Evolution while still described as a theory in scientific terms, is as close to a proven process (fact) as it is possible to get. - A fact is not a 'proven process'. A fact is that which is the case. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a fact of history, insofar as it is the case that such a theory exists. In this respect it has the same factual status as the theory of evolution by intelligent design and the theory of creation. - The key question is which (if any) of the rival theories is true. The truth of a theory depends on a number of things, not least its ability to explain the facts as we find them. A theory which is successful in explaining the facts does not thereby become itself a fact; it remains a theory which has not yet been falsified by some fact that it cannot explain. - The trouble is that rival and contradictory theories can be equally true, insofar as they are each able to explain the facts as we find them. In evaluating these rival theories we must compare their other virtues: the economy of their explanations, for example, the better theory being deemed the one which provides the simplest explanation; the degree of falsifiability of their explanations, the better theory being deemed the one which is more susceptible to being falsified by newly discovered facts; and/or the heuristic value of their respective explanations, the better theory being deemed the one which generates the greater number of problems requiring further research. All such considerations need to be taken into account in calculating a theory's explanatory power; and it is the theory which has the greatest explanatory power of the range of available alternatives that is deemed the truest. - This of course means that the truth of any given theory is only ever provisional and holds only for as long as no one can come up with a better theory. Such is the nature of the scientific enterprise, which isn't in the business of producing truth in the absolute sense but only the best shot at truth we can currently take. - In my judgement, the theory of evolution by natural selection is (properly understood) the best theory we currently have to explain the process of life on the planet. It by and large explains the facts as we currently find them, it does so with greater economy than its rivals can manage, and it guides us in the direction of future research into unanswered questions which may or may not in the longer term lead to its falsification. - What amuses me is how the theory has come to be held dogmatically by many refugees from religion, to the extent that it has become for those refugees a substitute for religious belief. I suspect it is thus held because it satisfies a residual need for certainty, and also because it is perceived to be a stick that can be used to beat religion over the head with; that is, for therapeutic and ideological reasons, rather than for good scientific reasons. But, of course, I may be wrong.

I've been prompted to revive this thread after hearing an interview with David Attenborough on the radio this morning. It was in the context of his coming programme on Darwin and the Tree of Life to be broadcast on TV on Sunday, and his having admitted to receiving obnoxious letters and emails from creationists. - The interviewer made the mistake of assuming that he was an atheist, and he responded that he was an agnostic. He explained this in terms of an analogy of himself looking down on a termite nest and the termites being unaware of his presence. In a similar way he suggested there could be things we are not aware of because of the limitations of our senses and limited brains. He gave the example of telling a Victorian that one day it would be possible to transmit televisual pictures or to have the music of a symphony orchestra playng in your front room; he would regard you as a lunatic. - In this I completely agree with him, yet I do not call myself an agnostic, but an atheist. Where we disagree is thus in what we are agnostic or atheistic about. He has clearly expressed his view that he does not believe in a benevolent creator, else why the worms that bore into the eyes and blind people in Africa? I think this is sufficient to call oneself an atheist, since this is the sort of god that most theists believe in. Though of course I go further, maintaining that there is no evidence for any creator, benevolent, malevolent or indifferent, and that our mental abilities are up to the task of deciding this. - I also think that there will be developments in future, discoveries and inventions, that we would regard now as impossibilities. But, thanks to the Victorians (Mary Shelley, Jules Verne etc), we now have the world of speculative science fiction where such ideas can be debated and imagined. - I conclude that David Attenborough prefers to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist purely for political or social reasons, in that the term atheist attracts more abuse than agnostic.

--
GPJ