Casey Luskin at Evolution News and Views is beginning a five part series of posts on these five questions:
- Are Darwinists correct to define "theory" as "a well-substantiated scientific explanation of some aspect of the natural world" or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"?
- Under such a strong definition of "theory," does evolution qualify as a "theory"?
- Is it correct to call evolution a "fact"?
- Is it best for Darwin skeptics to call evolution "just a theory, not a fact"?
- "All I wanted to say is that I'm a scientific skeptic of neo-Darwinism. How can I convey such skepticism without stepping on a semantic land mine and getting scolded by Darwinists?"
His response to #1 can be read here.
RLC