Well, its not loose, its actually the original deffinition.
Fisticuffs wrote:
the theory of evolution has not been "proven" to satisfaction
Well, if you study the white moth of northern england that became darker due to soot deposits on trees I believe you have a very good example of specialisation and natural selection. Its an interesting study. Of course I am also aware that there are problems with applying such a classic minutae example as this ti the whole of life. One of the classic is, why does 'evoloution' seem to rest at fixed points. The horseshoe crab for example. Why hasnt it evolved in millions of years. Can it seriously be so well adapted to its environment that it has no need to adapt? The same can be said for many animals. Where is the fossil, or existing evidence, for evoloutioinary steps? Why do we only see the whole numbers and not the fracitons in between? So yes, there are problems with its 'experimental' proof, and yet as a theory it is so elegant, so well suited to life that, and in this case I agree with you, a self evident truth can also constitute proof.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription