One issue with treating scientific facts on a separate list is that it leaves the “process of science” list without any context. Despite the widely divergent opinions expressed in the discussion, I think everyone was attempting descriptive, rather than prescriptive definitions of science. So for these definitions to resonate, they should be motivated by the examples from which they’re abstracted.
For example, rather than start with the assertion that “there is no one scientific method”, I think it makes sense to draw that conclusion from a survey of scientific achievements.

Also, it seems that it’s had to agree on 10 meta-principles of science.

There were a few scientific facts on the big list, but because most things on the poster were not facts, I grouped them under “basic scientific facts” as one of the nine statements. There were two votes for gravity, three for evolution, one for DNA, and one other fact that I forgot right now.
Based on various discussions online before SciBarCamp, and things that people told me during SciBarCamp, it sees that the “Basic Scientific Facts” issue should really be seen separately, and we ended up mostly talking about the process of science in the discussion. If we take it separately, then gravity wass the second-most popular scientfic fact people at SciBarCamp should know about, after evolution. However, this is a bit biased: most scientists at SciBarCamp were (molecular) biologists or (astro)physicists. There were no chemists - does that mean nobody should know about molecules and atoms? The other side of the discussion, focusing on the practice of science, had more “experts” in the room, because you can talk about it more generally. (Yeah, I’ll work on that sentence before typing up my final report on the whole session)