Gravity is a fact. However, there is a Theory of Gravity that attempts to
explain how gravity (the fact) works.
The same thing is true of evolution. Long before Darwin set foot on the
Beagle, natural scientists knew that things changed (evolved) they just
didn't know how or why. Darwin came up with a theory for how that change
occurred. Discovery of genetics around the turn of the century, discovery
of DNA mid-century and, of course, the enormous numbers of fossil finds,
have in general supported his theory.
>> The "ability of things
>> to evolve naturally, step by step, from simple to complex" is not,
>> actually, a prediction of evolution. Believe it or not, it is
>> still a point of controversy as to whether evolution (the actual
>> process as opposed to a theory) results in a *general* trend
>> toward increasing complexity.
>Doesn't the fact/theory of ameba-to-man predict (this definition of
>evolution is the one that is relevant) that there is an ability of nature to
>increase complexity step by step?
>It's interesting that you can address the fact vs. the theory of evolution
>without identifying what you consider (and what the evolutionist community
>considers) the fact to be and what you consider the theory to be.
for a scientist they word "theory" does not mean "wild-assed guess" as it
does in common parlance. You might look it up in the dictionary and read
the scientific meaning of the word.
Life is short, but it's also very wide.