A "theory" is an explanation of the unknown, based on (hopefully) everything that is known. The evolution of a theory is basically as follows: some scientist publishes his idea in a paper that is reviewed by all the other interested scientists in the world. They evaluate the theory by looking at everything that is known, and seeing if the theory is consistent with it, or has a problem explaining some part of it. Then later, some other scientist comes up with another theory, or a modification to an existing theory, to deal with the anomalies that have been found. The only time that a theory ultimately becomes a fact is when the fact can be directly observed, e.g., it can be observed that the earth is (more or less) a sphere, and not a flat surface or a disc or something else.
Consider "atomic theory" (if you are old enough). For a number of mechanical reasons, no one will ever SEE an atom. And yet its existence was proposed and accepted centuries ago, and decades went by as the scientists of the day proposed different THEORIES of what distinguished one elemental atom from the others, what held them together, the shape of them, and so forth. And over the years, through more and more detailed and microscopic observations, nuclear scientists have a pretty good idea of what atoms are, what they "look" like, how they act, and so on. But without direct observation, it is still just theoretical.
"Evolution" is a THEORY about the origins of life and its development over the eons to manifest itself as we now see. No one has ever observed evolution. No human has ever seen one species evolve into another species, nor has human history ever recorded this phenomenon occurring. We infer that it occurs from geological and fossil evidence.
And essentially all biological scientists (the only ones relevant to this discussion) have concluded that the THEORY of Evolution explains so many of the facts and evidence that we see, that it must be an accurate explanation of the origin of species.
Which does not make it a fact, just a very satisfactory theory. So if Rand Paul has said that "It's only a theory," that's not newsworthy in any way. Ironically, it is a FACT that Evolution is a THEORY. And that reportage is merely another manifestation of the writings of a journalist who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.
There can be no doubt that the aforementioned journalist or journalists were virtually salivating at the opportunities when they witnessed a Republican politician speaking to a group of fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. If he says something on the subject that makes scientific sense he will antagonize and alienate his audience; if he says something that will ingratiate himself with the audience (as politicians are wont to do), he will - at least potentially - embarrass himself to the wider audience, whom he will need to woo if he intends to run for President in 2016.
He might have said something nuanced, to the effect that he believes God is the Creator, and doesn't worry about the means that God used to carry out his creation," but that might have incensed the audience even more than just saying, "Genesis is a fairy tail."
Is this newsworthy?
