It's true that a fact is often something observably, and testably true, however, a fact is also a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.
I'm not much of a physicist, so please forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't believe we have test or observed length contraction, though it is part of special relativity.
I can't seem to find any experiments on length contraction either, and I don't recall learning of any (yet). However, length contraction is not a topic that many schools teach (I know that AP Physics B does not cover it, and I am fairly sure that AP Physics C does not, as it is mostly AP Physics B + Calculus. AP Physics is generally the highest level physics class in public schools, so any schools that teach about length contraction are certainly a small number).
As a side note, I noticed a mention that the Michelson-Morley experiment showed length contraction, but I didn't read much into it because I didn't have the time and it's not really relevant to this discussion. But if you're interested, it's there.
I'd like to note, first off, that the two explanations you gave for the fossil record and the genetic map of animal species both use supernatural means to explain natural phenomena(the former because we have no documentation of what happened to all the water after the flood, and the latter because it involves a supernatural designer).
Science does not use supernatural means to explain natural phenomena, because that has no predictive power and undermines the purpose of science. However, if you can come up with another naturalistic theory that explains the existence of those two things I mentioned, then I believe you would be able to make a case. Other scientists have done exactly that in the past, but the fundamental principle of descent through modification has stood unchanged.
That was my point. Because it was in the past, we can not simply say that the pieces of evidence point unquestionably to one explanation. And really, the past is outside of science's realm, just as the supernatural is. We can not observe and experiment on what happened back then because it is done. By the definition of science, and the definition of the
past, it is simply unreasonable to call molecules-to-man macroevolution (which happened in the past, and therefore is unobservable and untestable) science.
If, in (insert large amount of time) scientists then see that new species have come and gone because of the documents we write, they will be able to say that they evolved from us, and give a detailed account of the mechanisms that allowed that to happen. However, they still would not be able to say a thing about what happened prior to the documentation because they will have nothing. The evidence we have now does not allow for experimentation. We can not take it, experiment, and say, "Okay, this fits this theory, that one, and that one. Let's control for this variable to try and eliminate two of the theories." All it tells us is that some time in the past, some animals died.
And I would like to stress that you cannot dismiss macroevolution without dismissing speciation and microevolution. They operate on the same, exact driving principles, and they are all a part of the theory of Evolution. If you dismiss one, you dismiss all of it.
It is like the theory of Gravity. We can observe and test how less massive object fall toward more massive objects, and we can observe smaller object revolving around the earth.
Now, we have the Sun. We know that there is relative movement between the Sun and the Earth, we see the Sun rise and fall every day.
Because we understand the underlying principles of gravity, we can conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun.
However, a modern geocentrist would of course beg to differ, saying that the evidence for the Earth revolving around the sun instead supports the theory that the major celestial bodies in the universe orbit the Earth, including the Sun.
We know his theory violates the fundamental, testable laws that have to explain how gravity works, we don't have to go out into space and observe the Earth revolving around the sun in order to be able to declare a heliocentric solar system as fact.
Just as we are able to make measurements and obtain evidence without having to actually go out into space and watch the Earth travel around the Sun, we can make measurements and obtain evidence without actually having to travel back in time and watch evolution occur.
It's the same with our own solar system's formation. We have theory on how that happened, but that isn't any less factual than things that we can observe and test either, even though we can't go back and test it. It's because of the underlying principles that we already know very well, and supporting evidence that we've found.
Firstly, teaching about the universe's formation would fall into the same category as molecules-to-man evolution. Secondly, yes, we can take theories shown to work and apply them elsewhere without actually having to observe it directly. But here's one of the big differences:
In your gravity example, you start out with one situation that you have seen to be correct, have shown mathematically, and tested/experimented/observed. Then you took that situation, notice that another situation follows what seems to be similar principles. Then you test/experiment/observe that, and find that it follows the established principles.
However, with evolution, you start out with one situation that you have seen to be correct and have tested/experimented/observed. Then you took that situation, and noticed that it could be used to explain something in the past that no one has documented, that no one can experiment on to confirm, nor can anyone replicate it.
Do you see the difference? It's huge, and it's the very difference that makes something scientific or not.
In statistics, you can not plot your data, come up with a line of best fit, and then extend that line of best fit outside of the domain of the graph. Statisticians are not allowed to do that for one reason: anything could happen outside the domain. In the case of evolution, we know that the principles behind microevolution and speciation allow for small changes within a species and allow those changes to accumulate, but it is not known whether those changes can accumulate to form completely new species. That's a completely different result, outside the range of results that have been shown before.
EDIT: Oops, forgot one last point.
In the scientific community, it is very rare that you can prove that something is true.
A scientific theory is an idea that has withstood the scrutiny of many opposing arguments, ideas, and, most importantly, evidence. It is no small matter to have the support of the entire scientific community behind you. When something does have that support, it is usually quite robust.
Though I don't mean to make an appeal to authority, it just bothered me that you took it so lightly.
Sorry, I used the term "prove" because people in this thread have used it quite often, and my point was that it has not been proven. But yes, if something has been replicated, tested, and the evidence fits the bill, then for all practical purposes it is true.
As for your scientific community comment, scientific communities in the past have accepted a flat earth to be true, yet that does nothing to make it correct.
very quickly, i'd like to say Intelligent design is not, as some say, a religion, or part of religion, it is in fact a theory. this means that as a largely accepted theory, like the theory of evolution, ID should be taught as well. Not as a "Accept Jesus into your heart" or "Believe in Buddha" type of thing, simply as a theory. just like how evolution should be taught, as a theory.
Perhaps you were just pointing this out for others to see, but if you were directly addressing me, you should note that I used the word "theory" when addressing ID.
Science as it advances, is comprised more and more of theories. thus science class is already comprised of theories being taught to students. why should ID be treated differently?
Because it is not observable or testable, unlike the theory of relativity or theory/law of gravity (use to be called the law of gravity, sometimes still is). And, as I'm arguing, the theory of evolution (in regards to macroevolution), is no more observable or testable than ID, and likewise should not be taught.
I think the term "creationist" is the one which most accurately depicts those who believ the world is only 6000 years old.
Typically, but when talking about Biblical Creation there are generally two camps, young-earth creationists (who believe that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old), and old-earth creationists (who believe that the earth is millions of years old or whatever).
