There's a subtle point involved here that I'll try to explain, and
I hope you catch my explanation:
A real scientist does NOT "use evidence to support his theory".
That would mean that he dreamed up his theory, then he went
around observing the world and nature, and he wrote down and
took pictures of things he saw that supported his theory, and he
ignored anything that didn't support it. This is exactly how science
does NOT work. Anybody who operates that way is laughed out
of science and you never hear about him again.
The way science works is exactly the opposite: The curious
investigator observes the world and the things around him. He
sees how things actually work. That's the 'evidence'. Eventually
he comes to the point where he's ready to build a theory of WHY
or HOW things work the way they actually do.
The theory is built to explain the evidence. The evidence is not
used to support a theory. And after the theory is offered, the next
step is to test the theory and see if it's worth anything.
Wegener observed that mountain chains are continuous across
continents, and he learned that similar fossils have been found
on different continents. When he saw these and other facts, he
eventually offered the theory of continental drift, to EXPLAIN the
evidence.
I only see 5 points. Where are the other 19 ?
