The phrase "Evolution is a fact"

The phrase "Evolution is a fact" is interesting to me, semantically. My question for discussion is whether this is a scientifically justifiable statement.First, I don't think everyone is thinking of the same evolution when they talk about this statement. Some folks launch into a discussion of natural selection, which, i thought, was a mechanism of evolution but not evolution itself.Secondly, it is not clear to me what sense of the word fact is being used here. (I have an entry from the Merriam-Webster website below for reference.) If Evolution is a theory, it cannot be a fact. But, then, I may have missed the promotion ceremony.But, is it that we are saying evolution has occurred, as in def'n 4. Or, is it an object that is able to be examined and tested, as in def'n 5 (i hope not, as I can't test it, nor can you).From Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary:Main Entry:
fact
Pronunciation:
\fakt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date:
15th century1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b: crime archaic : action
2 archaic : performance , doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality
4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
” in fact
: in truth

​

Edited by Admin, : Change angle brackets into HTML literals.

I enjoyed reading through the posts. I originally submitted the first post in this thread to investigate some semantic issues in the "evolution is fact" rhetoric. I was not taking a side, just interested in the semantics. Here are some observations:1. There seem to be some conflicting views on facts and reasoning (inference, deduction, induction, etc.). I may have it wrong, but it would seem to me that a particular progressive set of fossils or measurements from them constitute a set of facts, but the reasoning from those facts do not.2. There seems to be a melding of the mechanisms of evolution (mutation, natural selection, cross-breeding, etc.), speciation (which is poorly defined), "macro" evolution, and descent (I may have missed some layers or groupings, sorry). This forum would do well to try to clean these definitions up. Most lay people do not have problems with the first two concepts. Some may have religious problems with descent, and therefore "macro". One solution is to first educate on the common ground, since this is where the world works.3. Early posts indicate the confusion in the use of the terms fact and theory. A fact, in common scientific usage, is a measurable agreed upon and repeatable. A theory is a testable explanation. Evolution, being both "micro" and "macro", is ambiguous in definition. Therefore its testability is questionable. It would seem, from the posts, that "micro" is testable, and has been established as a fact. "Macro", however, seems untestable , but is a perfectly reasonable set of inferences, deductions, and inductions from the facts.4. To the topic, "Evolution is a fact": I hope you will all understand why I posted this. Evolution is a powerful term, as was revealed by a few of the posts here. Many people respond emotionally and without careful thought, even some on the scientific side. There is widespread ignorance on both sides (yes, on both sides). Education is important, but education includes pedagogy and understanding of culture.5. Generally, there was good discussion in the posts, and a lack of name-calling and pettiness. Thanks for giving me some good material to read through!!