johnfm1

science benifits from the reality that any scientific evidence no matter how sound, can be disproven if an experiment is created that introduces conflicting evidence to the said report.

the scientific method is set up in such a way as to allow anything, including theories, and laws of nature, to be challenged using the method. This allows of science to test, and manage itself. Once all confounding variables are taken into consideration, and most of the "challenges" to a hypothesis are provin to be false it may then become a theory.

A theory is not a fact. A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Something that is accepted as the closest thing to fact within science. A "known" truth.

But this does not make it a fact. It can still be disproven at anytime by a scientist with enough data, and a sound experiment. Since it "can" get disproven, does not mean that it "will", but it adds wait to the freedom of science to evolve with knowledge. Nothing is concrete, and nothing is dogmatic. Everything can change.

I realise that, and I realise that there are sittuation where things become Natural Law. Natural law is "accepted" fact. But it still does not remove, or replace the fact that it can STILL be disproven.

That is the beauty of science man, it tests itself, and once the tests are complete, it states it conclussion. The closest thing to fact human's are capable of.

And as for Laws, Evolution has not been accepted as a natural law. and it most likely never will because of all the stupid zealots in the world.

I also concede that this is a debate on symantics. And that we will argue ourselves no-where with this. But I attest that my statements are almost word for word the same as those of some of the most respected scientists in the history of biology.