Read Darwin’s introduction to The Origin of Species. He outlines many facts that he thought his theory of natural selection best explained. Natural selection is the theory that helps to explain the facts he mentioned. That pre 1960 enough for you?
I handed you a win on a silver plate, but you wont take it. I guess you like to debate for the sake of the debate, rather than to reach an actual resolution.
You did not confirm which contradictory statement you made earlier represents your true view. You said evolution is a theory. Then you said evolution is NOT a theory. Then you refuse to clarify whether one was a typo or if you just woke up one day and decided to take the opposite position for a while.
As to pre-1960 pro-evolution argument, I think I made myself perfectly clear that my contention is about the use or misuse of terminology. My contention is the pro-evolution argument of saying “evolution is a fact” is a recent game of semantics designed as a slight of hand parlor trick to get everyone’s eyes off the ball. The creation vs. evolution debate has always been about theoretical and hypothetical suppositions that contradict some people’s understanding of revealed truth in the Bible. The contradiction between evolution and the Genesis account centers on how long ago life began and whether all life evolved from a common ancestor. Neither of these things are observations.
I said I would concede the point on the semantics of the phrase “evolution is a fact” if you could show a not-so-recent instance where your specific argument was made by someone arguing evolution vs. creation. You simply tell me to read Darwin’s book.
The evolution vs. creation debate has been going on for many years. If your argument is not a recent ploy it should be very easy for you to cite many sources contradicting my assertion. If you can show me one, just one, you win. If not, then I will not recant my position that such statements are just a childish stunt by those who, when not winning, just take their marbles and refuse to play the game.
Creationists do not argue against “descent with modification”. If you said descent with modification is a fact, non one would argue the point. So is semantics your entire argument? I see you’ve gone around on other posts saying creation is useless, but scientific observation does not contradict creation. Descent with modification does not contradict creation.
Pasteur was guided by his belief in creation and the Biblical account. His test to debunk the popular idea of his day - spontaneous generation (which came from scorners who mocked creation like yourself) - is still considered a model of scientific inquiry. His beliefs led him toward pasteurization and vaccinations for rabies. Microbiology began with him. His beliefs guided his scientific inquiry and methods and led to saving the silk industry from financial ruin and the saving of many lives with immunizations. As a contemporary of Darwin, he rejected Darwin’s propositions of universal common descent.
Darwin’s influence has not been as positive. Whether his ideas were misused or not, Pasteur was in an entirely different league. Creation is useful as it informs a philosophy of science with the perspective that the universe is meaningful, comprehensible, and even designed so we can learn about it. These are presuppositions of science. Without the Causeless Cause science becomes nihilistic and meaningless with only observations and generalizations and without explanatory power and beauty.