"We should have a great fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves." - John Locke

Perhaps because of living in Asia rather than Canada, in recent years I have been lulled into thinking that Political Correctness had faded to near invisibility and the dark days of endangering life and limb by calling any female a "girl" or, even worse, a "lady", were behind us. Silly me. I am so naive sometimes.

A couple of news items this week grabbed my attention for their PC content. The first, very overt and unavoidable; the second, considerably less noticeable but actually far more significant and I'll talk about it in a later post.

Former Governor of New Jersey and Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, who once said that she would never have risen to the level of VP candidate were she not a woman, had the audacity to say "If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position… He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

So, what do I think can be reasonably said about her statement? Easy: It was a stupid thing to say. Not evil. Not a capital crime. Not racist. Just stupid. Surely Ms Ferraro could not have thought she could say that without causing a furor. And furor is what she got.  Her remark has been described by pundits and arbiters of acceptable speech as everything from "offensive" to "divisive". The commentary, recrimination, quasi-defence and apology is as ridiculous as it is knee-jerk and predictable.The one thing common to all commentary though is this: It is all about her making the statement, not about the merit or its lack in the actual content or meaning of the statement. And that is what makes it just another example of mindless political correctness. It matters not if the statement is entirely accurate, partially accurate or totally inaccurate. What matters is that she (or anyone) is simply not allowed to express such a thought.

Apparently we are to believe Obama's race is an irrelevancy. We are not supposed to notice that he is black and if we inadvertently do, certainly not allowed to suggest that this fact might in any way (positively) impinge on his presidential aspirations. No matter that it is impossible to watch any lengthy coverage of primaries or speeches or debates without hearing mention of his race. No matter the endless references to the possibility of Americans electing their first black President. No matter that analysis of primary returns always goes into excruciating detail about voting patterns of various demographic groups with particular focus on women, Hispanics, and blacks. (Sorry, Neanderthal that I am, I refuse to use the ridiculous "African American".) No, Obamarama's success to date must be attributable only to his combination of skillful oratory, wisdom and blah blah blah.

Ferraro said he has benefited from being black. That may or may not be true. Personally I think to dismiss the idea out of hand would be absurd and that it matters not a damn if it is true, but debatable it may well be. However, I did not see anyone actually debating it. Not one person I saw on the tube offered up any argument that the statement was not true. Not a single one said flat out "Obama has not been helped by his being black.", only that it was shameful for her to say it. It was stated by some that nobody would dare to suggest that Hillary is in the position she is because she is a woman. Perhaps that's true, but why? And how about "Hillary has achieved the level of success she now enjoys in part because she is lucky enough to be the wife of a former president."?

These people make we want to throw up. If I didn't know better I'd swear they are all Canadians.

"I count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is no sin but ignorance." -  Christopher Marlowe

Without a doubt, for me, the most important news of the day, slipped in amongst whoring politicians, middle east bombings and $109 a barrel oil, was word that the Vatican is updating the Seven Deadly Sins. I am not sure if that means my chronic sloth, greed, and lusting no longer make eternal damnation inevitable for me or that I have an extra baker's half dozen to worry about.

Mind you, when I look at the list, I feel reasonably safe. The digital age 7 biggies are:

1. Polluting ( I consume so little I think I'd be considered a minor transgressor by any heavenly tribunal.)
2. Genetic engineering (Okay, I'll stop my basement hobby cloning.)
3. Being obscenely rich (Hmmm. Unless 'obscenely rich' is defined as having maybe $20 or $30 in your pocket, I'm safe.)
4. Drug dealing (Okay here too. I wonder if wishing I had the nerve to be a drug dealer counts.)
5. Abortion (I won't sweat this one until I grow a uterus.)
6. Pedophilia (Okay here too. I like 'em young but definitely post-pubescent.)
7. Causing social injustice (I'll have to wait until the Pope explains to me exactly what this means.)

One highly amusing thing I saw was a church official explaining that there was a need to update because confessionals are too often sadly empty these days.

These information age river-of-fire-and-feces attractors are all worthy of volumes of comment of course, but I'll leave that to those who care enough. I will mention only one because of the sublime irony in it: Being obscenely rich.

Hilarious. This from the man who oversees an estimated 10-15 billion dollars in assets in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, and real estate and pays no taxes. This from the guy who, along with his cardinal and archbishop cronies on any given day wears ceremonial clothes and adornments costing more than the annual income of millions of Filipino farmers and fishermen.

I suppose though, being the Pope and all, he shouldn't have too much trouble wrangling some sort of Papal Dispensation.

Obscene?
 

"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity" - Andre Gide 

In an earlier post about evolution and scientists I said: "Scientists, being human, are not above a bit of verbal slight of hand from time to time to make their point to us, the great unwashed."

I just came across a perfect example of the above - from my favorite Darwin dogmatist, Richard Dawkins, of course. In his essay "The Improbability of God" he tackles the question of evolution of complex systems - in this case the scientists' favorite straw man, the eye. (Scientists love this one because creationists are so often stupid enough to raise the development of the eye as an objection to evolution when it is an easily handled challenge.)

In explaining how minuscule changes can accumulate such that we can go from non-existent or rudimentary to fully developed and complex, given enough time, Dawkins writes:

"All the domestic breeds of dogs — Pekingeses, poodles, spaniels, Saint Bernards, and Chihuahuas — have come from wolves in a time span measured in hundreds or at the most thousands of years… Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese; now multiply that quantity of change by a million. When you look at it like that, it becomes easy to believe that an eye could have evolved from no eye by small degrees."

At first blush this might seem like a reasonable and persuasive statement. It is not. His analogy is misleading to the point of being underhanded. The obvious reaction Dawkins is aiming for here is something like "Oh, if such huge changes can occur in canines in such a relatively short period (a few thousand years), then of course things like going from a single light sensitive cell to intricate eyes must be possible given tens or hundreds of millions of years." No doubt he is very successful in eliciting that response.

So why is it underhanded? He is equating apples and oranges. The development of the eye is alleged to be a product of evolution by natural selection. Survival enhancing mutations persist and are added to with further survival enhancing mutations over millions of generations. Change is multiplied or limited according to a combination of chance and viability. However, that is decidedly not how wolves became Chihuahuas. The Chihuahua's ancestral wolves may well have been a product of evolution by natural selection; the Chihuahua is not. Evolution by natural selection plays no role in the development of canine breeds. Every breed of dog on earth (save mongrels - the non-breeds) is a result of evolution by human selection - the opposite of natural selection. The essence of natural selection is non-design, non-direction. Every breed of dog (horse, cow, pig and other domesticated animal) was selectively bred for its particular attributes. Mutants that would quickly be eliminated in the natural world survive and are fed, cared for and intentionally bred under the direction of humans. Every breed of dog is a designer dog.

It is pathetic. I cannot stress enough what I have said before: Scientists like Dawkins are among the most intelligent people on the planet. I find it hard to believe they make mistakes like this unintentionally. Prenez garde.

"Evil is the product of the ability of humans to make abstract that which is concrete." - Jean-Paul Sartre

The other night I finally got around to watching "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford". I had it available for a while but put off watching it for two reasons. Firstly, just the title and the graphics told me this was going to be a slow, ponderous and self conscious, self indulgent affair. This proved to be true enough. With two hours and forty minutes of lingering shots of wheat fields beneath zen-master-wannabe voice-overs, slow and ponderous it was indeed. It was also brilliant in some respects. Little cinematographic and art direction elements actually thrilled me now and then and the attention to historical detail was refreshing.

This latter point is perhaps unduly important to me. The film makers' primary job is to entertain, I suppose, but ever since Lawrence of Arabia in the 60's, in which the second most important character, Sherif Ali, was a complete fabrication, I have resented putatively historical dramas fudging the truth. So, it was interesting to learn the reality behind the legend and the folk song I remember from my teen years in a coffeehouse hangout, but not interesting enough to overcome the wish that they'd just get on with it and shoot the bastard.

The second reason I put off watching this film is that I am sick of films glorifying bad people. Don't get me wrong; I am certainly not immune to the fascination everyone seems to have for sociopaths. I watch reruns of the Sopranos with relish, and though I tell myself it is because I regard it as the best show ever produced for television in every respect, I cannot deny the fascination with the outlaw life portrayed, nor that I, like everyone, "root" for Tony, his nephew and the other lovable scum whose real life counterparts are horrific, terrifying and utterly devoid of charm or worth.

I must digress for a moment. The Pentagon maintains a Film Liason Office in Hollywood. Through that office, producers and directors solicit technical advice and assistance and free or low-cost use of military materiel and personnel in the making of their films. This aid and approval is not always forthcoming; it will be withheld when the military finds the script too disparaging. For example, I believe the Dustin Hoffman flic "Outbreak" was denied because of its suggestion that the Army would even consider bombing an American city. Similarly, Oliver Stone's "Platoon", seen as too critical of the Vietnam war, was denied assistance. However, most films are approved and helped, and many, like "Courage Under Fire", enthusiastically so. Why? Because every such film, regardless of the levels of violence, regardless of how horrible, bloody and stomach-turning combat is portrayed as being, is a recruitment poster. The Pentagon apparently fully understands something that escapes the rest of us by and large: What we show on-screen we more than portray; we exalt.

So, back to Jesse James. The man was a murderer. Period. His motivations, his situation, his psychology, simply do not matter to his dead or injured victims, nor should they to us. Like all the other desperado folk heroes - the Ned Kellys, Bonnie and Clydes, Ronald Biggs et al, - James was a man who chose to steal from others and murder them, if necessary, rather than wait on tables, add columns of numbers, or repair plumbing fixtures.

Are such parasites really worthy of interest or attention? Not unless we enjoy abandoning reason and choose to succumb to our atavistic feral instincts. They are losers and only as interesting as we make them. Punish them and forget them. Calling a shit an "anti-hero" and examining the real or conjured minutiae of their mental and physical lives does not remove the flies or the fetor. Flush them down the toilet. It's where they belong.

"Violence isn't always evil. What's evil is the infatuation with violence." - Jim Morrison

 (A two-quote post because both are so appropriate I could not choose one over the other.)
 

"Words … are innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, defining that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos… They deserve respect." - Tom Stoppard

I watched Barak O'Bamarama the other night, and I frankly can't remember if it was his post-Wisconsin speech or part of his Texas "debate" with Hillary. These babble fests do tend to just run on from one to the next. No matter. What matters is what has stuck in my mind since. He used the old standby sentence "We are a nation of immigrants." That one always makes my skin crawl. And it always reminds me of once, years ago, watching an erudite and literate Canadian political reporter for whom I had some good measure of respect as a straight shooter (Patrick Duffy) make a similar statement: "After all, we are all immigrants in this country." What a pity. I lost all respect for him in that instant and could never again bring myself to take him seriously about anything, or even watch him.

These statements and similar ones, which have become mantra-like over the years, offend on so many levels it would be too time consuming to cover them all, so I'll address only a couple.

Firstly, I always take umbrage when a speaker opts for a clever turn of words rather than say precisely what he or she means. They toss out something handy that they know will not be challenged, when, were they to be precise, their statements might draw unwanted scrutiny and objection, forcing them to defend a position they might be incapable of defending. It is cheap and unprofessional.

Secondly, as I have stated earlier, I am something of a fanatic in demanding accuracy in use of language by public speakers. Barak and Patrick, to put it inelegantly, you are full of crap and what's worse is you are both bright enough to know it. An "immigrant" is a person who resides in one country but was born in another. This is not complex. This is not subtle. This is not open to misinterpretation. This is not open to expansion to include other meanings. I was born in the center of Toronto, period. That one set of grandparents emigrated to Canada from England is irrelevant. That another set of great-great-great-great grandparents emigrated from Ireland does not make me an immigrant.

No doubt many who use this little shibboleth would argue that only 'first nations' people can be considered "native" or non-immigrant. Even if one accepted the perverted meaning of immigrant that is based on heritage rather than place of birth, the people making such an argument would be, well, full of crap. It has pretty much been established beyond doubt by genetic testing that North and South American aborigines are descended from inhabitants of Asia.

I suppose it might be argued then that the original statement is correct: if even natives are immigrants, we are ALL immigrants. This means, of course, that the word might just as well be expunged from the language as useless because of its universal applicability. And then we are left without a word to distinguish between a person who was born in a given country and one who moved to that country from elsewhere, should we have need. But that's precisely the point, isn't it - to eliminate, for purposes of political correctness or some more specific need, that distinction through bastardization of the language?

Most of the time I find the subject rather meaningless. What matters to me is a person's character, not the particular piece of geography on which they happened to have been born.

I recall once, when in a pub in Dublin with my significant other, one of the locals with whom we were enjoying a pint of Guinness made some comment about "you Yanks". I quickly corrected him. He then asked why we Canadians always seem so quick to correct that innocent and understandable error. I started into a long explanation of the relationship between Americans and Canadians and national identity and so forth. My girlfriend quickly (and wisely) cut me off and said: "Because we are Canadians, not Americans."

Patrick, Barak, please read carefully: I am not an immigrant. Please stop calling me one.

“When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her.” - Oscar Wilde

Well, it seems the world is to be blessed with yet another Balkan state.

After illegally bombing Yugoslavia, getting involved in a civil war on the pretense of stopping a dreamt-up Serb on "Kosovar" genocide in which 100,000 reported deaths proved to be fewer than 3,000 and Slobodan's mass graves have proven as elusive as Saddam's WMD, lending aid to a gang of murderers and criminals calling themselves a liberation army, dictating one-sided "peace" terms, severing about 15% of Serbia's sovereign land from it, and possibly murdering Slobodan Milosovic, NATO, the better part of the EU and America are getting what they wanted all along: an independent Kosovo. And this new state will of course be immediately recognized by the U.S because that, according to King George, will "lead to peace".

One has to wonder…Should all the legal Hispanics in America get together with all the illegal alien Hispanics who flood into America and they settled in, say, Arizona or another state where their numbers would comprise a majority, started shooting everyone in sight and declared their independance, would Georgie be so quick to recognize the new sovereign country? Hmmm… maybe. I mean after all, that's how America came to acquire Texas and Hawaii, is it not? That's how Israel, paragon of peace, with the blessing of America and the other enlightened western democracies (each of whom turned refugee Jews away by the tens of thousands), came into existence, is it not?

One imagines that all those native born Floridians must shudder a bit when they see yet another new wave of aging ex-pat Canadians getting off a plane, retirement checks in hand.

"Either war is obsolete or men are." - Buckminster Fuller

About a year ago I wrote email to a few friends in which I said laughingly that regardless of skin color, ethnicity, political philosophy or religion, nobody with a name like "Barak Obama" would ever be elected President of the U.S. Well, it is beginning to look like maybe the laugh is on me. Obama's recent successes are impressive and his public speaking makes Hillary look shopworn and effete. Another couple of wins and he will almost certainly be unstoppable.

Around the same time I sent another mail in which I said that my nightmare election scenario would be Clinton vs McCain. Choose your Patriot Act embracing war monger!

As I watched the post Potomac Primary pundits ramble on with their explanations for today's results and predictions for the future a horrifying thought struck me. Though I don't have the time of day for "Let's invade Pakistan" Obama and his patronizing banalities ("One nation! One People. And the time for change is now!), were he the Dem's candidate in November I'd feel compelled to vote for him simply to stop that madman McCain.  The thought that made me shudder: In a McCain vs Obama election I think we can count on an international crisis erupting sometime in October. Mad Iranians will flood across the border into Iraq. Suicidal mujahadeen will blow up people in northern Pakistan. "Proof" will be discovered that Osama is buying nuclear technology from Kim Jung Il. Whatever. There will be something that will make the ungrateful electorate come to its senses and realize that security is dependent on a strong President and the job is too much for an unproven wimp like Obama. Thank god we have McCain!

Coming to a television screen near you. Autumn chaos! Count on it folks. You don't really think the neocons and the billionaires are about to give up after 8 years of having their way, do you? 

"Matter is the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity." - Stephen J. Gould

When I started this blog it was my intention to now and then write posts on the subjects of science and religion, and in particular bring up small points I have difficulty with regarding Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I thought that, over time, after raising several of these minor nagging points I might actually get to the one big one - the philosophical, rather than logical, foundation of my displeasure with the theory. I don't know why exactly, but I decided to go for it now. So here goes my sure to annoy anyone of a scientific bent mini-rant.

Of the billion or so interesting quotations available on the subject, I selected the one above because it so perfectly states the essence of EBNS and exemplifies my objection to it. Read it very carefully. Don't just glance over it and say "Oh yeah, I see what he's saying.". Read it.  It is perfection. No supporter of Darwin could raise a single objection to a single word in it. I would say, in other words, it is impossible to believe the theory without agreeing 100% with Gould's pithy absolute.

So, what does it, and EBNS, actually say when reduced to the basics? Just this:

1. At some point in time past various molecules became joined together to form a more complex molecule. It was an entirely mechanical and meaningless process. There was no "will", "intention", "choice" or other abstract noun or verb involved. It was an inevitable result of the laws of physics that govern the universe. It could have been predicted at the Big Bang, had one a total knowledge of those laws.

2. That complex molecule, again inevitably, replicated itself by way of reactions with surrounding molecules. The resulting new identical complex molecule in turn replicated itself, and so on and so forth until some number of such molecules existed.

3. The complex molecule(s), again inevitably and without intent or choice, became increasingly complex, and sometimes replicated themselves imperfectly, giving rise to a variety of different complex molecules with the "ability" to replicate themselves.

4. The process continued, with molecules becoming increasingly complex and some complex molecules interacting with other dissimilar complex molecules. All of this activity was, to repeat myself as I often will, involuntary, without will, without choice, predictable and inevitable.

5. Processes 1 through 4 continued, leading inevitably to a 120 piece symphony orchestra and 200 voice choir on a stage playing and singing Beethoven's 9th Ode To Joy. And it was inevitable and had nothing whatsoever to do with the musicians or vocalists because the musicians and vocalists DO NOT EXIST.

That, is the essence of evolution by natural selection. You, reading this now, do not exist. One cannot even say "You only think you exist and it is all an illusion." because thinking requires a thinker and illusion requires a victim. But there is no thinker. There is no victim. There is simply a big bag of unavoidable, inevitable chemical reactions (wondrous neuronal complexity). And on a pure physics level, there is not even a discrete "bag" - just stuff and energy whizzing about according to the laws of physics, not the dictates of will.

I spoke once with a good friend who was a geneticist and staunch supporter of Darwin. When I raised this matter - which I called, and some others have called, "reductionist materialism" his response was "I don't like that term." Of course he didn't like it. No scientist does. And why? Because it speaks the unavoidable truth. It lays it out there on the table as plain as day: reductionist materialism - all and everything, including thoughts, emotions and self awareness, being reduced to electromagnetism, gravity and so forth. It backs the scientist into an uncomfortable corner where he or she is forced to own their position that "I", "you", "he" and "she" are just abstract nouns without meaning or reality. They are "just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity." Forget the question of whether or not "god" exists; what scientists are saying - soto voce - is that sentient life as we think of it does not exist.

I will not get into the quagmire of discussing the social and other ramifications of this theory - such as the fact that actually believing it would leave Gould, Dawkins, Darwin et al in the extremely uncomfortable position of not being able to provide a single rational reason why somebody who took took a dislike to them shouldn't just blow their brains out.

It seems clear to me that there are only two possible ways to define "life".

1. "Life" is an unreal apparency or false perception - merely a word we apply to certain clusters of matter that are, inevitably and without choice or will, animate in specific ways according to the laws of physics. (as above).

2. "Life" is an undefinable intangible that animates matter and only its effects, not itself, can be observed or quantified.

There is no doubt better wording to express the two ideas but I hope mine suffice. There is no middle ground that I am aware of.

For those people who regard the first option as correct and the second as "unscientific", I have a simple question. On Occamite grounds, the choice containing the fewest assumptions is the one that should be embraced. A very sensible dictate, to be sure. So, presumably, the fewer the assumptions, the better and more "scientific" the hypothesis. By extension, the most "scientific" statement possible would be one that contained no assumptions. Okay, my question:

Can you make a statement that contains zero assumptions?

I can.

C'est tout.

________________________________________________________________________

PS: For any religious types out there: If you think the above is in any way an apologia or support for Creationism or any of its related ideas, think again. Or as an old Brit friend used to put it, "Go piss up a rope!"

PPS: Despite Dr. Gould's preposterous and amazingly god-like pronouncement, I actually quite like his pop-science writing. He was very entertaining and informative - and his punctuated equilibrium notions were pretty cool, really. 

“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed." - Mahatma Ghandi

Among the biggest news stories of recent months has been the financial market sturm und drang caused by the 'sub-prime' crisis. How big the problem will ultimately become no one is certain, but big it is, and we can all rest assured that eventually the American middle class taxpayer will pick up the tab for endless questionable programs to relieve the pain.

The general coverage of the story is a two sided affair it seems. The first addresses the financial aspects: current and potential effects on the stock market and other areas of the economy and the effects on the world economic markets. The second is the human interest side - Dick and Jane Doe weeping as they contemplate their Simon Legree banker foreclosing on their dream home. Networks seem to love this shattered American Dream stuff.

I just 30 minutes ago saw a feature on a television financial show about a young woman in Queens, New York. This woman is losing her home. She earns $38,000. per annum. Her home cost $700,000. No, that is not a typo. Let me repeat: She earns 38K a year and bought a 700K house. She signed a variable rate mortgage and now, with its upward adjustments, her monthly payments are $7000.

We are supposed to feel sorry for this woman. She is a victim of unscrupulous bankers, brokers, and agents who, with only their own commissions in view, failed to fully inform her of the possible implications of the documents she was signing. Phooey! These people were venal. So what? What else is new? They are in business to make money, not protect the witless. Slimy they may well be, but in my view it is irrelevant. Let's keep it simple, because it is simple: The woman bought something she could not afford to pay for and now she must give it back. She is a victim, of course. She is a victim of her own avarice, willful blindness and stupidity.

To this jaundiced eye, the entire sub-prime story can be reduced to one simple fact: People live beyond their means. This woman's story is extreme but it perfectly illustrates the fundamental problem. People know if they cannot afford something. It does not take an economics degree to grasp that if your net income is, say, $2000. a month and your mortgage will be $1000 with the possibility of its rising, you cannot afford that house and best find something more modest. Likewise with Ferrari-coveting middle managers and $300 a week office clerk fashionistas who will just die without the latest Jimmy Choos.

The American Dream used to mean working hard, succeeding, and enjoying the fruits of one's labor in an environment of opportunity that few places on earth offered. Now, apparently, it is to live like Brad Pitt or Donald Trump on 50 thou a year - and seek sympathy and help as a victim when you can't pull it off.

My sub-prime policy? Foreclose. Let the chips, homeowners and bankers fall where they may.

"Folly consists in the drawing of false conclusions from just principles, by which it is distinguished from madness, which draws just conclusions from false principles." - John Locke

(This is not actually a question about evolution, but rather an observation about some writing on the subject. It just seemed logical to continue with the heading used earlier.)

Have you ever noticed in courtroom dramas that expert forensic witnesses will use wording such as "The pattern of the blood smears was consistent with what is found when…"? What they are saying, of course, is that the evidence they are speaking of is not explained only by the prosecutor's or defence's theory but does not contradict that theory. E.g. A mother is Blood Type A and her son is Type AB. A man's being Type AB is consistent with his being the father, but not proof of it. On the other hand, his being Type O would disprove paternity conclusively. Consistency with vs proof. It is an important distinction.

I raise the above because I have found so often in my reading of explanations or defences of evolution by natural selection the same sort of verbiage. "If evolution were true, we would expect to find species ABC fossils in geological strata after XYZ and not before it, and we do find ABC fossils in geological strata after, not before XYZ." - leaving the reader to automatically, almost subconsciously, continue on with "… and therefore evolution must be true."

I don't like it. It is one of those little things that always make me think "Why is this very smart person who knows better choosing this piece of information and this particular way of wording it?" I fear the answer is that the purpose is to create exactly the effect I described - lure the reader into fallacious conclusions. It is misleading and cynical. Now, if I read such a sentence and it was followed by "This does not actually provide us evidence for the theory, but does eliminate it as evidence against the theory." I would take no umbrage whatever. In fact, I would applaud it. But I have NEVER seen such a case.

Beware friends. When you read about evolution, read carefully. Is what you are reading actual evidence for the theory or simply lack of evidence against the theory? Scientists, being human, are not above a bit of verbal slight of hand from time to time to make their point to us, the great unwashed.