[deleted]
> With this Baconian definition of science, creationists can point to the
> fact that evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and since theories have
> no place in this inductivist view of science, creationists argue that
> evolution is not science. But they use an archaic Baconian version of
> science that, as I explained above, is really unworkable.
>
> [clip]
>
If you define science this way or that way is totally irrelevant, when
you use the word fact. Evolution may be scientific , but the be regarded
as a fact it must fulfill more requirements , especially those which you
called baconian. Otherwise science is only the religion with the
scientists speaking as priests in an authoritative manner.
Oliver
student of physics