There is a dirty little story about something disgusting that evolutionists did to make evolution a scientific fact. Over 30 years ago when I began studying science in college, I had to learn the names and definitions for the three levels of scientific criteria. These were as follows:
Fact: Proved to be absolutely true and never changing.
Theory: Must be directly supported by at least one scientific fact.
Postulate: Must be directly supported by at least one scientific theory. This means that it must also be indirectly supported by at least one scientific fact.
By the late 1960's and early 1970's, we evolutionists (remember that I used to be one) had a problem with these definitions. Science had disproved all of our proofs and evolution did not have one scientific fact. This meant that, not only could evolution not be called a theory but it couldn't even be call a postulate. Evolution was only an idea with no supporting evidence or criteria. Of course creationists had been kind enough to point this out to us and everyone else.
After a number of national and international meetings by evolutionists to solve this problem, it was decided that they should simply change the definitions for scientific criteria so evolution could legitimately be considered a scientific criterium. The new definitions and one new term are as follows:
Hypothesis: An idea.
Theory: An idea that has been tested.
Fact: An idea that has been tested and is accepted by most of the scientific community. It can also change.
Notice that none of the scientific criteria have to be supported by any scientific evidence or other criteria to be a scientific criterium. The term hypothesis replaced the term postulate and only has to be an idea. It does not have to be tested or tried in any way to be a scientific criterium. This obviously opened the door for evolution.
Next, notice that a theory only has to be tested and does not have to be proved correct. It can be proved completely wrong and still be a theory because it is an idea and has been tested. In these new definitions there is no requirement for validity.
Last, even a scientific fact does not have to be proved any more. It can be an idea and has to have been tested but there is no requirement for the results of the test proving it to be valid. The only other requirement is that most (more than 50%) of the scientists must want to believe it REGARDLESS OF PROOF. It is also important to understand that a fact can now change as evolution regularly does.
It should be obvious that the definition for a fact was written specifically so evolution can be called a fact. This is how scientists are getting away with calling evolution a fact and why increasing numbers of scientists are using numbers or percentage of scientists who profess a belief in evolution as a proof for evolution being a fact. This is inspite of the fact that the history of science teaches us that the majority of scientists and experts have been wrong when major innovations took place.
Eli Whitney was mocked by everyone when he said he could build a spinning mill that would replace the spinning wheel. Robert Fulton was mocked by all the experts when he said he would create the steam ship and it would replace sail boats for merchant shipping. Most of the experts and scientists were saying that man would never fly on the very day that the Wright brothers made their historic flight. It should be obvious that the majority of scientists believing something to be true cannot be used as a valid proof for anything.
The disgusting thing here is that the evolutionists didn't solve the problem by proving anything. All they did was change the definitions so they would be right and evolution would be a fact.
If you doubt this, you can find these definitions in your child's high school science books. Don't believe me, check it out.