AC>Evolution is as much a fact as the earth turning on its axis and
>going around the sun. At one time this was called the Copernican
>theory; but, when evidence for a theory becomes so overwhelming
>that no informed person can doubt it, it is customary for
>scientists to call it a fact. That all present life descended from
>earlier forms, over vast stretches of geologic time,is as firmly
>established as Copernican cosmology. Biologists differ only with
>respect to theories about how the process operates. -- Martin
>Gardner, "Irving Kristol and the Facts of Life"
SJ: This is just another example of Darwinist confusion, bordering on
self-delusion, by flexible use of the all-purpose, swiss-army knife
word "Evolution". The main problem with the above is that it is not
necessarily "evolution"! An Old Earth Creationist could believe:
"That all present life descended from earlier forms, over vast
stretches of geologic time", yet without believing in "Evolution":
Only because the OEC has found it necessary to redefine the word evolution
to mean something more. Perhaps the self delusion lies in the need for a
denial of the existance of a scientific fact by redefining its meaning.
Evolution does not require or deny the existance of a creator, it merely
describes the observed facts in a scientific manner. Whether a god created
the first organism of life and evolution took over or whether it was
chance and thermodynamics is irrelevant for evolution as a fact and theory.
SJ: Denton points out that common ancestry is "equally compatible with
almost any philosophy of nature", including "creationist".
In a philosophical sense perhaps, in a scientific sense surely not.
SJ: Wilcox points out that common descent was already widely accepted in
the scientific world *before* Darwin:
Indeed. Evolution as a fact was already known before Darwin. Darwin merely
provided the mechanisms to explain the facts in a scientific manner.