Evolution is a fact

Thanks for the opportunity here, and great to meet you, LoveRichardDawkins. Original name- I like it. Evolution is not fact, given the following definition. While we can say that it has been "repeatedly confirmed," Evolution should not be "for all practical purposes accepted as true." The reason I believe such, is due to how we have not been able to accurately test and fully confirm the ideas behind Evolution, yet. For example, a related issue of Evolution is natural selection. Natural selection was brought up by Darwin, however, what he offered was more hypothesis than proof. Darwin is noted as being an observer, when he noticed a living thing of relation to another (a pattern), he wrote it down then sought to answer why after forming a statement about his observations- a hypothesis. He would continue to observe patterns, leading to those "deductions" as referred to in the definition below. However, there was little to no testing done- rather, it was left to analyzing observations of his and forming those hypothesis's about them. In the end, we can argue that because there was no testing and with assuring/valid results done by Darwin, he cannot state his observations as facts. On account of testing natural selection, there has not been a great way of doing so. We can argue about how even today the fossil record, to which is the supposed key to testing natural selection, is doubtful and can be considerably inaccurate according to Dr. Alex Dunhill, a paleontologist, ecologist, and biologist, "paleontologists are right to be cautious about the quality of the fossil record, but perhaps some have been too cautious. The sequence of fossils in the rocks more or less tells us the story of the history of life, and we have sensible ways of dealing with uncertainty. Some recent work on 'correcting' the fossil record by using formation counts may produce nonsense results." Dunnhill was referring to a study he had done juxtaposing a large fossil record with factors involving geography and the environment. This study and quote was taken from a Phys.org news article. [2] Another, more specific means of testing (and please correct me if I am confusing myself with these concepts) is carbon dating in which tells us the age of a fossil. Even this means of testing has been questioned by Evangelist/Creationist, Kent Hovind, in which he asks a, in my opinion, brilliant question- Hovind introduces a candle to the audience in a presentation. He talks about how empirical science can help us measure the candle such as the size of it's wick, but then asks the audience, "when was it lit?" He applies this concept to carbon dating by claiming how you can't tell when the organism of the carbon dated fossil died unless you make assumptions. So, we can deduce that if we can't really tell when the the organism died, we can't tell when it was born, how long it lived, etc. You can find the video here on YouTube (I will note that it is a compilation promoting Christianity and putting down Evolutionists such as Bill Nye, specifically.) [3] However, if you do not want to see this compilation for such bias, the full video is posted here on YouTube. [4] -Definitions- Theory: "In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Law: "A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances." Hypothesis: "A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested." Fact: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true."" These definitions we're taken from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) [1] -Sources- [1] NCSE, "Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work" https://ncse.com... [2] Phys.org, "How good is the fossil record?" https://phys.org... [3] Kent Hovind, Christian compilation [4] Kent Hovind, speech in full