Whether in our discussions we call evolution a fact or a theory is really
irrelevant. Scientists know that evolution as a fact is based on a
humungous amount of evidence, and evolution as a theory is as firmly
established as other things we label theory. One can if you wish limit
scientific facts to hard evidence or data. Of course this is a much more
restricted definition than is commonly used. In history there are a large
number of facts which depend on deduction rather than hard data. For
example the fact that Cleopatra was Ptolemy is accepted by historians, but
there was a silly book claiming she was black. The Ptolemies were Greeks,
not Nubians. Europeans laugh at Americans for such historical ignorance.
The big issue comes in when talking to anti-evolutionists. They will insist
the evolution is "just a theory" and not a fact without recognizing that
their definition is not correct scientifically, although it does appear in
dictionaries. This weak definition is more a hypothesis rather than a
scientific theory. Of course the young Earth creationists will insist that
the Earth is only 6000 years old based on the generations counted in the
Bible, and assuming that the Bible is totally factual.
The strong young Earth creationists can not be argued out of their position
because they will make up explanations willy-nilly without any regard to
actual observed evidence. But others may be more willing to understand the
scientific point of view if we change the nomenclature slightly and talk
about the "evolutionary model". It turns out that teachers have said that
students will accept the term "change with time" and get outraged over the
term "evolution". So we also not use the word fact, except as referring to
data.
As I have said before, the big problem is that science is often taught a
body of facts that students do not understand. Then they treat them as
something which is a "school fact" to be regurgitated on tests, but don't
apply to real life. If they were taught science as inquiry where one can
make deductions and generalizations this would go a long way towards
promoting understanding. They need to understand that there is always
uncertainty at some level. I would not like to use the term error as this
is associated with right and wrong in student minds. Uncertainty is a
better term. OK, error is traditional, but how about instead teaching
uncertainty analysis rather than error analysis?
Once students understand the concepts, the more usual terms could be
introduced. This straight out of Arons.
The argument about whether evolution is or is not a fact is very silly on
this list! I doubt there are any young Earth creationists on this list, so
saying that denying evolution as a fact makes on a creationist is also silly
and possibly insulting. Neither side will convince the other!!!!