Keith Devens .com

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that evolution - the process by which groups of organisms may adapt to their environment through reproduction - is a fact, but the idea that this is the method by which any particular species - including mankind - arose is a theory?

Jim, I think you're confusing things. My point had nothing to do with the confirmedness of evolution (the theory itself, or any particular instance of its application), but of the type of thing (theory vs. fact) it is. In other words, whether something is a theory or a fact doesn't have to do with "how sure we are" about it, it has to do with the type of thing it is. A theory is a framework or a set of axioms or statements that describes or explains some particular facts.

So, "organisms adapt to their environment through reproductive selection" might be a fact, but evolution, the thing that attempts to explain and describe how this all works (involving genetics, selective pressure, and lots of other things) is a theory, and is not itself a fact.

I looked up the definition of theory after I'd written my description above and I've said pretty much what it said. Central to this whole argument, however, is the notion that definition 6: "Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture", is not the sense of "theory" we're using. In fact, that's the mistake made by people who use the mere fact that the word "theory" is used as a basis for calling the accuracy of the theory of evolution into question. They're equivocating on "theory".

Incidentally, the line of argument that tries to say "evolution is just a theory" is one of the arguments that Answers in Genesis points out that people shouldn't use (search for "Evolution is just a theory").

Also, I'll point out that the example you give of what part of evolution might be a theory:

...but the idea that this is the method by which any particular species - including mankind - arose is a theory?

cannot be a (scientific) theory because it involves historical origins and not directly observable, repeatable, testable (etc.) phenomena. It also doesn't unify any disparate phenomena or provide a general account of various facts like a theory does. So, I wouldn't call that a (scientific) theory at all (as I've of course argued in the past).

How did you reach these conclusions concerning evolutionary theory's status as a "scientific theory"?

Evolution is imminently observable... humans have observed speciation events, so the "not directly observable" objection is taken care of. In addition, you can observe life everywhere, and draw conclusions from the patterns of morphological and genetic differences you observe. Scientific theories don't always require direct human observation of the phenomona in question... see "plate tectonics" or elements of astrophysics, geology, or any field of study that relies, in whole or in part, on indirect vs. direct observation. Evolutionary theory unifies our observations of the disparate forms of life we observe on this planet, and the evidence of past life we've collected. It provides a general account of how life changes over time, and helps us to explain how those changes happened.

Mike:

How did you reach these conclusions concerning evolutionary theory's status as a "scientific theory"?

My logs show you didn't read the post I just linked to in the above comment (which is the same thread I also linked in the main post) where I indicated I've argued for my claim. I believe I've answered all your questions there.