<p>FOR THE LAST TIME, A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS NOT SOMETHING UNPROVEN. Most scientific concepts can never be 100% “proven,” so they remain theories. Scientific theories have been backed by substantial amounts of evidence and corroboration – otherwise they are referred to as hypotheses. </p>
<p>DouglasB, are you seriously going to argue that the “Theory of Relativity” or worse…the “atomic theory” are unproven and not factual? Would it be dishonest for teachers and professors to treat the “atom model” of our world as anything but fact? </p>
<p>In science, the terms “fact” and “theory” are not mutually exclusive. Theories are large, big-picture concepts woven together from facts. Please get your definitions right.</p>
<p>Because in science theory is fact, or at least as close as there is to it. Gravity is officially theory, but it is a fact all intensive purposes. I didn’t misspeak, I said it like that intentionally.</p>
<p>And to compare evolution to Global Warming is a stretch.</p>
<p>It is a creationist-driven fallacy to claim that there is any difference between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” It’s all the same process.</p>
<p>And don’t get started on the global warming “debate.” There is no legitimate debate. The scientific consensus is clear: the Earth is getting warmer and we are having an effect on our climate.</p>
<p>How much is due to natural cycles and how much is anthropogenic, that is debatable. But that the Earth is generally warming, is not.</p>
<p>Let’s leave discussions of evolution, creationism, global warming (or the lack thereof), etc. to the cafe forums. This thread is about Patrick Henry College.</p>
<p>It’s just funny because what you probably meant to say was “but it is a fact FOR all INTENTS AND purposes”, so you misspoke, but then you said you didn’t misspeak (about something else), it just struck me when I read it. (Not to be mean, we all make mistakes when we write/speak!)</p>
<p>I don’t see what seperate ‘misspeaking’ I excused, though.</p>