I would say that genetic evolution is already substantiated as law by the plethora of evidence. 

What remains to be adjudicated, and may never be since it's not generally considered the role of science in this technological (post philsophical) age, is in what sense it stands as law; ie metaphysical interpretation. That said, I remain optimistic that the philosophical (as opposed to technological) role might be embraced by biological science again, as has been the fringe case in physics and mathematics recently. I am inclined to believe it would behoove us all to really 100% know what the patterns of genetic evolution are telling us about our human reality.

Yep.  Your grade school science books were wrong.  Evolution is both a theory and a fact.  It most certainly and undeniably happens.  The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms behind it.  It is always, and will always be, up for debate and scrutiny.

They used to call the Theory of Gravity the Law of Gravity and a lot of other things Law too.

This changed after Einstein released his Theory of Relativity.  It encompassed and added to Newton's work.  After that shake up scientists became a little more humble with what they called them.  If it had happened differently they would call Gravity and Evolution Laws.

However, who knows if some brilliant mind comes along in 50 years and makes a startling discovery about how evolution works that really increases our insight into the process?

A law is a theory so popular that few question it and so fundamental that nothing makes sense without it. The difference between a law and a theory is just semantic hairsplitting.

Evolution is understood much better than Gravity. It makes more sense in communication with laypeople to speak of the "Law of Evolution". Nothing in Biology makes sense without it. No observations contradict it.

Nobody would have any problem with it if it didn't make religious myths look embarrassingly silly.

Da, all is changing , in motion , why??? , fuck , I don't know, but I'd like to know, but I ain't a bit , gonna worry bout it .... said a cool buddha .....     So yeah , how why so ?  ....... Fuck religion , go Science .....  

I will , what we call DIE, .... should I freak out ? ..... WHY ?  That dead thing, I already did, but I can't really remember ......   Some insist they can !    Spooky !

   What is that girl made of ? !!!!   >girl<  FREAK OUT !  ?????    nah  ......  

Spooky, Dusty Springfield  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvNf0zJz2iA

SPOOKY Original  "Music slideshow - Spooky by the Classics IV"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLQgnaLnX78

SPOOKY ! * ARS atlanta rhythm section  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mePlc9RIUXk

Read the posts again. Several people have already told you that it's not a question of vailidity, importance or for that matter height.

In scientific terms a theory is any deduction from observation that is, for the purposes of refinement, deemed to be falsifiable.

Falsifiable does not mean that it is probably wrong. It means that further observation might cause it to be re-evaluated and restated. In that way one can see how Richard Dawkins, for example, exploits the falsifiability of Charles Darwin's theory in order to further demonstrate that evolution is not only fact but a fact better understood.

The religious person who wishes to advance "creationism" at the expense of rationality exploits both these terms wrongly. When arguing against evolution as a concept they dismiss the term "theory" as meaning simple conjecture and they (of course) seize on "falsifiability" as a likelihood to be wrong. Both these misapplications of terminology reveal their ignorance, and their unwillingness to accept this reveals it as wilful ignorance on their part.

The reason they feel they can be so dismissive of truth, fact and even language is of course that the ability to subjectively alter, ignore and interpret whatever they like in any way they like is the very basis of their approach to establishing, justifying and propagating their own belief system. One thing that system teaches them is that anything, however fantastically unbelievable it might be on a rational basis, automatically acquires the status of fact simply by being said. This is how their deity does things, after all, and they are just following suit.

My own approach if I ever find myself at loggerheads with one of these people is to point out that they might be going a little too far in emulating their god in this way, and that should they be right and such a deity does indeed exist, then I wouldn't want to be in their shoes when he finds out they've been impersonating him. It's the kind of thing we're told god gets exceedingly touchy about.

I don't bother to argue the logic of my case against the illogicality of theirs. They don't listen to it. Indeed they're terrified to do so and, like any cornered creature, tend to get aggressive about it too. Thoroughly horrible people!

bump

The way I think of it, a scientific LAW expresses , usually in mathematical terms, a consistently observed pattern or relationship from observations. It really is essentially descriptive.

For example, the law of gravity expresses what has been deduced from many observations and measurements, that objects behave as though there was a force of attraction acting thru their centers of mass that is proportional to each of their total mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those centers.

A theory of gravity would be an attempt to explain the physical processes or attributes of matter which lead to this observation.

So a law is deduced by analysing observations and the results of experiments, a hypothesis (which strictly precedes a theory) is an attempt to explain the observations in a manner which, ideally, allows us to make predictions about observations and experiments not yet made. If these predictions are verified, the hypothesis advances to the status of a theory.

I don't see that the Theory of Evolution would ever quite fit into the category of a 'Law'. The only laws associated with evolution would be things related to the mechanisms of inheritance thru genetics, maybe rates of genetic drift and mutation, IOW the details, and in particular the constraints and limits, of the various processes that a Theory attempts to tie together.

Then there is of course evolution treated as a well established FACT, ie the observation that massive amounts of geological, fossil, and now genetic data point to the interrelatedness of all life and its change over time as various lineages change and split and some (most) die out.

So, we make observations and gather data, ie FACTS, eg objects released in free air fall to the ground.

We find significant and consistent relationships between groups of actual observations, eg objects of sufficient density to not be affected by the breeze accelerate at the same constant rate as they fall - this is expressed as a LAW.

Someone then attempts an explanation, ie a HYPOTHESIS. Not sure if Newton actually got this far, but proposals have been made about hypothetical elementary particles - gravitons - mediating gravity. Einstein proposed it as due to space-time geometry. These would be HYPOTHESES, at least initially. Since Einstein's ideas have proved very accurate in explaining and predicting observations such as anomalies in the orbit of Mercury and deflection of light by strong gravitational fields, it is definitely accorded the status of a THEORY.

So a LAW is really a direct deduction from observations, essentially descriptive, a THEORY is an attempt at explaining our observations, including those laws, but not just the laws.  So LAW and THEORY are really different categories.

Succinct and says what I've been trying to convey in a single sentence. Well done as usual, Bob.