Here are some points made discussing the difference between "fact" and "theory" from other threads. First, here is Lucaspa:
"Remember, Round Earth is a theory. That the sun is at the center of the solar system is a theory. I bet you think both are "facts", don't you? But they are not. They are theories to explain the data (facts).
However, both of those theories are so well supported by data (facts) that it is perverse not to accept them as (provisionally) true and facts in their own right. So, we accept that the earth is round and plan the routes of ships and airplanes on that "fact". When the ships and airplanes arrive at their destinations on time that become even more support for the theory.
With me so far?
Evolution is the same way. It is supported by so much data (facts) that we accept it as provisionally true. All of medical science accepts common ancestry. We choose our animal models to test new drugs and treatments on it. We plan our antibiotic treatments on the fact of natural selection. That the new drugs and treatments work and that antibiotic-resistant bacteria arise become more support for evolution.
Now, what you call "the Bible" is really your interpretation of Genesis 1-3. It's important to remember that we are not dealing with some absolute "the Bible" but in how you and your fellow people interpret that part of the Bible. An interpretation by fallen, fallible people.
Now, what does science study? Where do we find those "facts" and "scientific evidence"? In the universe, right? But what is the universe and how did it get there?
Well God created the universe and thus it is God's Creation. Right? So science is also studying God. In fact, you can look at Creation as God's second book. Now, the two books of God can't contradict. God had a lot of limitations getting the Bible written. He had to work thru humans and all their limitations to tell how He created. And remember, those people could not have understood evolution any more than a 2 year old can understand the details about televisions and how they work.
But in Creation God could just leave the evidence and wait until people were smart enought to figure it out for themselves.
Bottom line: the Bible tells you the who and why of creation. It tells you God created. God's second book, read by science, tells you how God created. And shouldn't we have faith enough to read everything God wrote?"
Next, Late Cretaceous sets it out:
"Theories and scientific facts are not a heirarchy. Everything described by science is a theory. Nothing is science is ever proven. What "scientific facts" refers to is repeatable observations. Theories are descriptions, based on observations (facts), and are never absolute. They always are falsifyable. If something cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific theory - it is an opinion.
For example:
A scientific fact is "the sky is blue". Anybody can look up and attest to the fact that the sky is indeed blue.
Now, there is a theory to describing why the sky is blue. This theory is called Rayleigh Scattering (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed...mos/blusky.html) and basically says that light is scattered by air molecules. Now, you and I cannot see light particles or air molecules so we can't see it for ourselves. However, the nature of light, and how it interacts with matter is pretty well understood. ANd if you don't believe that, then you gotta wonder that your DVD player works by magic.
An opinion, is something not falsifyable. Like saying "blue is nicer then pink". You can't test or falsify that.
The other huge mistake you are making is to assume that evolutionary thoery contradicts Christianity. It does not. It contradicts only one version of christianity, that which insists upon a literal interpretation of the bible. A poll of priests, bishops and ministers in the UK revealed that over 90% do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis."
Now, here is my own humble take on the point:
"First of all, you have to get over this "theory" idea. Gravity is also just a theory of how certain things work, but it is almost universally accepted. Evolution is the same way, an explanation of how things work in biology, and one that is also almost universally accepted. In fact, the specific details of the current theory of gravity is right now more in doubt that the theory of evolution due to some new discoveries and concepts. Which just shows that science doesn't just blindly go with what the "community" has accepted as true, they constantly challenge and probe and seek to falsify.
In fact, this falsification concept is what must be understood. It is not just that there is evidence to support it (which there is), it is also that no one has been able to falsify it. As soon as a theory is developed, the very first step, even by the theory's author before it is presented, is to try to prove it wrong. If this can't be done for a long enough time, after enough scrutiny, it will come to be accepted as more and more likely to be true. Eventually, even though still a theory, it is accepted as the way things work. Now it is just a matter of figuring out all the details as it applies to various situations.
Science would never expect theories to become facts, that is just a lack of understanding of how science works. This is why even AIG, the leading Creationist group, points out that the "science is just a theory" is not an argument Creationists should use."
"Remember, Round Earth is a theory. That the sun is at the center of the solar system is a theory. I bet you think both are "facts", don't you? But they are not. They are theories to explain the data (facts).
However, both of those theories are so well supported by data (facts) that it is perverse not to accept them as (provisionally) true and facts in their own right. So, we accept that the earth is round and plan the routes of ships and airplanes on that "fact". When the ships and airplanes arrive at their destinations on time that become even more support for the theory.
With me so far?
Evolution is the same way. It is supported by so much data (facts) that we accept it as provisionally true. All of medical science accepts common ancestry. We choose our animal models to test new drugs and treatments on it. We plan our antibiotic treatments on the fact of natural selection. That the new drugs and treatments work and that antibiotic-resistant bacteria arise become more support for evolution.
Now, what you call "the Bible" is really your interpretation of Genesis 1-3. It's important to remember that we are not dealing with some absolute "the Bible" but in how you and your fellow people interpret that part of the Bible. An interpretation by fallen, fallible people.
Now, what does science study? Where do we find those "facts" and "scientific evidence"? In the universe, right? But what is the universe and how did it get there?
Well God created the universe and thus it is God's Creation. Right? So science is also studying God. In fact, you can look at Creation as God's second book. Now, the two books of God can't contradict. God had a lot of limitations getting the Bible written. He had to work thru humans and all their limitations to tell how He created. And remember, those people could not have understood evolution any more than a 2 year old can understand the details about televisions and how they work.
But in Creation God could just leave the evidence and wait until people were smart enought to figure it out for themselves.
Bottom line: the Bible tells you the who and why of creation. It tells you God created. God's second book, read by science, tells you how God created. And shouldn't we have faith enough to read everything God wrote?"
Next, Late Cretaceous sets it out:
"Theories and scientific facts are not a heirarchy. Everything described by science is a theory. Nothing is science is ever proven. What "scientific facts" refers to is repeatable observations. Theories are descriptions, based on observations (facts), and are never absolute. They always are falsifyable. If something cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific theory - it is an opinion.
For example:
A scientific fact is "the sky is blue". Anybody can look up and attest to the fact that the sky is indeed blue.
Now, there is a theory to describing why the sky is blue. This theory is called Rayleigh Scattering (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed...mos/blusky.html) and basically says that light is scattered by air molecules. Now, you and I cannot see light particles or air molecules so we can't see it for ourselves. However, the nature of light, and how it interacts with matter is pretty well understood. ANd if you don't believe that, then you gotta wonder that your DVD player works by magic.
An opinion, is something not falsifyable. Like saying "blue is nicer then pink". You can't test or falsify that.
The other huge mistake you are making is to assume that evolutionary thoery contradicts Christianity. It does not. It contradicts only one version of christianity, that which insists upon a literal interpretation of the bible. A poll of priests, bishops and ministers in the UK revealed that over 90% do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis."
Now, here is my own humble take on the point:
"First of all, you have to get over this "theory" idea. Gravity is also just a theory of how certain things work, but it is almost universally accepted. Evolution is the same way, an explanation of how things work in biology, and one that is also almost universally accepted. In fact, the specific details of the current theory of gravity is right now more in doubt that the theory of evolution due to some new discoveries and concepts. Which just shows that science doesn't just blindly go with what the "community" has accepted as true, they constantly challenge and probe and seek to falsify.
In fact, this falsification concept is what must be understood. It is not just that there is evidence to support it (which there is), it is also that no one has been able to falsify it. As soon as a theory is developed, the very first step, even by the theory's author before it is presented, is to try to prove it wrong. If this can't be done for a long enough time, after enough scrutiny, it will come to be accepted as more and more likely to be true. Eventually, even though still a theory, it is accepted as the way things work. Now it is just a matter of figuring out all the details as it applies to various situations.
Science would never expect theories to become facts, that is just a lack of understanding of how science works. This is why even AIG, the leading Creationist group, points out that the "science is just a theory" is not an argument Creationists should use."
