One of the arguments that is frequently made against evolution is that it is still defined as “theory”, and not “fact”, therefore it should be considered as in many ways false, the same way that creationism is not “fact”. The problem with this way of thinking is that people don’t know, or more likely care, what “theory” means in a scientific context. It doesn’t mean “guess”. To put it as simply as possible, it refers to something that is based on a series of facts (as in: TRUTH) leading to a generally considered notion of the way things work. Or, as paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould puts it:
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Yeah, what he said.
So in other words, don’t hold up evolution and creation as two equally viable viewpoints. We have the evidence to support evolution, it’s just putting all those pieces together. Like a big, beautiful jigsaw. And there are some very intelligent and hard-working people out there doing just that, every day. And what does creation have? An old bullshit book. Yeah, that makes sense.