Evolution itself is a fact — a phenomenon visible to anyone via the (aided or unaided) senses
Darwin’s Theory is an explanation of how this fact of evolution (which everyone can see for themselves) happens.
Naturally this Theory will always be a Theory, an explanation.
————————————

Why is evolution not a law?
Fact, hypothesis, law, and theory

In science, the term "law" refers to phenomena so regular and unvarying that they are described mathematically.
All other uses of the word "law" are metaphorical.

A "law" is a mathematical expression.

Here is the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an example:
Laws of thermodynamics

There are some laws that apply to evolution -- for example, the Hardy-Weinberg Law:
Hardy-Weinberg equation

Some sciences aspire to describe every single one of their phenomena in strict mathematical terms, to quantify everything -- which would be a list of laws.

Biology and living things are less suited to mathematical expressions than the sciences of inanimate objects (such as chemistry or physics.) For that reason, there are far fewer laws in biology than in other sciences. That is why physics and chemistry are called "exact sciences," but biology is called a "descriptive science."

Even if it becomes fact, it must conform to the immutable laws of nature. Evolution Debunked

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

Scholars of theology, except the Aryas, have no understanding at all and for those of science, it is dim.

A theory does not become a fact.

Facts and the theories that account for those facts are two different things.

People are taking advantage of you to exploit you for money, power, or sex.
They are able to do this because you don’t understand the basic elements of the sciences.

you don’t understand the basic elements of the sciences.
Even in science there is a problem!

“Science without religion is lame……………” Albert Einstein

Creation

Well, Vijal, you didn’t have to post that link.
I could already tell that you are superstitious.

It’s a self-inflicted mental handicap.

All claims of the supernatural are fraud or self-delusion.
There are no exceptions.

Well Ann, are you saying Einstein is also superstitious?

Whatever facts we lay claim to, they are in harmony with reasoning, science and in conformity with the laws of nature. I’m assuming you do know something these laws.

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Einstein

You’re using an underhanded tactic to try to make it look like Einstein said something that he didn’t.

But above that, anything that Einstein could ever say would make no difference.

In science, it isn’t what celebrities say that matters.
It’s the opposite for religion, which relies on mere say-so — which is why religious guidance is always wrong.

In science, it is what the evidence shows that matters.
Superstitious people never instinctively realize this.

That’s what makes them quote Scripture as though it were evidence, or misquote celebrities to prove a point of argument.

Baseless claims depend on argument.
Science depends on demonstrable, empirical concrete evidence.

In science, it is what the evidence shows that matters.
Vj ~ You seem to ignore what I have said of natural laws. Your evidence can only be valid if it conforms with the immutable laws of nature.

Congratulations though! It is better to be an atheist than a hypocrite, but you still have a very huge problem according to Bertrand Russel who said the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Ha! Yes!

He was so right!

But don’t feel too bad.

You can always go to school and learn about the facts of science.

Don’t feel too bad.
There are two things your science can’t teach you, but I can, the origin of matter, the material cause of the universe and functions of natural laws.

Hahaha!
The best you can do is to copy me.
If I say “Don’t feel too bad,” then YOU say “Don’t feel too bad.”
Wherever did I hear that before?
It’s like you have to make your words match with or rhyme with mine.
Hahaha!
Try to find your own words, Vijai.
————————-

You said:
“ There are two things science can’t teach you … “
My response:
You listed THREE things.
————————

You said:
“There are …. things science can’t teach you … “
My response:
Science is making huge strides DAILY on discovering all falsifiable assertions about the natural world, and we confidently expect to keep on finding more and more.

I hope your claim never becomes wrong, so that human beings eventually run out of new facts to discover.

But in the meantime, be sure not to keep on confusing “has not yet discovered (whatever)” with “is incapable of discovering (whatever)”
———————-

You said:
“[Science can’t teach you] the origin of matter … “
My response:
You’re wrong about that one.
—————————

You said:
“[Science can’t teach you] the material cause of the universe”
My response:
What does that even mean?
—————————-

You said:
“[Science can’t teach you] the function of natural laws.
My response:
You’re wrong about this one too.
————————

If you provide yourself with an education, you won’t be so susceptible to these elementary errors.

And I’m not even talking about your errors in basic grammar.

There are two things science can’t teach you …
You listed THREE things.
Vj ~ I listed (1) MATTER and (2) NATURAL LAWS. Where is the third?

Vj ~ Science can’t teach you] the origin of matter …
You’re wrong about that one.
Vj ~ How am I wrong when you haven’t given me the answer?

Vj ~ Science can’t teach you, the material cause of the universe
What does that even mean?
Vj ~ Let me educate you, there are three causes to creation of a finite entity. An efficient cause, material cause and a common cause (requisite skill or knowledge, space, time and labor or instrument).

Science can’t teach you] the function of natural laws.
You’re wrong about this one too.
Vj ~ So you’re saying you’re way ahead of Einstein who admitted to having only a dim understanding - "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

If you provide yourself with an education, you won’t be so susceptible to these elementary errors. And I’m not even talking about your errors in basic grammar.

Vj ~ English education and grammar has nothing to do with wisdom. In spite of it, you’re intelligent and full of doubt. Here is my debate on the science of evolution if you’re interested.

Even after you had a chance to recount your list, you STILL think you listed only two things.
And even though I responded to ALL THREE of your items, you still think you listed only two things.
You wrote:
“There are two things science can’t teach you, the origin of matter, the material cause of the universe and functions of natural laws.”

Here are the “two” things you mention:
1) The origin of matter
2) The material cause of the universe
3) Functions of natural laws
———————————

You said:
“My English education and grammar has nothing to do with wisdom.”
My response:
Your grammar demonstrates that you are not an educated person.
Being uneducated also has nothing to do with wisdom.

It is the height of unwisdom to set yourself up with a position like this:
“If science (and it all the educated people in the world) are right, then my religion is wrong.”
That’s a correct statement of your position, but it was not wise to paint yourself into that corner.

And even though I responded to ALL THREE of your items
Vj ~ I should have been more explicit, knowing I’m dealing with the lame.
Matter is THE material cause of the universe, get it!

you are not an educated person
Vj ~ When an “uneducated person” knows the origin of matter and fully understand the functions of natural laws, what does that make you?

If science is right, it would mean my religion is indeed wrong, but as long as science is lame, then my religion is right. And it is not I alone who is saying it, but the genius Albert Einstein.

“Science without religion is lame………..”

You said:
Matter is THE material cause of the universe, get it!
What does that even mean?

Even if I correct your grammar, like this …
> “Matter is THE material cause of the universe. Get it?”
… it still doesn’t mean anything.
———————

You said:
If science is right, it would mean my religion is indeed wrong, but as long as science is lame, then my religion is right.
My response:
(surprised) Are you in a position to evaluate “science”?
I thought you admitted that you had only a high school education.
——————————

You said:
the genius Albert Einstein [said] “Science without religion is lame………..”
My response:
Ahahaha!
I see now that your posts were sarcastic and comical.

Well done!
You fooled me into thinking that you were serious.

Vj ~ Matter is THE material cause of the universe, get it!
What does that even mean?
Vj ~ What more proof do you need science is lame? I earlier pointed out the three causes.

Vj ~ If science is right, it would mean my religion is indeed wrong, but as long as science is lame, then my religion is right.
(surprised) Are you in a position to evaluate “science”?
Vj ~ It has already been evaluated by Einstein as LAME.

I thought you admitted that you had only a high school education
Vj ~ True! And how do evaluate your education, when one with “only a high school education” knows the origin of matter and fully understand the functions of natural laws?

Is this serious enough for you?

May you please link me to the Einstein quote if you have the chance?

I think you are joking.

I think you are joking.
Vj ~ When it comes to philosophy I’m very serious.


May you please link me to the Einstein quote if you have the chance?
Vj ~ Take your pick.
"Philosophy and reason will remain the most beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the select few." Albert Einstein

"We owe a lot to Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." Albert Einstein

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws." Albert Einstein

“Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.” Albert Einstein

Only a prejudicial mind would ignore the wisdom this great man.

“Only a prejudicial mind would ignore the wisdom this great man.”
My response:
That’s a religionist’s belief.
There is never any evidence to support their made-up beliefs, so they rely on celebrities’ remarks.

Science has no interest in the unsupported opinions of famous people.
Science is interested only indemonstrable, reproducible, empirical facts.

Albert Einstein was a kind of agnostic
So now you are going to become an agnostic too because he was a great celebrity — right?
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia

That’s a religionist’s belief.
There is never any evidence to support their made-up beliefs, so they rely on celebrities’ remarks.
Vj ~ It was what the fox said about the grape being sour just because he couldn’t reach it. There is evidence, but what effort have you made so far to investigate it. Just remember there is no short cut to wisdom. It took me, as an atheist, almost twenty years to find the evidence.
Let me, the “uneducated” educate you on the kinds of evidence to ascertain truth - Five tests
1. Direct Cognizance
2. Inference
3. Analogy
4. Testimony
5. History

Of course, he is a celebrity in his own right, but these remarks are termed testimony. I spent years pondering on them to arrive at the evidence and it will be the same for anyone else.

Science has no interest in the unsupported opinions of famous people.
Vj ~ It will always be unsupported in the absence of the correct knowledge. Only revealed knowledge can tell us the origin of science, creator, creation, matter, soul, language, etc.

Science is interested only indemonstrable, reproducible, empirical facts.
Vj ~ What good are your facts when you have no understanding of the functions of natural laws? All facts must be in conformity with the immutable laws of nature.

Albert Einstein was a kind of agnostic.
So now you are going to become an agnostic too because he was a great celebrity — right?
Vj ~ Even better, it was his opinions that strengthened my desire for the truth which led me to the wisest celebrity of all times.

You said:
“Only revealed knowledge can tell us the origin of science, creator, creation, matter, soul, language, etc.”
My response:
You demonstrate at every opportunity that you do not know what “evidence” is.

Does this help?
Think of “evidence” as what may be presented to the jury in a court of law.

“Revealed wisdom” is not acceptable, nor is information that came to you in a dream. None of the classes of “evidence” in your numbered list are acceptable for presentation to a jury, and no judge would allow it.

Real evidence is concrete, factual, empirical, physical, demonstrable by silently pointing at it.
Without argument, persuasion, or hypnosis, everyone can access it it for themselves with their senses.
The jurors physically carry real evidence into the jury room to look it over for themselves.

Your moonbat notions have zero value as evidence.

“Revealed knowledge” is just your own fantasy.
You are JUST MAKING IT UP.

All superstitious claims are fraud or self-delusion.
There are no exceptions.

You demonstrate at every opportunity that you do not know what “evidence” is.
Vj ~ And I’m saying, even if you claim to have “evidence”, it is not valid until it conforms to the immutable laws of nature. You’re also demonstrating at every opportunity to ignore my questions on the origin of matter and your understanding of natural laws functions.

The ruder stage
"But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilization, when the laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed." Swami Dayanand

Albert Einstein agrees with the above - "We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Scholars of theology, except the Aryas, have no understanding at all and for those of science, it is dim.

Real evidence is concrete, factual, empirical, physical, demonstrable by silently pointing at it.
Vj ~ With all of those, the evidence still stands invalid without confirmation with the laws of nature.

“Revealed knowledge” is just your own fantasy.
You are JUST MAKING IT UP.
Vj ~ And it will always seem to be that way to those who have no intention whatever to investigate my philosophical treatise.

What are you afraid of Ann?

Vijai, please try to realize that your fantasies and delusions are interesting only to you.

Reading your “philosophical treatise” will only cause other people an injury when they lapse into a coma and hit the floor.

Why not just be content with writing a nice philosophical treatise that meets your own criteria for factual content, and just enjoy it in the privacy of your own mind.

It should be obvious to you that no scholarship on the entire globe is going to pay the slightest attention to you, and no individual either.

Ann: Reading your “philosophical treatise” will only cause other people an injury when they lapse into a coma and hit the floor.
Vj ~ You don’t have to worry you’re already in coma (full of doubt) and it won’t be long before you “hit the floor”.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell

Ann: Why not just be content with writing a nice philosophical treatise that meets your own criteria for factual content, and just enjoy it in the privacy of your own mind.
Vj ~ To the ignorant truth is like poison but for the wise, it is deep philosophy guided by good reasoning and we do enjoy it in the privacy of our own mind. I’m not out to save the world, whether you accept or reject, it is just my nature to propagate true knowledge.

"Philosophy and reason will remain the most beautiful sanctuary they have always been for the select few." Albert Einstein

Ann: It should be obvious to you that no scholarship on the entire globe is going to pay the slightest attention to you, and no individual either.
Vj ~ Oh I’m aware of that! My happiness is now permanent, and it is not dependent on who comes or goes. I’m well aware of what the world has become. I don’t know of anyone including you who would want to know the origin of matter or the true functions of natural laws.

"If there should be a conference among the most imaginative minds they will agree that almost all institution of learning is only nurseries of prejudice, corruption, barbarism, and pedantry." Anonymous

"The knowledge given by another cannot be called instinctive. What is instinctive is natural, it can neither increase or decrease nor can it help anyone to make any progress since the savages also possess this instinctive knowledge and yet they have not made any progress. The acquired (revealed) knowledge alone is the cause of progress. All of us during our childhood did not possess accurate knowledge of right and wrong, virtue and vice, but after having studied under our learned teachers, we were enabled to distinguish between right and wrong, virtue and vice. Hence it is wrong to hold that instinctive knowledge is all-sufficient." vjsingh.info/books

Not even a single word had any connection to science. Not even a single word offered evidence.

Not even a single word had any connection to science. If possible, may you please include links to the well-known people you quote, I hope you get a chance to write this up!

Not even a single word had any connection to science_
Vj ~ Prevention is better than cure. My theology teaches prevention which means it is far higher than your science. It teaches the origin of matter and the functions of natural laws which your science can’t do.

Not even a single word offered evidence_
Vj ~ As I said before, what good is any evidence if it does not conform to the immutable laws of nature?

If possible, may you please include links to the well-known people you quote_
Vj ~ Your problem is not "well-known" people, but their quotes.
Explain to me what Einstein meant by saying “science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.”

I hope you get a chance to write this up!
Vj ~ Everything I have written is here - In search of the one true religion. You’re not answering my questions and yet you want more “backstories and supporting ideas”.