Evolution Question #2

"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.