I thought I would throw my two cents on this, hope you
don't mind :). This insistence by some that absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence has always bugged me
since, for one thing, it seems totally contrary to the
way science normally works. If someone proposes a theory
it is natural to ask that person what the evidence is for
that theory. But if absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence then what, pray tell, is the purpose of such a
question? Suppose that: (a) there is an absence of evidence
that I robbed Fred's Bank on High Street yesterday and
(b) there is an absence of evidence that Fred's Bank on
High Street was robbed by anyone yesterday. Should this
absence of evidence be considered evidence that I did not rob
Fred's Bank on High Street yesterday? Or, more in context,
does the absence of evidence for a global flood indicate
evidence that such a flood never occurred?
Yes, there are exceptions of course. Primary seems to be
pointing to a lack of evidence where there are good reasons
to say that no evidence of this type should be found. Whether
this applies wrt pre-Cambrian fossils I can't say. Perhaps.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"He who establishes his arguments
by noise and command shows that
reason is weak" -- Montaigne