If you don’t believe me ask Richard Hawkins. See his essay here. You might ask why. Here is Mr. Hawkins reason:
“This essay is designed to remove confusion by abandoning the word theory altogether, when talking to creationists.”
He goes on to write in his essay:
“I now think that trying to clear up this terminological point about the meaning of “theory” is a losing battle. We should stop using “theory” altogether for the case of evolution and insist, instead, that evolution is a fact.”
This is interesting to me. Maybe I am simply minded but it seems that you have to prove any factual claims. For example:
- Fact: I was president of the United States of American.
- Fact: I can lift a car with my bare hands.
- Fact: I have the highest IQ of any living man.
I claim the above facts are true. You have doubts? Prove me wrong. Your response is: “prove the fact”.
Another example is our judicial system. I am assumed innocent before a trial. Imagine the police arrest me for a crime. They go to the District Attorney and claim the fact is that Harry committed the crime. The prosecution has to prove the fact of my illegal activity.
But the problem is that Mr Hawkins wants to use fact as in: the grass is green or Barack Obama is president of the USA. The evolutionist want to claim evolution as a fact to eliminate any debate. They claim the debate is over by claiming evolution is a fact. This is a battle of somatics that has the potential of having a huge impact.
Fortunately, just because someone claims a fact does not mean the claim is a fact. (See my examples above.)
It does not matter if evolution is a theory or if evolution is a fact. The fact is that evolution is a failed hypothesis. (How about that factual claim?) How do I know this fact?
Would you agree that facts have to be compatible with reality? Yes, of course. The fact is that evolution is not compatible with reality or the Laws of Science. This is what Is Evolution a Theory is all about.