Why I do NOT “believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution”

[Paul Braterman]

Why I do NOT “believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution” http://wp.me/p21T1L-c2 Fact not theory; 150 years on from Darwin's watershed publication; evidence not belief. Words matter.

[Roger Stanyard]

Why I do NOT “believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution” http://wp.me/p21T1L-c2 Fact not theory; 150 years on from Darwin's watershed publication; evidence not belief. Words matter.

Paul, I take a different approach to this. When the creationists claim that Darwinism is a "belief" on a par with creationism, I point out that I do not "believe" in the theory of evolution by natural selection. Instead I "accept" it as the explanation of the differences between species as it has been thoroughly tested by the scientific method and no viable alternative, tested by the scientific method, is available.

[Paul Braterman]

I think that's too weak. Whatever may have been the case in 1859, change over time, homologous succession in the fossil record, and molecular phylogenies are observed facts, from which we can infer the further fact of common ancestry. Present-day biologists generally do, up to a point, accept Darwin's theory that change over time is driven by natural selection, but that such change has occurred is a fact in the same way that the occurrence of the Ice Ages is a fact (I deliberately chose an example that does not rely on testimony, but which the Creationists themselves accept, however they may explain it).