A primary source is an original study with data and methods of scientific research. There are a set of rules for the scientific method which are not always fallowed. A secondary source is a what someone else writes about the primary source. Scientific consensus is where most scientists agree on a theory and most of the data. Scientific theories are seldom proved as the last rule of the scientific method is to redo the whole process. Wikipedia is a place where people post stuff and others others can take it down. A real scientist will write up his stuff in a scientific Journal which will still be a secondary source. Global warming is a good study of scientific fraud.
One significant problem, and dead give-away, for our anti-science posters is that they loathe real science so much that they absolutely refuse to learn its key ideas and terms.
So they simply can't post accurately about what real science is and does.
One example is your statement here: in actual scientific terms, no non-mathematical theory is ever proved.
The classes of scientific knowledge begin with "confirmed observations" also known as "facts" -- for example: earth's rotation is approx. 24 hours.
This observation has been confirmed so often it is not considered debatable, at least in the Universe as we know it.
So it's a fact.
Explanations of why events happen begin as hypotheses -- for example: a year is 12 months because that's how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun.
This idea was originally quite controversial, and for many years was called a scientific "hypothesis".
When a hypothesis is confirmed (not "proved") it gets promoted to the status of "theory".
In the example of Earth's revolution around the Sun, this theory has now been confirmed so many different ways it is almost considered a "confirmed observation", which would make it also a "fact".
Indeed, it's impossible for me to even imagine a test which might conceivably falsify the heliocentric theory.
So "scientific consensus" is all about which hypotheses are or are-not strongly enough confirmed to be considered theories.
Further, which theories are so frequently confirmed by observations as to be considered, in effect, facts?
In the case of Evolution Theory, there are many confirmed observations aka facts, including ancient fossils found in geological strata, comparative anatomy of fossils & modern creatures, radiometric dating, DNA analysis, plus supporting data from many other scientific fields such as astronomy, physics, geology, biology, etc.
And the scientific explanation -- hypothesis -- that these can be understood by the combination of A) descent with modifications and B) natural selection has also been confirmed frequently enough to label theory.
Indeed, some claim that Evolution Theory has been confirmed so many different ways that it is as much fact as theory.
I'd say that's a matter of definitions, but at least a case can be made for it.
mountainlion: "Wikipedia is a place where people post stuff and others others can take it down."
Please don't forget, the issue you raised in post #38 had to do with "scientific consensus".
Precisely because Wikipedia can be accessed & corrected by anyone, it is an excellent source for determining exactly what is "consensus" on any particular subject.
In other words, you might well dispute Wikipedia's conclusions -- in which case you can post a more authoritative source -- but when the question is "consensus", Wikipedia is as good a place to look as any.