I think that observations are a type of fact, but not the only kind of fact. I'm not sure whether I should accept one source as a definitive definition.
Many people refer to the theory of gravity and also the the law of gravity, but gravity is also a fact - easily percievable by observation. Gravity is a vast body of observations (facts), but it is also a generalized mathematical description of those facts (the law), and also a very general theory that explains those facts and extrapolates new ones.
I'm not sure any there are any scientists who would say "gravity is *just* a theory" or "gravity is *merely* a theory." That's a long argument.
Now to get to first things last - the very first discussion I ever had on the internet was about 25 or 26 years ago and it was on the subject of evolution and creationism. At the time I wasn't firmly in either camp, coming as I did from being a Baptist and being, as I was at one time, a creationist myself. The topic that came up at the time was 2nd law of thermodynamics which was reported by most creationists to utterly disprove evolution. I was an undergraduate engineer at the time and was required to study thermo, so I had some background in this. This was offered as a definitive argument against evolution and yet I knew very well at the time that it was being presented very dishonestly.
Over the years I have watched and read many debates. I have read a lot of creationist literature and I have tried to clarify what evolution means in my own head by reading evolutionists' books and articles and by thinking about the subject critically myself.
I have also participated online in a large number of discussions and arguments on this subject. What I have found universally is that creationists repeat the same stupid nonsense over and over and over. They have no compunctions whatever against coming into a forum and proliferating essentially nonsensical views about science and evolution.
PICK A FORUM! ANY FORUM WHERE THE SUBJECT COMES UP! And there they are festering in the darkness, misrepresenting real science, and essentially lying. What has happened in this forum is quite representative. They come in, make idiotic assertions, accuse evolutionary scientists of the greatest incompetence, and non-scientific evolutionists of parrotting what the scientists have said. The irony is staggering. In fact, I have developed my own little theory because of this. It's not a very scientific theory, maybe more of a speculation. I think that maybe irony is maybe a type of quark or maybe something even more fundamental. It appears to be woven into the fabric of the cosmos.
Here we have a group of people who almost universally misrepresent a subject, who INSIST that they've "studied enough" and yet who seem almost universally incapable of producing a single coherent sentence that belies an even remote understanding of the subject. These people who are utterly disrespectful in general whine when they are rebutted for making utterly stupid statements.
Now, I don't believe that all the world's problems would be solved if they were to do an honest day's homework, but I do think that by and large this particular issue would evaporate, if they would at least try to get educated on this subject before reaching a conclusion on it.
That's a big clue to me. I realized some time ago that they're not trying to search for truth. They're not trying to find out. Contrary to what many evolutionists believe, they're not even trying to win the argument. What they're trying to do is to complicate and confuse the issue so much that people just throw up their hands in disgust and say, "well, we really have to be fair here - there's not enough evidence either way." That IS their victory condition - confusion.
