======================================================================
Here's how Gould puts in his famous (or infamous) "Evolution as Fact and
Theory" article.
"Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and acheive
certainty only because they are *not* about the empirical world.
Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often
do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor).
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might
start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
physics classrooms."
And Terry continues:
Notice that Gould accepts "facts" by this definition only provisionally.
Gould goes on to distinguish between common ancestry as fact and natural
selection as theory. Perhaps more cautiously he could have distinguished
between hierarchical relationships among living things at the macro and
biochemical level and the pattern found in the fossil record as facts and
the phrase common ancestry, although by Gould's definition (and his
definition of perversity-oh, what a quagmire already) common ancestry would
be a fact.
============================================================================
I have two responses:
1. The people who introduced this phrase "the FACT of evolution" have
done it, clearly, for a polemical reason. It seems to imply *certainty*,
Gould's qualification above notwithstanding. I believe it is a poorly
worded phrase which, if Gould is taken seriously, means nothing more
than "there is a strong consensus in the professional biological
community that the theory of common ancestry explains the observational
data". I think elevating the status of a theory to FACT, a word which carries
rather strong connotations which Gould apparently does *not* intend, is
misguided. What purpose does it serve?
2. Terry's response makes my point: Gould and others need to be more
cautious to make proper distinctions! There is a difference between (a)
the pattern found in the fossil record and sequence comparisons ON THE ONE
HAND and (b) the inference of common ancestry ON THE OTHER. The real question
of continuity vs. discontinuity is one involving the *interpretation* of these
observational patterns.
I believe that these are important distinctions! Gould and others need to be
called to account for ignoring or oversimplifying them.
Stan Zygmunt
Dept. of Physics and stronomy
Valparaiso University
Valparaiso, IN 46383