Talk:Evolution as fact and theory

message: Despite all the careful discussion preceding it, I still feel uncomfortable with the section Evolution as theory and fact in the literature, because it seems to me that at least some of the quotations arguing one or another viewpoint are not so much addressing the nature of evolution itself, or any meaning of the word evolution, so much as these are quibbles about definitions of the terms fact, and especially, theory.
This seems especially clear in the quotation from Richard Dawkins. I think what Dawkins is really saying, in something of a pique of impatience, is, people do not understand the word "theory" in its scientific sense, and it has been deliberately misapplied in its colloquial sense to attack the concept of evolution. So let's throw in the towel, abandon "theory" as a descriptor, and fall back on "fact" as a term that is much harder for evolution deniers to twist out of shape and confuse the public. No one is going to argue that evolution is "only a fact".
I don't doubt that there are real and substantive, as opposed to merely definitional, disagreements about whether evolution is better described and understood as theory or fact. But I'm concerned that these brief quotations taken out of their original context give the illusion of substantive disagreement where there may be little or none. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Milkunderwood -  There doesn't actually seem to be much in the literature about the phrasing so much as reiterations on opposing sides over it.   I see it as the towel was thrown in on more than just that, that there was some tradeoff of a lost moral high ground in the combined usage, and it can come off as joining in advocacy wordgames and pettyfoggery, a strategically chosen and willfully deceptive attempt to confuse rather than inform the public.  It seems reasonable and educational to bash "only a" in "only a theory" as misleading, and for one to say "facts supporting biological change over time exist" and "theory of modern synthesis is the best-accepted explanation of the facts", or combined quora "evolution is a fact, natural selection is a theory that explains most evolution".  A scientific theory describes a higher level of understanding that ties facts together and is explanatory, making a conceptual difference between items of observed evidence and explanation of the items and typically clarifying the hierarchy of detail and certainty in hypothesis/theory/law.  But use of "both a fact and a theory" seems just a wordgaming catchphrase, in use of 'just let me skip mentioning those are multiple meanings of evolution and let me redefine fact' to something that doesn't match Webster or any other scientific usage.  Yeesh.   There are better clarifications from Early Theories of Evolution based on Evidence of Evolution at those times; or Refuting Evolution that Evolution is true science not 'just a theory'; or Micsconceptions about Evolution; or even Evolution for Dummies.  (Maybe go Noetic and look for Teilhardism and Evolutionary materialism.)    Markbassett (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  E as T&F "in the literature" 

message: I have re-worked our presentation of Fitzhugh's argument. Fitzhugh has great certainty that the theory of evolution accurately describes our world, and the point of his letter is to philosophically distinguish between theories and facts in a quite technical manner. It is important that our presentation of his argument does not give the impression that Fitzhugh is questioning the truth or certainty of evolution. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fitzhugh reworked