Snail is being provocative (OK by me). I'm saying that a function of scientific endeavour is to explain natural phenomena, which are not of themselves "science," as they were here long before there were any scientists to contemplate them. Human minds didn't invent evolution, though they did invent its explanation, using evidence to make deductions. Generally, our attempts at explanations are what we call theories. Theories are constantly being tweaked, added to, debunked and rejigged. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not evolution itself. It is our explanation of evolution. We can't ever conclude that a theory is "true," because the whole essence of the scientific process is that theories must be left open-ended, vulnerable to further modification (falsifiable if you like, which Snail does). On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with saying that the phenomena which science tries to explain are true (as long as they are). You'd be a fool to argue that Mount Everest isn't true, though you may argue with the explanations as to why such a huge mountain is where it is, how it got to be so high, where the marine fossils in its rocks came from and so on. You'd be a fool to argue that evolution isn't true, though you may argue about the relative roles of natural selection, gene flow, mutations and genetic drift as its mechanisms, and you may argue about the interpretation of what is a very incomplete fossil record. You'd also be a fool to argue that natural selection isn't true, though you may validly argue about its modes of action. Darwin's theory is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Had he been around today, he would have given it a longer title, as we now know that other mechanisms may be involved. But that's science for you. We could interpret the title of his theory thus: "This is the best attempt at an explanation, using deductions from many areas of evidence, of the natural phenomenon we call evolution. I regard the process of natural selection, another natural phenomenon that my book also tries to explain, as playing a crucial role in the evolutionary process, and here are my reasons." I think I prefer the original title. I'm a simple chap really. I rather like using the word "true" and I regard "false" as its opposite.