VenomFangX said:
The laws of nature are not modified just peoples explanation of them. Scientist when they finally realise they have better answers come up with better theories and I guess the old ones are modified by consensus. Sort of like the Astronomical Authority kicking poor Pluto out of the Solar System as a planet.
VFX
If you're saying that scientists don't get to change the definition of theory then it's not the word theory that's important lol, you could call them skwarks for all I care, it's about the definition.
In Science, a theory is a hypothesis (An explanation of patterns in facts) that has passed the peer review process, has an amazingly large amount of evidence in favor or it and none/almost none against and has survived years upon years of self-critical observation.
In Science, a fact is an observation. Any observation is a fact, for example that the sky is blue.
Firstly, you go out and find some facts (Observe). For example, you might make the observation that we share 98% of our DNA with other apes, or that the history of continental drift coincides exactly with what we've determined from DNA tracing.
Based on millions of these observations (facts) you create a hypothesis that attempts to explain why they are like that (Intelligent design hypothesis for example, or back in the 19th century what was then the evolutionary hypothesis). The hypothesis doesn't have to be supported by evidence or proven in any way to be a hypothesis, it only has to explain the observations (facts).
This untested hypothesis is then tested by those who wish to develop it into a theory (A proven hypothesis), and if they find sufficient evidence that goes towards confirming their hypothesis they collect these results into a scientific paper and publish it in a peer reviewed journal. Hundreds of employed scientists then try as hard as they can to find some fault in your experiments/findings, if they do then your paper is denied publication (And you go back to the drawing board with their criticisms).
If you pass this peer review process you then move on to getting a consensus in the scientific community (Which isn't a hard thing to do if your hypothesis is correct). Once this has occurred you have a scientific theory; the highest position awarded for any explanation. This theory doesn't evolve into a fact, it explains facts.
This is a simplified (there are a few more requirements) process for the creation of a scientific theory. Only theories are scientifically justified to be taught in schools (According to the state constitution, which requires science taught to be accurate).
You can't just skip this process, insert your hypothesis into the schools and expect it to be accepted, do like the rest of us do and pass it through the scientific criticism.
I'll give you two different definitions of the words fact and theory and explain how evolution conforms to them.
Colloquial language
Fact: Evolution is a fact
Theory: Evolution isn't a theory, it's more than that.
Scientific language
Fact: No, evolution explains facts
Theory: Yes
Depending on who you're talking to it's either.
