Challenging Evolution

[Ron21647]

Is your theory so weak it cannot bear other explainations? So weak that you resort to this arguement when you are confronted not with an arguement that your theory is wrong but rather that it has no irrifuable proof? That is further evidence that my opinion is truth, not fiction.

Ok, come up with a fact that agrees with creationism or intelligent desgn, but disagrees with evolution.

Ron

 

[razzelflabben]

1) You keep repeating this.. "information" as if you think we care. But we don't. So if it makes you feel any beter: yes we understand what you said 50 times allready. You can now stop doing it.
2) If you don't have the time/don't want to debate, Don't. But don't go making crazy assumptions without telling anything else.

I came here to set the record straight about my posts that were taken out of context. If you had a post started by someone else, quoting you out of context, saying things you did not say and contributing them to you, would you not try to correct the lies?

From your previous post it seemed like you had direct information to it, so why not cut all the ********, and ask it directly to you? This still is a science forum, and I come here to learn. So yes, if I ask for a source I expect you to have one, no matter how easy it is to find. I've met to many people on this board who can't support their claims that I am doubtfull of most silly claims, this being one of them.

Actually, my previous post says that I watched a scientific program in which they discussed this substance that they called a lighter than air solid. If that sounds like I am researching the substance in my own lab at home, I think you are full of (something smelly) and should reconsider your words.

Thanks! You are kind of deluded about the theory of evolution, but that is okay, we still like you.

It is nice to know someone likes me, but you just called evolution a theory, that contridicts the idea that it is fact, which goes back to my opinion that evolution is theory not fact, so how am I deluded when evolutionist can't agree as to whether it is fact or theory?

Thanks, now that wasn't so hard, hasn't it?

Not hard just took more time than I really had. I have slightly more time the rest of this week, but that will change quickly, back to about one decent length post a day. That is why I limit the number of threads I am on at a time and why I asked Merle to leave me out of this debate until the other one we were on was finished.

I think we're talking about this, right? I must say that it is indeed intresting but I don't see any support that this solid is indeed lighter then air. I see that the solid is composed of air, that it is very light, and is very unusual, but I don't see any claims that this is lighter then air...

I see some other claims on the website (like someone suggesting that argon should be used in production of such a substance, rather then normal air. Of course, if that counts, then balloons would have been the first "lighter then air solid") but none of those are really substantial.

More than I can commit to at the moment. All I currently know about it is what I have seen on the scientific program I watched and what you have said. When things slow down here, maybe I can look at it in more depth.

 

[The Bellman]

you just called evolution a theory, that contridicts the idea that it is fact, which goes back to my opinion that evolution is theory not fact, so how am I deluded when evolutionist can't agree as to whether it is fact or theory?

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about either science or evolution. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Please, go get yourself an education on the subject.

 

[razzelflabben]

Bravo! Bravo! Great stuff, guys.

It grieves me to see how too many Americans have fallen for Creationism, ID, astrology, and a host of other pseudosciences. You folks are to be commended for taking time out of your busy schedules to shine a light in this one corner of the vast scientific darkness. Thank you for what you do.

---------

I hope you do not mind if I take a minute to defend something much less significant than the integrity of science. I wish to defend something that, for some odd reason, is of great importance to me--my reputation. I have watched as razzleflabben has taken it upon herself to deliver an attack on my reputation. May I please take a minute to set the record straight?



Uh, wouldn't that be a nitpick? Besides, everybody seems to agree with me that your questions are indeed about evolution. But if your questions are not about evolution, please forgive me for misunderstanding you.



As I have already explained, this is a total fabrication. I never insisted that you come here.



Huh? All I did was repond to what you have written. I put the response here because the other thread was totally unrelated to evolution, and putting my response there would have hijacked my own thread. I explained the context and gave a link back to the original thread.

Guess what? This is a public forum. If you write something here, folks just might respond. So please don't vent your fury at me because I responded to one of your posts.


This is absolute flapdoodle. Where did I ever accuse you of anything because you did not respond immediately? If I accused you because of this, please repond to the post where I made the accusation, and show the world what I have said. But if you have no evidence, than drop the claim please.


False pretnese? What false pretense? You wrote. I responded. Where is the false pretense?


Huh? You have serious time constraints? Pray tell me, than why have you littered the tornadoes threads with reams of junk? There are dozens of posts on that thread that you have written to me that I have not yet had time to respond to. The reason your writings stand unrefuted is because I simply do not have time to write at your pace. And now you seem to be complaining when I actually do find time to respond? Guess what? If you fill this forum up with posts, people just might respond.


Okay, now I find that I am arrogant and that I see myself as knowing everything. I take it you don't like me very much?

I invite anybody to browse the tornadoes thread and respond to me on that thread showing me what I have done wrong. I am serious. If I have said anything wrong, I want to fix it up.


Okay, so I am not only arrogant, but also dense? You sure ain't doing much for my self-esteem.

Dear Christain lurker, I have a question for you. Is this the way Christians treat people? If I became a Christian, would I start treating Christians the way razzleflabben treats me?



I am using all your time? Huh? How is it that you have written dozens of posts to me that I simply have not had time to respond to, and yet you complain that you are the one not able to keep up with me on that thread? Hello?


Okay, now you inform me what my intentions are. And you inform me that I intend to present misconceptions? Excuse me. Why are you here judging other people's character? Does it not seem unethical to you to judge another's intentions?

I invite anybody to read the OP and the thread it was spawned from and show me where I am trying to present a misconception.


Well, then you have us all fooled. For your writings sure looks like anti-evolution rhetoric to most of us here.


I never said I was going to twist your words. I have never intentionally twisted anybody's words. If I misunderstood, I have repeatedly asked you to clarify so I can understand. So exactly how is it that I twisted your words?

BTW, most of my replys in the OP were in the form of questions. How can that be "twisting your words"?


Yes, indeed. Interested lurkers should read that thread for themselves, to see is razzleflabben's claims are true.


Huh? I am completely overloaded, with dozens of posts to me--some containing personal insults about me--that I simply have not responded to because I am too busy. I found time to write a post to respond to your evolution rhetoric. And you accuse me of bad debate tactics because I responded when I was busy? Huh?


I stand by the words that I have written on this forum. If anybody has any complaint about anything I have said on this forum, please go to the offending post and respond to that post in the thread it occurred. (Or better yet, write me a private message so I can clean it up without making a big deal of it.) Isn't it better simply to resolve these things in private rather than blow up to other people in another thread?


Huh? Anybody who will take the time to look at post 344 of the tornadoes thread will see it was razz, not I, who brought up the topic of evolution.


How have I taken your comments out of context? For you have made many of the same claims right here on this thread that I quote you as saying in the OP.


What false information?

razzelflabben, this forum is not here so that foks have an opportunity to lie about and insult each other. Now could you please stop publishing insults, and move on with the debate?


-------------------

Okay, folks, sorry for the interrruption, but I do feel much better now.

Let's get back to something more important--the debate about true science and evolution. Pseudoscience needs to be debunked, and you guys are doing just great! Go get em', tigers!

I have cleared my name on this thread and others on the other thread have already shown you your (stinky stuff from the back side of a cow) accusations, so I have nothing more to say to you unless you would like to get involved in the thread you started.

 

[razzelflabben]

Ok, come up with a fact that agrees with creationism or intelligent desgn, but disagrees with evolution.

Ron

My arguement is not one in which one theory is more sound than another. So what would be the point of that discussion? My point is that evolution is still a theory and until it is otherwise, you will continue to stir up controversy by claiming it to be fact.

Want proof of that, look at this thread. Just to claim that evolution is still a theory is enough to stir up this debate.

 

[razzelflabben]

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't know the first thing about either science or evolution. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Please, go get yourself an education on the subject.

Okay, my dictionary is not currently handy so why don't you give us the Webster definition for

Theory-

Fact-

then maybe this discussion can make some progress.

 

[Mistermystery]

I came here to set the record straight about my posts that were taken out of context. If you had a post started by someone else, quoting you out of context, saying things you did not say and contributing them to you, would you not try to correct the lies?

depends, Though you again mistake that I care about this issue. You could have also ignored the op.

Actually, my previous post says that I watched a scientific program in which they discussed this substance that they called a lighter than air solid. If that sounds like I am researching the substance in my own lab at home, I think you are full of (something smelly) and should reconsider your words.

You are the one who brought it up, you are the person who apperently knows more about it then I do, I expect you to back it up. You could have looked up the name of the program or something similiar like that. And what is your major mallfunction? I am simply asking for a source, is it really that hard for you to do this? I am asking this because this is quite an intresting development, and so far noone has been able to make a solid lighter then air.

It is nice to know someone likes me, but you just called evolution a theory, that contridicts the idea that it is fact, which goes back to my opinion that evolution is theory not fact, so how am I deluded when evolutionist can't agree as to whether it is fact or theory?

The theory of evolution is both a theory and a fact. Just like the theory of gravity both a theory and a fact. This again illustrates your non-knowledge of evolution.

More than I can commit to at the moment. All I currently know about it is what I have seen on the scientific program I watched and what you have said. When things slow down here, maybe I can look at it in more depth.

I will be waiting, because none of my investegations show any solid material lighter then air. Infact the website I linked at says that with 5 milligrams per cubic centimeter it is currently the record holder.

"It's probably not possible to make aerogel any lighter than this because then it wouldn't gel," Jones said. "The molecules of silicon wouldn't connect. And it's not possible to make it lighter than the density of air, 1.2 milligrams per cubic centimeter (.00004 pounds per cubic inch)

So while it is awesome and light, it is not lighter then air.

 

[Mistermystery]

Okay, my dictionary is not currently handy so why don't you give us the Webster definition for

Theory-

Fact-

then maybe this discussion can make some progress.

Read this, understand it, learn.

 

[razzelflabben]

I took a moment while I was waiting for a print job to look up the definitions on ask Jeeves. So let us see if we can clear up some problems. Your paper, I have read it already, is dealing with the scientific explaination for the words used. The majority of people will be going off the following definitions rather than definitions created to fit the purpose.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : [size=-1]SPECULATION[/size]
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : [size=-1]CONJECTURE[/size] c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see [size=-1]HYPOTHESIS[/size]


Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : [size=-1]FEAT[/size] b : [size=-1]CRIME[/size] <accessory after the fact> c archaic : [size=-1]ACTION[/size]
2 archaic : [size=-1]PERFORMANCE[/size], [size=-1]DOING[/size]
3 : the quality of being actual : [size=-1]ACTUALITY[/size] <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth


Now please note, the differences. Theory is not an absolute, fact is. I can create a twist to my methodology thus equaling ID as truth, but that would be a falsification of the facts and evidences that currently exist. In other words, I would be boasting of what is not there. This is what science is doing with the theory of evolution. If you want to call it fact, then preface every statement with the "scientific" definition for fact and theory rather than allow people to assume the traditional definitions for the words.

My son just helped me make sense of your explaination, or at least I think so, it makes more sense than what I have been hearing so far.

If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?

I have spent more time than I have right now and my print job is finished so I must go, I would appreciate someone clarifying if this is what you people are trying to say or not, you really are quite confusing.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have cleared my name on this thread and others on the other thread have already shown you your (stinky stuff from the back side of a cow) accusations, so I have nothing more to say to you unless you would like to get involved in the thread you started.

Really? Please go to that thread and show me where others have made this accusation. For I seem to have missed it.

You are not spouting out more stinky stuff from the back side of a bull, now, are you?

 

[Ron21647]

I took a moment while I was waiting for a print job to look up the definitions on ask Jeeves. So let us see if we can clear up some problems. Your paper, I have read it already, is dealing with the scientific explaination for the words used. The majority of people will be going off the following definitions rather than definitions created to fit the purpose.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : [size=-1]SPECULATION[/size]
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : [size=-1]CONJECTURE[/size] c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see [size=-1]HYPOTHESIS[/size]


Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : [size=-1]FEAT[/size] b : [size=-1]CRIME[/size] <accessory after the fact> c archaic : [size=-1]ACTION[/size]
2 archaic : [size=-1]PERFORMANCE[/size], [size=-1]DOING[/size]
3 : the quality of being actual : [size=-1]ACTUALITY[/size] <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth


Now please note, the differences. Theory is not an absolute, fact is. I can create a twist to my methodology thus equaling ID as truth, but that would be a falsification of the facts and evidences that currently exist. In other words, I would be boasting of what is not there. This is what science is doing with the theory of evolution. If you want to call it fact, then preface every statement with the "scientific" definition for fact and theory rather than allow people to assume the traditional definitions for the words.

My son just helped me make sense of your explaination, or at least I think so, it makes more sense than what I have been hearing so far.

If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?

I have spent more time than I have right now and my print job is finished so I must go, I would appreciate someone clarifying if this is what you people are trying to say or not, you really are quite confusing.

Definition #5 under Theory looks good to me. If you want to know what it means in the context we are using it, look in any high school science text book, probably in the first chapter, under scientific method.

It should say something like, "a theory is an explanation for a group of observed facts".

A theory which has withstood the test of attempted falsification is fact.

Ron

 

[Aron-Ra]

Definition #5 under Theory looks good to me. If you want to know what it means in the context we are using it, look in any high school science text book, probably in the first chapter, under scientific method.

It should say something like, "a theory is an explanation for a group of observed facts".

A theory which has withstood the test of attempted falsification is fact.

Ron

It should include the scientific definition of Theory (with a capitol "T") which is a field of study; atomic Theory, quantum Theory, physics Theory, evolution Theory, etc.

My high school taught a class called "music Theory". I told one of the students in that class (a creationist) that they shouldn't teach music that way because music was "only a theory that had never been proved and never will be proved". He didn't think I was very funny at all.

 

[Mistermystery]

I blah blah blah look at me go.

Read the previous post.

 

[Tomk80]

I took a moment while I was waiting for a print job to look up the definitions on ask Jeeves. So let us see if we can clear up some problems. Your paper, I have read it already, is dealing with the scientific explaination for the words used. The majority of people will be going off the following definitions rather than definitions created to fit the purpose.

*snap dictionary quote*

Now please note, the differences. Theory is not an absolute, fact is. I can create a twist to my methodology thus equaling ID as truth, but that would be a falsification of the facts and evidences that currently exist. In other words, I would be boasting of what is not there. This is what science is doing with the theory of evolution. If you want to call it fact, then preface every statement with the "scientific" definition for fact and theory rather than allow people to assume the traditional definitions for the words.

No, but in science a theory is as close to fact as you can get with the current observations. A theory can also be negated by other evidence. This is something you ignored. It has to be falsifiable. Creationism has been falsified, it can never be seen as close to fact, because it just doesn't fit the observations.

My son just helped me make sense of your explaination, or at least I think so, it makes more sense than what I have been hearing so far.

If he is right in your what you are saying, Creation is a fact. We are here. The world was created. Evolution is a theory, it is speculation as to how it was created. Is this what you are trying to say? For this is what I have been telling people for some time now, only to be argued with. What am I missing?

I have spent more time than I have right now and my print job is finished so I must go, I would appreciate someone clarifying if this is what you people are trying to say or not, you really are quite confusing.

Creation is fact. We are here, hence we are created. Yes. Now about the method of creation.
Evolution is fact and theory. Evolution has been observed in nature and in the laboratory. We have observed speciation. Evolution in that sense is fact. Plain and simple.
Evolution is also a theory. We theorize that all species are descendents from the same organism. We also theorize about the methods of evolution. Now the important part. If a theory has enough facts to back it up, it becomes nearly a fact. This is what happened with the all species descended from a single ancestor. Various explanatory mechanism on how evolution happens also have attained this status.

 

[Tomk80]

And yet the article quotes otherwise. Are you reading into it what is not there? I do not purpose to you that evolution is false, or that there is no evidence that might suggest that it is valid, only that the evidence is not conclusive and for this I get accusations? This idea, that the article itself states? For this I am told I did not read the article in question? I did not realize before this thread, how far off evolutionists are in their belief system.

Where? I haven't seen it quote otherwise. Is it the quote that you gave? I already explained why it didn't say what you said it did? Did you understand that explanation?

 

[razzelflabben]

Definition #5 under Theory looks good to me. If you want to know what it means in the context we are using it, look in any high school science text book, probably in the first chapter, under scientific method.

It should say something like, "a theory is an explanation for a group of observed facts".

A theory which has withstood the test of attempted falsification is fact.

Ron

Again, you prove my point. Evolution is theory, not fact.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, but in science a theory is as close to fact as you can get with the current observations. A theory can also be negated by other evidence. This is something you ignored. It has to be falsifiable. Creationism has been falsified, it can never be seen as close to fact, because it just doesn't fit the observations.


Creation is fact. We are here, hence we are created. Yes. Now about the method of creation.
Evolution is fact and theory. Evolution has been observed in nature and in the laboratory. We have observed speciation. Evolution in that sense is fact. Plain and simple.
Evolution is also a theory. We theorize that all species are descendents from the same organism. We also theorize about the methods of evolution. Now the important part. If a theory has enough facts to back it up, it becomes nearly a fact. This is what happened with the all species descended from a single ancestor. Various explanatory mechanism on how evolution happens also have attained this status.

According to the definitions presented, how can evolution be a fact and a theory unless we change the definition? I can twist much of the so called evidence to support ID if I so want to, for most of the data does not prove evolutionary theory, but rather that the theory is possible. That is not the argument made, whether or not it is possible. The argument is whether or not it is fact and even the scientists you present do not claim it as fact when looking at the traditional definitions of theory and fact.

 

[Arikay]

Hense the name, Theory of Evolution.

I disagree with ron that once something stands up to falsifacation it is fact. Germ theory is still a theory even though it has stood up against falsifacations. A theory has nowhere farther to go beyond a theory. (remember though, a scientific theory (like evolution) is different from the common place use of theory or guess.)

Again, you prove my point. Evolution is theory, not fact.

 

[razzelflabben]

It should include the scientific definition of Theory (with a capitol "T") which is a field of study; atomic Theory, quantum Theory, physics Theory, evolution Theory, etc.

My high school taught a class called "music Theory". I told one of the students in that class (a creationist) that they shouldn't teach music that way because music was "only a theory that had never been proved and never will be proved". He didn't think I was very funny at all.

I have no problem with teaching theory in school, as long as it is taught as theory, this includes music theory and evolutionary theory. In fact, I think it stimpulates learning to examine different theories and explore why they cannot be fact. It is an exercise in creative, critical thinking. Bravo for teaching theory in the classroom. Just make sure it is taught as theory.

 

[gluadys]

razzelflabben

I have been trying to find time to thoroughly read this thread, figure out where you are coming from, and join the discussion. This is the first time I have been able to. And actually I have not read the whole thread. Only your posts. So excuse me if I repeat replies you have already heard.

What I want to do first is see if I understand your position.

I seem to be hearing three messages:

a) There is no overwhelming evidence for evolution. Since this statement can have two different meanings, I’ll spell out both of them and you can confirm if you mean one or the other or both.

a-1) There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact, or There is no overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. (Two different ways of saying the same thing.)

a-2) There is no overwhelming evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

Which brings me to the second message I think I am hearing from you:
b) The lack of overwhelming evidence for evolution means it is a theory. Because it is a theory, it is not a fact.

Does that fairly reflect your opinion?

Third message:
c) There are three theories on the origin of species: creationism, intelligent design and evolution.

Is it correct to note that these are not mutually exclusive theories? e.g. ID may (does?) include elements of both creationism and evolution. Both creationism and ID include elements of evolution.

Finally I would note that you seem to have difficulty with the use of the scientific method. I expect others have been trying to explain some of the errors in your thinking about this.

Now for a couple of quick comments.

I do not accept science as having overwhelming proof of evolution because science is an interpretation of the data and as such, can have more than one interpretation.

Basically, you are right, of course. Science seeks to interpret or “make sense” of data. In principle, more than one interpretation is possible. When scientific consensus coalesces around a single interpretation, it is because that particular interpretation makes better sense of the data than any competing interpretation. Currently, the theory of common descent (aka evolution) makes better sense of more data than any other competing theory. That is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of scientists working in the field who have intimate knowledge of the data.

(Please note the emphasized section. It expresses as best I can, the actual scientific criterion for backing one theory rather than another. I expect to come back to it many times.)

I believe that evolution is a theory and so is creationism and intelligent designism, as such, I have an issue with anyone who claims to have overwhelming evidence or that theory is fact.

Again, in principle you are right. All three offer an interpretation of data, and in that sense can be called theories. However, there is another step to be taken before the scientific community endows an interpretation with the title “theory”. That step is examining how well the theory predicts data.

In other words, starting from the theory, what data can one deduce that ought to exist---and does the data that the theory says ought to exist coincide with the real-life data that does exist?

The closer the match between data that ought to exist, if the theory is true, and the real-life data that does exist, the more likely it is that the theory is sound. Does that make sense to you?

On that basis we can make the following evaluation of the three theories.

Creationism is a failed theory. It predicts data which do not exist and fails to predict data which does exist.

ID is at best an unsupported theory. It predicts data which may exist, but it has not been established that it does exist. On a more philosophical level, it also fails to explain the existence of less than optimum design in many species.

Evolution (common descent) is a robust theory. The data which it predicts must exist, do exist. In several cases, such data was found after it was first predicted. Some predicted data has not been discovered yet, but of all similar data which has been discovered, none has failed to support the theory of evolution. Unlike the other two theories, the theory of evolution is useful in its practical applications and in directing future research.

In fact, if I did believe in the evolutionary theory, I would still be having this discussion with you. Theory is theory, not fact!

Again, you are right as far as it goes. The theory of evolution is a theory which explains or interprets data. The theory of evolution is an explanation of facts, not a fact in itself. However, what you are missing is that part of the data which the theory interprets are the observed instances of evolution!

In short, we know evolution happens because we have observed it happening. That evolution happens is a fact. And it is one of the facts which the theory of evolution tries to make sense of.

Why have both a fact and a theory? The fact is what is observed. The theory seeks to explain why the fact occurs.

Please explain what you mean by self-correcting. It would seem to me that you are saying that the theory of evolution is always changing according to what science knows.

Yes, theories change when new data requires a change. Theories are dynamic. Most theories have gaps and imperfections in them when first proposed. They do not adequately explain all the facts they are supposed to explain. And, of course, they cannot be expected to explain facts which are yet to be discovered. Since facts, data, always trump theory—when there is a discrepancy between an observation and the predictions of the theory, work begins on seeing what amendments are needed to bring the theory in line with the facts.

That is scientific method---to always give priority to the data and modify the theory to fit the data, not shoe-horn the data into the existing theory. That is why scientific theories are always provisional, at least in principle.