What the scientific laws and stuff actually mean.

[Agayek]

1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.

While you are absolutely correct on everything else in your post, the semantic science-nazi in me just has to point out that we can comprehend evolution, we know exactly how it works, and we can reproduce it at will, in a laboratory or otherwise.

The short version of it is that evolution/natural selection works because of the imperfection involved in splitting chromosomes, specifically in reproductive cells. In short, one or both of the parents' genes are modified slightly by the RNA in the duplicating process (typically because of a chemical change in the cell or something along those lines), which creates mutations. If the mutation causes the creature to be more able to reproduce, then it will have more children than any other members of its species, and over the course of several generations the number of creatures with that trait will outnumber and eventually kill off the old species.

It's actually remarkably easy to reproduce the effect. The simplest way is to have a culture of bacteria and then introduce a low-dosage of antibiotics to it. Give it a few days (assuming you kept the dosage low enough to not kill all of the bacteria), and that culture will then be immune to that antibiotic.

 

[Axolotl]

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".

That argument was not created by Dawkins, it's by Bertrand Russell.

 

[Bradeck]

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".

That argument was not created by Dawkins, it's by Bertrand Russell.

Can you site the source? I thought Dawkins was the first to put this forward in terms of anti-theist belief. What I know of Russel is he used Reductio ad absurdum in his attacks against Christians, but I haven't read anything based off his works around indifference.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Certain parts of what is called the theory of evolution are easily verified. The first part is natural selection - the assumption that animals with beneficial traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Examples: relative rarity of albino rodents like squirrels, rabbits, observed changes in moth population during early industrialization, etc. This point is beyond contention: a life form best adapted to a certain set of conditions is most likely to survive and reproduce.

Evolution takes the observed truth of natural selection and presumes that on a long enough time table, a beneficial trait will be common in a species. Demonstrating the truth in this one is a hair harder but still easy enough to show: dog breeding, for example, offers an example of evolution albeit with human intervention as a mechanism rather than natural selection.

Speciation is the assumption that the process of natural selection would eventually alter a species by such a degree that it is no longer the same species - in other words, vast changes. This is the part where there is room for contention all told as this has never been observed directly in complex life forms as doing so would require hundreds if not thousands of generations.

 

[Lukeje]

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".

That argument was not created by Dawkins, it's by Bertrand Russell.

Can you site the source? I thought Dawkins was the first to put this forward in terms of anti-theist belief. What I know of Russel is he used Reductio ad absurdum in his attacks against Christians, but I haven't read anything based off his works around indifference.

The wikipedia article contains the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

 

[Bradeck]

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".

That argument was not created by Dawkins, it's by Bertrand Russell.

Can you site the source? I thought Dawkins was the first to put this forward in terms of anti-theist belief. What I know of Russel is he used Reductio ad absurdum in his attacks against Christians, but I haven't read anything based off his works around indifference.

The wikipedia article contains the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Thank you for showing me that. I was citing the wrong person all this time! Good to present proper citations on my statements! Again, thank you.

 

[chadachada123]

I really advise you to go onto youtube and watch some videos by an amateur scientist/atheist blogger by the name of Thunderfoot. He also participates in a weekly livecast on youtube labeled the Magic Sandwich Show, in which several of the most intelligent men on both sides, attempt to debate these deep scientific quandaries you know find yourself in.

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".

Oh, I know who Thunderf00t is, and I've seen a few of his videos (and will certainly watch your suggested one if I find it). It sounds like just a play off of Russell's Teapot (same, but with a Teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars), but will be explained far more completely than Bertrand Russell's paragraph-long blurb.

I haven't seen any of the Magic Sandwich Show, despite being subscribed to Thunderf00t. I only subscribed a month or two ago though, so I'm not sure why I haven't seen any of those videos.

Edit: Freaking seriously? I got ninja'd about Bertrand Russell? And here I thought that I would bring something new to the table.

But naw, I know pretty much every great argument against superstitious belief and dogma.

 

[Bradeck]

I really advise you to go onto youtube and watch some videos by an amateur scientist/atheist blogger by the name of Thunderfoot. He also participates in a weekly livecast on youtube labeled the Magic Sandwich Show, in which several of the most intelligent men on both sides, attempt to debate these deep scientific quandaries you know find yourself in.

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".

Oh, I know who Thunderf00t is, and I've seen a few of his videos (and will certainly watch your suggested one if I find it). It sounds like just a play off of Russell's Teapot (same, but with a Teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars), but will be explained far more completely than Bertrand Russell's paragraph-long blurb.

I haven't seen any of the Magic Sandwich Show, despite being subscribed to Thunderf00t. I only subscribed a month or two ago though, so I'm not sure why I haven't seen any of those videos.

Edit: Freaking seriously? I got ninja'd about Bertrand Russell? And here I thought that I would bring something new to the table.

But naw, I know pretty much every great argument against superstitious belief and dogma.

Here is their content! Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMagicSandwichShow

 

[Xanadu84]

As I said, so long as you argue admittedly falsifiable ideas as fact, I'll disagree with you.

I think I might be able to help here: We need to talk about the term falsifiable.

Falsifiable means that in testing a hypothesis, there are outcomes that would disprove the hypothesis. Freud's theories are not falsifiable because whatever you observe, Freud can twist it to fit his "theory". What good is a theory if you invent it and it couldn't even hypothetically be proven false? God is not falsifiable, because no evidence could disprove him. That's what makes religion bad science. However, gravity IS falsifiable. If you dropped a rock without any trickery and it DIDN'T fall, that would disprove gravity. Gravity is falsifiable because there could be data that proves it wrong. Gravity is a solid theory because it could be proven wrong, but it never is.

Does this clarify things?

I've always said gravity is a solid theory--I think I actually said that somewhere in here. It sure does seem like we're not floating up and away on a consistent basis, after all.

I'm not talking about gravity, I'm talking about the use of the word falsifiable. You said that there was a problem with arguing falsifiable ideas as facts. In actuality, strong facts MUST be falsifiable. If something is not falsifiable, it is basically psuedoscience. In order for a hypothesis to be falsifiable, it must be possible to bring forth evidence that disproves it. Psuedoscience like Freud's theories are not falsifiable, because no matter what data you might possibly gather, Freuds theory backs it up through strange and vague twists: That's not good science. The theory of gravity IS falsifiable. Because there are tests you could do that would hypothetically disprove gravity. Like dropping a rock. If you dropped a rock and it fell upward, we would have to rethink a few things. But it never falls up. The fact that there are so many tests that COULD disprove gravity, but never DO, is what makes gravity such a strong theory.

It is good to be falsifiable. Falsifiable means that it is possible to properly test. If something is not falsifiable, the only way you can believe it is through blind faith, NOT science. Saying that a hypothesis is falsifiable is a compliment.

 

[Xanadu84]

1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.

Theres a problem here, and i is in practicality.

If we apply this logic, then we can't teach English because there's no guerentee that anyone outside of this classroom speaks English. We can't teach history. We can't teach math. We can't teach basketball because we can't be sure that that ball exists, or the players, or the score, or if this is all a dream.

Sure, philosophically, Evolution might be wrong. But given the number of times tests have independently confirmed it, evolution has about the same chance of being a real thing as gravity. Also, saying that evolution isn't a practical certainty because we don't understand all of it is like saying that because we don't know a pattern to Pi, multiplication might not be real. We may not be sure of every little detail about the field of Evolution, but there are some basics that we can safely say are set in stone.

 

[El Dwarfio]

please take it to PMs and not derail the thread)

Your whole post is completely unrelated to the OP, why post it if you aren't trying to derail the thread.

OT: Yeah I think its related to modern language conceptions. Some people see the "Theory of Evolution" and therefore assume it's only a 'theory' and hasn't been proven. Meh I don't givashit, doesn't lessen my life in anyway.

NB - almost spelt theory feary, wtf?!?

 

[El Dwarfio]

One of my favorite arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, is the argument of relative objective indifference. I personally do not know that there is NOT a indestructible 2 quart purple teapot floating in orbit within the rings of Jupiter. I cannot test this, nor can I disprove it in any sense. Therefor, it is entirely feasible to assume that their currently is such a teapot orbiting Jupiter. However, because said teapot will not, and cannot, influence my life in ANY sense, then I do not care if it exists or not. Same with a 2000 year old zombie Jewish male who sits on a cloud in a place called "Heaven".

That argument was not created by Dawkins, it's by Bertrand Russell.

The only problem is, if your willing to accept there is the whatever tea-pot, why not go the whole hog and say the teapot is all powerful? It's not that much of a further stretch.

There are many, much more logical arguments against religion, a few also put forward by Russel, none by Dawkins.

 

[Erana]

please take it to PMs and not derail the thread)

Your whole post is completely unrelated to the OP, why post it if you aren't trying to derail the thread.

Its not unrelated to the OP.
Part of the problem of the failure of many people to understand the concept of a scientific theory is that people want to raise science on a pedestal and call anything accepted by the scientific community for said subject to the level of an absolute truth. If said people would come to terms with the fact that science isn't about right and wrong, but instead a series of evidence that strongly suggest or support ideas, they wouldn't be so afraid of the term, "Theory."

I was simply attempting to stave off the people chomping at the bit for a religion debate. I've gotten some pretty strange interpretations of my posts for simply mentioning "Jesus" in the past.

 

[Agayek]

Its not unrelated to the OP.
Part of the problem of the failure of many people to understand the concept of a scientific theory is that people want to raise science on a pedestal and call anything accepted by the scientific community for said subject to the level of an absolute truth. If said people would come to terms with the fact that science isn't about right and wrong, but instead a series of evidence that strongly suggest or support ideas, they wouldn't be so afraid of the term, "Theory."

While you're correct on a broad scale, you're somewhat wrong with the bolded bit. Science is the method by which we can construct human-understandable models of existence. It's less "we've discovered evidence that implies X causes Y" and more "We think Y is caused by X and we have no evidence to the contrary".

It's a subtle difference, but it's very much there. We're not able to divine the true nature of reality, we're just not built for it. We have to relate it to something we can understand, which is where models come from. For example, we have a model of quarks that explains their existence and what their effects are, but (if the model continues to hold true) it's literally impossible to observe one.

The point is, we're not able to say X implies Y because Z with any degree of real truth. The best we can say is "according to the current model, X should imply Y because Z".

 

[Clearing the Eye]

1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.

Theres a problem here, and i is in practicality.

If we apply this logic, then we can't teach English because there's no guerentee that anyone outside of this classroom speaks English. We can't teach history. We can't teach math. We can't teach basketball because we can't be sure that that ball exists, or the players, or the score, or if this is all a dream.

Sure, philosophically, Evolution might be wrong. But given the number of times tests have independently confirmed it, evolution has about the same chance of being a real thing as gravity. Also, saying that evolution isn't a practical certainty because we don't understand all of it is like saying that because we don't know a pattern to Pi, multiplication might not be real. We may not be sure of every little detail about the field of Evolution, but there are some basics that we can safely say are set in stone.

That's just silly. You can teach theory in school and in fact all schools do teach them. I very much doubt you could honestly tell me not a single theory (even your definition of theory and not my own) was touched upon in your years of schooling.

Your basketball example is also hopelessly flawed. Why on Earth could you not teach students how to play a sport, just because there's a chance it doesn't exist? We've been doing it for quite a while and the world hasn't ended, so I don't see the harm.

 

[Vegosiux]

The main problem here is that in daily speech, a "theory" is what a scientists would call a hypothesis.

Or not even that. A hypothesis is an educated guess at worst. In daily speeck/pop culture, "theory" is usually used interchangeably with "random wild guess".

Now, the thing with science is, that when something "scientifically impossible" happens, any serious scientists will go "Well now, let's check this out some more" as opposed to, I don't know, ignoring and covering up the whole thing and trying to rewrite the school books.

And remember; the greatest discoveries don't sound like "Eureka!", they sound like "Now that's funny..."

 

[A Random Reader]

1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.

Yeah, I'll deal with this part first. No. Evolution (Or natural selection, if that's your taste) is fact, it can be replicated in a lab, or observed. (Google "Observed examples of speciation", "ring species" or PM me and I'll search for more.) Also, what do you mean by we can't comprehend it? I can understand that we cannot fully 'prove' that anything is true (The fact that the universe exists and we can learn anything about it is the fundamental assumption all science makes!) as it could be a simulation, a series of chances that is long to the point that it defies belief or any other unlikely postulation. However, this is just useless postulation. What is useful about science is it's predictive capability, allowing us to create models of reality that are accurate enough to be applied to the real world, and postulation is like this is useless. It will be corrected if evidence is shown that counters it. However, you seem to be talking about the debated parts of evolution, which is the WHY, not the IF. It has been proven beyond doubt (At least until they find rabbits in the cretaceous period) that it occurs, and the debated parts (Punctuated equilibrium, Phyletic Gradualism) are not taught to students until the point where they have enough background knowledge to debate in the scientific community or test the hypothesis themselves. However, we still teach according to our current knowledge.

2. Throughout scientific history we've proven one thing, no matter what we consider "fact" we always find something to disprove it or at least find we're not totally correct. This means that we are far from truly understanding the underpinnings of the way things work. Therefore all current scientific fact/law is subject to further review and therefore fallible. We are human after all, make mistakes on a regular basis, transpose numbers/decimal places which throw off data collected, etc. In otherwords anything we "know" today can be disproven or at least shown to be partially wrong somewhere down the line.

How is the relevant? Yes, if rabbits are found in the cretaceous period, or some other observation is shown to disagree with the current theory, it would be discarded or altered. However, no such information has been shown, so this is just more useless postulation. We teach according to the current evidence, not what evidence may or may not be found.

3. One of the biggest issues in scientific research is that we're not approaching the questions in an objective manner. Most studies I've read have one underlying problem. They set goals to prove things rather than objectively seek an answer. What I mean is they set a goal like "Prove x causes y" rather than doing a less focused research. They attempt to prove their theory is correct, but I feel that a lot of scientists find their theory to be wrong and skew data in favor of said theory. If we were to set a goal to "see what happens when x is introduced to y and study the effect of x on y" I would think science would be better off.

To explain point 3 more succinctly, too many studies are started with an end goal in mind and that tends to skew the data. Why? Possibly because the data doesn't always support the conclusion the scientist(s) are looking for and there's the human factor involved. By which I mean that data can be manipulated to show the results wanted.

In the end what we need are research groups with undefined end goals. Rather than try to prove or disprove something we need to just study things and let the data form the conclusion.

Example: how "Global Warming" suddenly became "Global Climate Change" when the data started to show that temperatures weren't rising like they said they were. I suggest people read the afterward of State of Fear by Michael Crichton as it pertains heavily to my current view on science and how research is handled.
I'm sure a number of you are going to disagree with me, and thats fine. But remember that science in the last few centuries has proved one thing: Everything we think is true now tends to be disproven or at least partially misunderstood years down the road.

Which is why we have the rest of the scientific community to critique the research of other scientists, and faulty research is usually quickly found out. Also, the studies you're talking about are to test that the results of the situation agree with a hypothesis another scientist makes. If not, the hypothesis is altered, or the career of the scientist is ruined. Not relevant.

To sum, 2&3 are irrelevant, and 1 is incorrect.

 

[Xanadu84]

1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.

Theres a problem here, and i is in practicality.

If we apply this logic, then we can't teach English because there's no guerentee that anyone outside of this classroom speaks English. We can't teach history. We can't teach math. We can't teach basketball because we can't be sure that that ball exists, or the players, or the score, or if this is all a dream.

Sure, philosophically, Evolution might be wrong. But given the number of times tests have independently confirmed it, evolution has about the same chance of being a real thing as gravity. Also, saying that evolution isn't a practical certainty because we don't understand all of it is like saying that because we don't know a pattern to Pi, multiplication might not be real. We may not be sure of every little detail about the field of Evolution, but there are some basics that we can safely say are set in stone.

That's just silly. You can teach theory in school and in fact all schools do teach them. I very much doubt you could honestly tell me not a single theory (even your definition of theory and not my own) was touched upon in your years of schooling.

Your basketball example is also hopelessly flawed. Why on Earth could you not teach students how to play a sport, just because there's a chance it doesn't exist? We've been doing it for quite a while and the world hasn't ended, so I don't see the harm.

Umm...so...Your admitting you were wrong. That was the point. By your standards, facts don't exist. If you were to teach evolution as a concept that we can't be sure about, we may as teach basketball by acknowledging that the concepts of balls existing in a physical world might be a myth. Technically true? Sure. But the odds of it being that way are so impossibly small there is no reason to even acknowledge the possibility, and acknowledging that philosophical point will only serve to encourage those being taught to give consideration to asinine alternatives.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

**snip**

Point being missed, as usual. Context being twisted, as happens a lot on this site. Teaching Theory as Fact is wrong. That is my point. Theory is not fact. Its theory. And yet these theories are being taught as if they're fact. That is a misunderstanding of epic proportions. Its a concept, an idea, not a truism as much as you'd like to believe it.
In essence believing theory to be fact is akin to having faith that God exists without incontrovertible proof.

1. Teaching Theory as fact is wrong. Until a theory is proven incontrovertibly, it cannot be a Scientific fact or law. Evolution is still theoretical. Not saying its bullshit, but the fact that we don't understand it fully, cannot comprehend it nor prove that the theories behind it actually happened exactly that way, cannot reproduce it in a lab nor observe it means its not a fact. Its a theory with data supporting the theory but never outright proving it.

Theres a problem here, and i is in practicality.

If we apply this logic, then we can't teach English because there's no guerentee that anyone outside of this classroom speaks English. We can't teach history. We can't teach math. We can't teach basketball because we can't be sure that that ball exists, or the players, or the score, or if this is all a dream.

Sure, philosophically, Evolution might be wrong. But given the number of times tests have independently confirmed it, evolution has about the same chance of being a real thing as gravity. Also, saying that evolution isn't a practical certainty because we don't understand all of it is like saying that because we don't know a pattern to Pi, multiplication might not be real. We may not be sure of every little detail about the field of Evolution, but there are some basics that we can safely say are set in stone.

I didn't say anything about philosophy, nor even hint at it. I merely pointed out that theories are being taught as fact, and as such is redefining the word "fact". Your english metaphor and the basketball thing is just a ridiculous non sequitur.


To explain, I never said evolution is wrong, nor did I say it was right. I merely stated we don't know enough about it to prove it as fact.

3 Points you should consider before you confuse Evolution with Adaptation.

1. All living things change through time in order to survive in their environment.

2. Adaptation involves short-term changes to suit the habitat and environment.

3. Evolution is a long-term process wherein changes occur in the genetic level for a better functioning and survival as a race.

Individuals can adapt, but it takes a whole population to evolve.


In the end we need to be teaching that science itself is an evolving study, that what might hold true today may not necessarily be true tomorrow due to previously unknown things. Aside from that, we've yet to truly study the universe we live in (just seeing it through a telescope doesn't mean we understand it) and there may be things we can't see that have effects we aren't taking into consideration by our ignorance of those things. That has been my whole point. I haven't once said science is bullshit or wholly wrong, but people treat it like a religion, believe in theories that aren't fact (which is faith).

 

[Final First]

But yeah, obviously evolution is still true, we have overwhelming evidence for this.

Actually, evolution of species (micro and macro) is theory--it's the theory of evolution.

Oh for the love of-

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+fact+definition&oq=scientific+fact+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i8i30.419.4267.0.4457.26.12.0.3.3.0.764.2928.3j5j1j1j0j1j1.12.0...0.0.azah4sE1R4U&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific fact[/a]: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).

[a
href=https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=scientific+theory+definition&oq=scientific+theory+definition&aq=f&aqi=g-c2g1g-c1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0i7l2j0j0i7.55104.56531.1.56754.10.9.0.0.0.2.142.882.5j4.9.0...0.0.dIlY-E1JhMM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f4d6def3eef04394&biw=1366&bih=667]Scientific theory[/a]:a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

The fact is what happens, the theory is why it happens.

I disagree. I believe there is a lot of well researched evidence to support the theory of evolution, but to call it a fact when you admit in your definition that it is fallible strikes me as an oxymoron.

It isn't really an oxymoron, it's just admitting that things change and things can be wrong. this is better than just accepting something as fact for thousands of years and denying any possibility of it being wrong. This reminds me of a quote that went something like "He who expects ambush is least likely to fall into one". I can't remember who said it though.