligent Creator, for a Intelligent being to exist it would need a Intelligent Uncaused being maker? 3) Laws, The laws that Govern time, space, and the world have no Reason to work they way they do there is no logical reason that this laws exist, and all laws logically need a Law Giver right? 4)Fine tuning is a good argument against Naturalistic explanations .The odds against pretty much everything Evolutionist origin’s of life coming from nothing, and then being organized and then evenly spaced ,not to far not to close for life to exist, not to mention the number of lucky planet arrangements, if this planet was not here we would be bombarded by meteors, of if this planet was not here or off by a inch our seasons would be changing every 9 hours , if the sun was to close we burn to far we freeze if even off by a couple inches .Someone already mentioned the odds of protein coming together on its own.. It was a hell of a lot of Zero’s. p/s the Miller experiment can not be used to support evolution because first it was the wrong mixture of gases used to what the Earths condition’s are ,thought to have been . It also does not explain how nothing plus nothing became everything… my 2 cent’s Personally as a Ex. Atheist I have personal experience with this all powerful uncaused Cause Which id love to share with you sometime my email is anglewiingsiam555@hotmail.com This un-caused Creator has interacted with mankind and has given his word to us and it says if you seek him sincerely you will find him. Lose the pride and lose the doubt its useless faith won't kill you and the worst that can happen is you find God and become a born again Jesus freak which is not as bad as I thought it would be ha... but anyways ,sorry for all my typos and thanks for putting up with me, I’m not perfect so please forgive me - Sincerely Rudy

Ha? Back fire? ? no way “Slothminster Basically said" Jesus mother (marry) Got pregnant without a father so if nothing equals nothing how did she get pregnant" well at least that’s what he should of said lol ;) ok lets answer your question its a honest question so lets deal with it 1)First if this Uncaused, all powerful Creator created all the laws of nature ,physic’s etc. then he would have power over them he did make them so he have control over them. So then there is nothing to say that he can't cause a virgin to give birth if you forget he was the one that caused the heavens to expand in half a Mila second . 2) number one and two are just foolish attempts to win the argument by folly. 3)Coincidences ?my my what ever helps you sleep better at night.. By experience of debate and discussion even if I was to answer every objection you or any (atheist-Agnostics etc have) they will usually make one up even if its illogical….? {The logic of the Sloth mister } If you walked into the woods and saw a pile of rocks spelling out “HELP ME!” would you say? " O my look what a coincidence the rocks must of fallen that way over time.." NO YOU WOULD SAY " Someone must have spelled this out I better look around " duh stop being illogical sloth and lose the doubt and stop making excuses loose the pride, and press in and seek with humility and sincerity Look Slothmister you have a Conscience the Conscience could not evolve because it actually goes against Evolution "survival of the fittest" Evolution says, Kill that guy and take his food “ the Conscience says no don't kill him that’s wrong" Evolution says "Rape that girl you will increase your odds of your species and genes ,to be passed on" The Conscience says " Do not Rape its evil" you have a conscience Slothmister we all have one" or had one" its God Given not by parents or upbringing even a child knows its evil to cut someone’s head of, no one has to tell them they know its wrong to steal you don't have to tell them 4.C 3! You are entitled to your opinions , but they do have consequences if I’m wrong I lose nothing but if your wrong you have eternal hell to pay and everything to lose, I don't like Pascal's wager but what im saying is make your choices wisely there is a lot of evidence for there being a Creator Remember God is the one that gave us the laws of logic and common sense. Sincerely Rudy.

Yes. It's a fact.

Technically, no. A scientific fact is a datum. A scientific theory EXPLAINS things. Evolution theory depends on many facts. But it is not in and of itself a 'fact'.

seems like it to me

yes, as much as the theory of gravity is fact.

Theory is never fact but evolution is very well supported. I believe in evolution and the only thing that would make me not believe is a contradiction to Darwins theory, and there hasn't been one yet.

Evolution is a theory…... and it is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"…..The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favour). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Yes and no. First of all are you talking about micro-evolution, or macro-evolution? If you are asking about micro-evolution the the answer is yes it is a true theory. You can see the evidence of micro-evolution in any species. In humans People have different size noses different shaped heads etc.. As for macro-evolution there is no proof ever of a new species ever being created from another species. When there is an anomalie ie: a person is born with 4 arms instead of 2 then that person(or thing) is usually shunned by its peers thus he/she/it never really has the opportunity to create something totally new and different and usually die as a freak.

If it was a scientific fact it would be called The Law of Evolution.