Why use "theory" for evolution?

[Doug1029]

My question is this. Why not get rid of the confusion between the meanings of the word and call them something else? Maybe call it a study or something like that. Because to the uneducated (even more so then myself) who are limited by open mindedness, logical thinking and curiosity. Won't confuse the scientific meaning of theory for the other meaning that basically means "an unconfirmed idea"?

Evolution rests firmly on the Doctrine of Uniformity, which basically says that no forces operate in this universe that have not always operated in it. In order for things like continental drift to occur, immense quantites of time are required. But there is no way to prove deductively that such huge amounts of time have transpired. If large amounts of time are not available, then the only way to explain how things such as continents, dinosaurs and humans came about is by feit: "And God said, 'Let it be so.'" But that requires a force which is not evident today, and thus violates Uniformity. Thus, as originally conceived by Darwin, Evolution is a theory.

BUT: We can observe life forms evolving and continents moving. Thus, evolution is no longer a theory; it is an observable fact. But, it has been called a theory for so long that the name has stuck.

The idea that the earth is only 6000 years old comes from a passage in Psalms which says "A thousand ages in Thy sight are as but an evening gone." In Genesis, God created the world in six days. If you define one of these days as a year, then six days equals 6000 years. But if one day is not the same as a thousand years, you're out in left field.

There are other biblical versions of the earth's age. The medieval Irish believed the earth was created in 5199 BC so that Jesus was born in the 5200th Year of the World. This comes from the Bible, but I don't know the exact derivation.

There is an aspen clone in Utah (Clone Pando) that is estimated at a million years old, based on rate of growth and size. There is a Huon pine in Indonesia that would be about 10,000 years old; and a creosote bush in the Mojave Desert that is about 15,000 years old, older than the desert it lives in. We have wood from bristlecone pines that can be cross-dated to 8400 years ago. And papyrus clones have been estimated at about 5000 years in age - Moses' bullrushes may still be alive!

If God's words: "Let it be so," actually mean "I don't know" to the person repeating them, then that person is telling the truth. He is offering an "explanation" that doesn't have meaning in an attempt to disguise his lack of knowledge. There is no shame in not knowing - there are more things unknown than known. The shame is in pretending to know what one does not. So next time someone tells you, "God did it", remember that he is telling the truth: he doesn't know the answer.

Doug

[Spock_the_Future]

Not sure if you read the other thread that sort of prompted this question by the OP...

Confusing the general term "theory" (meaning an unsupported idea) with "scientific theory" (which is factually supported etc.) is common in discussions of evolution. The two terms are not interchangeable.

Nibs

Well I did got through the thread (And made a post too, not a very cool post I think, I sucked there) and just to repeat again a theory is a theory, I'll say again what I did quote earlier, one group of scientists say wine is good for you and the other one says it isn't, Are we dealing with the same substantiated proven facts associated with these tests ?

[+HerNibs]

Well I did got through the thread (And made a post too, not a very cool post I think, I sucked there) and just to repeat again a theory is a theory, I'll say again what I did quote earlier, one group of scientists say wine is good for you and the other one says it isn't, Are we dealing with the same substantiated proven facts associated with these tests ?

It depends on the studies to support each statement. Which scientist did what testing? Over what period of time? Who reviewed it?

If the first just spoke to people and they said it made them feel better then his "study" is false and just an idea.

If the second actually measured the effects of wine on a group of individuals (monitoring long term health effects, measuring all the medical stuff), had a control group and outside reviewers and these reviewers are able to verify the tests then the second scientist is moving into the "theory" idea.

Two very different things.

Nibs

[Spock_the_Future]

It depends on the studies to support each statement. Which scientist did what testing? Over what period of time? Who reviewed it?

If the first just spoke to people and they said it made them feel better then his "study" is false and just an idea.

If the second actually measured the effects of wine on a group of individuals (monitoring long term health effects, measuring all the medical stuff), had a control group and outside reviewers and these reviewers are able to verify the tests then the second scientist is moving into the "theory" idea.

Two very different things.

Nibs

Actually they both of them tested it on a group of people (you don't get grants if you don't do that) and then came up with the conclusion. Would I have remembered the links I would have posted them here. They were both on NYT and were almost 15 days apart if I remember correctly. I Just can assure you that these studies where here. Anyway my facts can be proven as theory if not as downright lies.

[+HerNibs]

Actually they both of them tested it on a group of people (you don't get grants if you don't do that) and then came up with the conclusion. Would I have remembered the links I would have posted them here. They were both on NYT and were almost 15 days apart if I remember correctly. I Just can assure you that these studies where here. Anyway my facts can be proven as theory if not as downright lies.

Ummm... ok. I thought it was just an example.

Fact is - "theory" and "scientific theory" are two different things and are not interchangeable.

Nibs

[Spock_the_Future]

Ummm... ok. I thought it was just an example.

Fact is - "theory" and "scientific theory" are two different things and are not interchangeable.

Nibs

Hi Nibs,

Facts are whose facts ? Yours or mine or those two scientific group's ? Do you consider that there is a source of reasons for scientific lobbies endorsing theories as facts ? We never took part or were actively involved in them. What does prompt us to take them as facts ? This is what the thread is about in the end, isn't it ? Or should we start with my fact is a theory with you and so is yours with mine and we can talk ?

You tell me ?

Edited February 1, 2012 by Spock_the_Future

[+HerNibs]

Hi Nibs,

Facts are whose facts ? Yours or mine or those two scientific group's ? Do you consider that there is a source of reasons for scientific lobbies endorsing theories as facts ? We never took part or were actively involved in them. What does prompt us to take them as facts ? This is what the thread is about in the end, isn't it ? Or should we start with my fact is a theory with you and so is yours with mine and we can talk ?

You tell me ?

Well, I'm talking about this kind of "fact"

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts

If it's a scientific fact, I can test and verify it.

I disagree with what this thread is about. IMO it's about a confusion on the difference between a "scientific theory" and the misapplied term "theory" as in an idea.

Some on can lobby something as a scientific theory all they want but in the end, with proper testing and verification/falsification it will come out in the end if it is false.

A "scientific theory" has nothing to do with motivation or emotion, it just is.

Nibs

[Spock_the_Future]

If it's a scientific fact, I can test and verify it.

Nibs

Well then we can agree to disagree. You say "If it's a scientific fact, I can test and verify it." and I say "I'll say even a law is a theory when someone sitting in a lab(actually CERN, which as a science believer you would be able to verify is one of the best scientific labs in the whole world) is able to throw a faster then light particle then what is there to a proven law ?".

Speed of light used to be an undisputed, verified scientific fact. "Used to be" is the operative word here.

Anyway as we both would say in the end(so it seems). We still agree to disagree. Agree on this one ?

[ninjadude]

Evolution rests firmly on the Doctrine of Uniformity, which basically says that no forces operate in this universe that have not always operated in it. In order for things like continental drift to occur, immense quantites of time are required. But there is no way to prove deductively that such huge amounts of time have transpired.

Sure we do. Radioactive half life. And rock layers. Unless you're claiming that radioactive decay is not constant. Then we have much bigger problems. Of course that doesn't apply to biological specimens. But fossils are found in specific rock layers corresponding to specific time periods using stratigraphic principles and geochronology. The rocks are aged based on specific half life using Radiometric dating source

[FurthurBB]

Well then we can agree to disagree. You say "If it's a scientific fact, I can test and verify it." and I say "I'll say even a law is a theory when someone sitting in a lab(actually CERN, which as a science believer you would be able to verify is one of the best scientific labs in the whole world) is able to throw a faster then light particle then what is there to a proven law ?".

Speed of light used to be an undisputed, verified scientific fact. "Used to be" is the operative word here.

Anyway as we both would say in the end(so it seems). We still agree to disagree. Agree on this one ?

Maybe this will help a bit with your understanding http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Also, both of those papers you are talking about with the wine are clinical studies which are a lot different than laboratory experiments. Also, red wine is good for you in a lot of ways, it helps keep your arteries clearer so you are less likely to build arterial plaques, it thins your blood which is good for high blood pressure and can ward off certain heart problems, and it is full of antioxidants which pick up free oxygen radicals that can lead to cancer and other cellular malfunctions. Although, red wine contains alcohol which is bad for you because it causes liver and kidney damage, crosses the blood brain barrier, can complicate many illnesses and have dangerous interactions with prescription medications,causes dehydration, and if you drink enough can tie up your NAD+ and NADH+ stores which are essential electron carriers in many cellular processes. So it is accurate to say that red wine is good for you, it is also accurate to say that red wine is bad for you. It depends on the context as well as what is being studied.

[Spock_the_Future]

Maybe this will help a bit with your understanding http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Also, both of those papers you are talking about with the wine are clinical studies which are a lot different than laboratory experiments. Also, red wine is good for you in a lot of ways, it helps keep your arteries clearer so you are less likely to build arterial plaques, it thins your blood which is good for high blood pressure and can ward off certain heart problems, and it is full of antioxidants which pick up free oxygen radicals that can lead to cancer and other cellular malfunctions. Although, red wine contains alcohol which is bad for you because it causes liver and kidney damage, crosses the blood brain barrier, can complicate many illnesses and have dangerous interactions with prescription medications,causes dehydration, and if you drink enough can tie up your NAD+ and NADH+ stores which are essential electron carriers in many cellular processes. So it is accurate to say that red wine is good for you, it is also accurate to say that red wine is bad for you. It depends on the context as well as what is being studied.

The link you provided I found this interesting "no exceptions have been found to a law.". A few centuries ago the law was that Earth was flat and we couldn't fly. I hope that you would agree that Laws change all the time (in between scores of years, although with much protestations from then and there established scientists).

Wine, Yes it's Good and Bad, It's a scientific study for now and then can you predict what they will say about the Human body and mind 150 years down the line ? Will today's law hold as the laws made 150 years later ? Will the laws not change ?

edit: forgot to add the word Wine , well it is something isn't it, Wine I mean

Edited February 1, 2012 by Spock_the_Future

[ninjadude]

The link you provided I found this interesting "no exceptions have been found to a law.". A few centuries ago the law was that Earth was flat and we couldn't fly. I hope that you would agree that Laws change all the time (in between scores of years, although with much protestations from then and there established scientists).

No. First of all it was never generally accepted that the earth was flat. That's just wrong. Second, it was never a scientific law. Third, there was never any law about not flying. Where do you get this stuff? SCientific laws do not change.

[Copasetic]

The link you provided I found this interesting "no exceptions have been found to a law.". A few centuries ago the law was that Earth was flat and we couldn't fly. I hope that you would agree that Laws change all the time (in between scores of years, although with much protestations from then and there established scientists).

Wine, Yes it's Good and Bad, It's a scientific study for now and then can you predict what they will say about the Human body and mind 150 years down the line ? Will today's law hold as the laws made 150 years later ? Will the laws not change ?

edit: forgot to add the word Wine , well it is something isn't it, Wine I mean

Spock, you are very confused about the terms you are using. I'd suggest reading some of the links provided in these two topics. A law is a statistical phenomena observed to be true, in other words its an empirical observation. Described mathematically. A scientific law tells you what happens, not how or why--A scientific does the two latter.

[Magicjax]

The OP is about the fact the deprecate definitions of the word "theory". How many use the wrong definition when it comes to evolution. Some people say things like "I don't believe evolution because it's just a theory and no one has proved it". In this statement they are using the wrong definition of the word theory. They think the word implies that it's just an idea someone had and hasn't tested to varify the idea yet. But that's not the case. It has been tested, varified, used to to benefit other studies because it's predictable enough to be useful.

The definition of the word theory in this sentence:

"the theory of evolution"

Does not have the same meaning as it would if I was doing a card trick and said:

"I have a theory that you're thinking of the jack of clubs".

The two words, although spelled and pronounced the same, have different meanings.

So my question in the OP was, or maybe the point I wanted to make. Was that I wish they used two different words instead of the same word with different meanings. To late now but anyway. That's what it was about.

[Spock_the_Future]

Hi All,

Okay people I stand corrected . Just so that I can say I understand your point, by what you are telling me, The speed of light is a proven fact (and as a law It is the maximum attainable speed) and if something is found to be faster than it (with the new tests and all that), then its another theory converted to law which will specify the new maximum attainable speed. Am I correct ?

[FurthurBB]

The link you provided I found this interesting "no exceptions have been found to a law.". A few centuries ago the law was that Earth was flat and we couldn't fly. I hope that you would agree that Laws change all the time (in between scores of years, although with much protestations from then and there established scientists).

Wine, Yes it's Good and Bad, It's a scientific study for now and then can you predict what they will say about the Human body and mind 150 years down the line ? Will today's law hold as the laws made 150 years later ? Will the laws not change ?

edit: forgot to add the word Wine , well it is something isn't it, Wine I mean

No, those were never laws. Religious people thought the world was flat and people always thought we could fly. Laws do not change. There are no laws about wine and biology is pretty lawless all around, except when it comes to physics and chemicals.

[FurthurBB]

Hi All,

Okay people I stand corrected . Just so that I can say I understand your point, by what you are telling me, The speed of light is a proven fact (and as a law It is the maximum attainable speed) and if something is found to be faster than it (with the new tests and all that), then its another theory converted to law which will specify the new maximum attainable speed. Am I correct ?

Not really, theories do not become laws. Also, the laws involved in special relativity would not necessarily need to be broken even if it is found that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light. There are too many unanswered questions right now, including if the neutrinos actually traveled faster than the speed of light.

[Spock_the_Future]

Not really, theories do not become laws.

You are kidding me right ? Nothing can go faster then the speed of light is a theorized equation by Einstein, proven later on(I was not there with them when it was proven , only saw the later studies), had a episode of Cosmos by Carl Sagan based on it and so on and so forth. I guess I really don't understand the point you people are trying me make. Too Naive of me

Well can someone tell me where I am getting the definitions mixed up and getting it all wrong.

Edit: Spelling... Sorry !!

Edited February 2, 2012 by Spock_the_Future

[Copasetic]

You are kidding me right ? Nothing can go faster then the speed of light is a theorized equation by Einstein, proven later on(I was not there with them when it was proven , only saw the later studies), had a episode of Cosmos by Carl Sagan based on it and so on and so forth. I guess I really don't understand the point you people are trying me make. Too Naive of me

Well can someone tell me where I am getting the definitions mixed up and getting it all wrong.

Edit: Spelling... Sorry !!

People have, you're not listening. The usage of the words "theory, law, hypothesis, fact" have been covered extensively in these two topics.

Theories in science don't sit around waiting to get "proved" and made into laws--Ever. Theories in science will always be theories and are more powerful than laws. They explain how and why. They are supported by lots of evidence from various lines of study.

Laws in science are statistical summations of the behavior of a system or phenomena. They are simply "observed to be true" whenever we observe the system or phenomena in question. We don't know necessarily why they are true, we just observe they are. Because of this they can normally be expressed mathematically. Laws tell you what is going to happen.

Please go back and read these two topics and follow some of the wonderful links that have been posted.

[+HerNibs]

Scientific Law

A scientific law is a statement that explains what something does in science just like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]

Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

Nibs

[aquatus1]

You are kidding me right ? Nothing can go faster then the speed of light is a theorized equation by Einstein,

proven later on(I was not there with them when it was proven , only saw the later studies), had a episode of Cosmos by Carl Sagan based on it and so on and so forth. I guess I really don't understand the point you people are trying me make. Too Naive of me

Well can someone tell me where I am getting the definitions mixed up and getting it all wrong.

Your problem is strictly conceptual. You are thinking in terms of hierarchy of power, when it is more along the lines of definition.

Think of it this way: A fact is a single unit of information. It is not a conclusion, or an argument; it is simply an incontrovertible nugget of reality that anyone can observe, regardless of background or bias.

A Law of science is really nothing more than a factual observation of reality. It is almost the plural form of fact, except instead of a single nugget of data, it is a process or a sequence that anyone can observe. It is not a conclusion, or an argument, but it is simply a statement of how it works. No more, no less.

No fact nor law will ever become a scientific theory. By definition, a fact or law is not a conclusion or argument, where a theory is indeed an argument regarding a particular conclusion. One can make theories about facts and laws, but the facts and laws themselves are not going to be affected. The only thing that can affect facts and laws is observation.

The speed of light being constant is a law. It was observed by several scientists. The only thing the Law did was state that this was the speed of light and that it had never been observed to be different.

Einstein, after about 20 years, managed to figure out why. That's what made him famous. He did not discover that the speed of light was constant; he discovered the theory behind it. Very few people become famous because they discovered something; they become famous because they are able to explain it to everyone else.

I suspect that you read an article about how the speed of light may not be constant, but that you don't have the background to understand that this particular theory does not apply to our reality and is not in conflict with Einstein's equation. I strongly recommend you not use the quantum science, such as light, to try to understand basic science. It is far too advanced, and even people who are literate in the academic material have a bit of difficulty following it. Start with a simpler example, learn the basics, and then go on to the harder stuff.

[Copasetic]

I suspect that you read an article about how the speed of light may not be constant, but that you don't have the background to understand that this particular theory does not apply to our reality and is not in conflict with Einstein's equation. I strongly recommend you not use the quantum science, such as light, to try to understand basic science. It is far too advanced, and even people who are literate in the academic material have a bit of difficulty following it. Start with a simpler example, learn the basics, and then go on to the harder stuff.

Good advice, "sig" worthy even.

[Spock_the_Future]

I suspect that you read an article about how the speed of light may not be constant, but that you don't have the background to understand that this particular theory does not apply to our reality and is not in conflict with Einstein's equation. I strongly recommend you not use the quantum science, such as light, to try to understand basic science. It is far too advanced, and even people who are literate in the academic material have a bit of difficulty following it. Start with a simpler example, learn the basics, and then go on to the harder stuff.

Hi,

Well I have read a little about Science and as you suggest will go back to the drawing board (I have a Bachelor in Science, but then this doesn't make me an expert, Science is too big a Field anyway). You might have misread me a bit when you say "I suspect that you read an article about how the speed of light may not be constant", while what I tried to say is that the Law states that "nothing can surpass the speed of light", there is a little difference in what you thought I said and what I actually tried to say you see.

While HerNibs read the exact reason for my confusion when she posted this (which I re-quoted below). I would say that I was not able to find the exact words for sharing the reason of my confusion (And there it was in Wiki ). Please do also consider the statement in bold which actually in a sense also increases the confusion.

A scientific law is a statement that explains what something does in science just like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]

Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.

[/Quote]

So there it is there is a Natural Law which is explained by Science and then there is a Scientific Law (You see Speed of Light by itself is a factual and well-confirmed statement and thus is a Natural Law, while "Nothing can go faster then the speed of light" becomes a Scientific Law which is explained by E=mc²)

Under which Law now are we placing Evolution ?

[aquatus1]

Well I have read a little about Science and as you suggest will go back to the drawing board (I have a Bachelor in Science, but then this doesn't make me an expert, Science is too big a Field anyway).

Yeah, scientific methodology is kind of specific. Only the research fields in science teach it, and mostly the natural sciences at that. Things like Engineering, Mathematics, Computer science, they are kind of classified B.S.c simply because they definitely aren't B.S.a.

You might have misread me a bit when you say "I suspect that you read an article about how the speed of light may not be constant", while what I tried to say is that the Law states that "nothing can surpass the speed of light", there is a little difference in what you thought I said and what I actually tried to say you see.

Actually, I still think you read an article about the speed of light, which mentioned an experiment in which scientists appeared to have made something move faster than the speed of light, which may or may not have explained the rest of the experiment, depending on the source. The rest of the experiment went further into detail regarding the conditions and significance of the experiment however, and it was under conditions which would not be replicated in the world as we know it, and was really not so much about the maximum speed of light as it was about the constant speed of light. As I mentioned, it gets fairly complex.

Unless you are talking about the CERN thing, in which case I am withholding judgement till I hear more about it.

While HerNibs read the exact reason for my confusion when she posted this (which I re-quoted below). I would say that I was not able to find the exact words for sharing the reason of my confusion (And there it was in Wiki ). Please do also consider the statement in bold which actually in a sense also increases the confusion.

...SNIP...

So there it is there is a Natural Law which is explained by Science and then there is a Scientific Law (You see Speed of Light by itself is a factual and well-confirmed statement and thus is a Natural Law, while "Nothing can go faster then the speed of light" becomes a Scientific Law which is explained by E=mc²)

No, actually, there is nothing in science called Natural Law (there is such a thing in the field of philosophy, but not in the Natural Sciences.)

The reason why "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" is not considered a law is because it describes behaviour in a specific set of conditions. A Law is a bit broader than that. Indeed, often Laws refer to phenomena in conditions that humans could not change if we wanted to. We can describe the law governing planetary motion, but we can't change the conditions of the heaven's. There are exceptions, mostly either logical or theoretical here, but again, that's more advanced stuff, and you really need to get the basics down first.

The speed of light itself is a Fact. Indeed, it is even considered an exact number, as it is the unit with which we define the meter.

The constant of the speed of light is a Law. The speed of light has always been observed to propagate at a constant speed through a vacuum. No one has ever seen it doing otherwise.

The theory (general use) of Relativity consists of two Theories (scientific use): General Relativity and Special Relativity. Special Relativity consists of, among other things, the constant of the speed of light, the mass-energy equivalence (E=MC²), and a bunch of formulas regarding coordinates and direction.

Not only is E=MC² not a Law, it is already buried at least three layers deep (and that's just at the most basic level of understanding). No Law would ever be so specific. No, E=MC² describes a specific concept and how it works, an explanation which does include all the data we currently have in our possession and which has not yet been falsified. In other words, it is a scientific theory.

Under which Law now are we placing Evolution ?

Evolution is not a law. If anything, it is a chemical process. Evolution is no more a law than the formation of ice is a law (or, for that matter, the melting of mercury).

Edited February 3, 2012 by aquatus1

[FurthurBB]

Yeah, scientific methodology is kind of specific. Only the research fields in science teach it, and mostly the natural sciences at that. Things like Engineering, Mathematics, Computer science, they are kind of classified B.S.c simply because they definitely aren't B.S.a.

Actually, I still think you read an article about the speed of light, which mentioned an experiment in which scientists appeared to have made something move faster than the speed of light, which may or may not have explained the rest of the experiment, depending on the source. The rest of the experiment went further into detail regarding the conditions and significance of the experiment however, and it was under conditions which would not be replicated in the world as we know it, and was really not so much about the maximum speed of light as it was about the constant speed of light. As I mentioned, it gets fairly complex.

Unless you are talking about the CERN thing, in which case I am withholding judgement till I hear more about it.

No, actually, there is nothing in science called Natural Law (there is such a thing in the field of philosophy, but not in the Natural Sciences.)

The reason why "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" is not considered a law is because it describes behaviour in a specific set of conditions. A Law is a bit broader than that. Indeed, often Laws refer to phenomena in conditions that humans could not change if we wanted to. We can describe the law governing planetary motion, but we can't change the conditions of the heaven's. There are exceptions, mostly either logical or theoretical here, but again, that's more advanced stuff, and you really need to get the basics down first.

The speed of light itself is a Fact. Indeed, it is even considered an exact number, as it is the unit with which we define the meter.

The constant of the speed of light is a Law. The speed of light has always been observed to propagate at a constant speed through a vacuum. No one has ever seen it doing otherwise.

The theory (general use) of Relativity consists of two Theories (scientific use): General Relativity and Special Relativity. Special Relativity consists of, among other things, the constant of the speed of light, the mass-energy equivalence (E=MC²), and a bunch of formulas regarding coordinates and direction.

Not only is E=MC² not a Law, it is already buried at least three layers deep (and that's just at the most basic level of understanding). No Law would ever be so specific. No, E=MC² describes a specific concept and how it works, an explanation which does include all the data we currently have in our possession and which has not yet been falsified. In other words, it is a scientific theory.

Evolution is not a law. If anything, it is a chemical process. Evolution is no more a law than the formation of ice is a law (or, for that matter, the melting of mercury).

Is there actually a law saying nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? I am not really sure, I thought that was derived from other laws.