In article <C5u6p5.5nx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:  [...stuff deleted...]  Andy-- I think we do agree, given your clarification of how we were  each using the terms fact and theory.  I'll only add that I think perhaps I feel more strongly about separating them, though your usage is quite valid.  >Note that the fact of evolution is still a theory.  In other words, it >could, theoretically, still be falsified and rejected.  But since it's >so predictive, and so consistently supported by evidence, it seems >pointless to explicitly try to falsify it anymore.  I'll add here that any falsification or rejection does not in any way reduce its current usefulness.  So long as it accurately predicts or  describes things we can observe.  Not to be a pain in the ass, but is there any reason you don't just say _the theory of evolution_ rather than the _fact of evolution is still a theory_.  I'm asking because this whole thread got started because I was bothered by a post that referred to _the fact of evolution_, basically leaving off the phrase _is still a theory_.  Without a  clarification, like the one you just gave, just saying _the fact of evolution_ has a very different meaning to me. > >[description of atomic theory, and alternative theories of gravity, deleted] >>Both are very useful models that  >>have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you  >>want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly  >>the way the theory now formulated talks about it. > >Here is where you fail to make an important distinction.  You have >shoehorned the _facts_ of the _existence_ of gravity and atoms and >evolution into one category with the _theories_ which have been >proposed to explain the _mechanisms_.  The existence of these things >is so predictive as to be considered fact.  The mechanisms, on the >other hand, are still worth discussing.    I'm not sure I agree here.  Again, it may be because I feel stronger about separating terms.  I was trying to say that the _theories_ proposed to explain the _mechanisms_ and the _mechanisms_ themselves are the only realities here.  It is the existence of mechanisms, not  the things themselves, that are so predictive as to be considered  fact (as you would say).  There aren't really little planetary particle  systems called atoms out there.  Or I should say, and more to my original  point, it would be a leap of faith to say there are, because we observe only  the mechanisms.  There is no need to _believe_ there are _actually_ atoms out there as we have decided to think about them.  It's enough to discuss the mechanisms.  At any rate, I'm not sure I am being  any clearer than before, but I thought it was worth a shot.  The bottom line, though, is I think we agree on two fundamental ideas:     1. --evolution is a theory supported by observational evidence (my way)       --the fact of evolution is a theory supported by observational         evidence (your way)     2. --creation is just an opinion.  If a theist wants to call it         a theory then he can.  I won't:  it has no supporting evidence  	and it neither predicts nor supports any observations that can         be made.  With no mechanisms to talk about, there really isn't 	much to say.  Do you agree?