But I was eerily correct in predicting that you would not accept it as a fact that any theory of the diversity of life would have to explain. Perhaps I should sign up with Psychic Network.
Is your having a great-great-great-great-great grandfather--several of them, probably--a hypothesis as well? If it is, what's the use of insisting upon such ridiculous legalisms? I mean, where could you have come from without this line of descent?
The real difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis (or a conjecture or a fairy tale) is that a scientific theory explains observation in some recognizably systematic, insightful, and rational way. No scientific theory, Darwin's or Gould's or anyone else's, of the diversity of life will get away with ignoring the evidence of the fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, embryology, field observation, etc. that there is a hierarchical tree of relatedness, the clear result of common descent.
You are right that I do not accept common descent as a "fact". It's a hypothesis which fits the facts. Any competing hypothesis would have to fit the same facts. But it wouldn't have to "explain" common descent because that's a hypothesis and you have no way of knowing that it's true.
Is your having a great-great-great-great-great grandfather--several of them, probably--a hypothesis as well?
Like I said before, yes. A very very believable one. In fact I'll grant that statements such as "I had a great^5 grandfather" come as close to scientific facts as it gets.
If it is, what's the use of insisting upon such ridiculous legalisms?
In short: Referring to common descent as a hypothesis rather than a "fact" allows you to make true statements rather than false ones.
The real difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis (or a conjecture or a fairy tale) is that a scientific theory explains observation in some recognizably systematic, insightful, and rational way.
I'll agree with that. In precisely this sense, "the theory of evolution" is a theory.
JEEZ WHIZ MAN. What the HELL are you even arguing for? All I'm saying is that the theory of evolution is a theory!
(That's why it's called "the theory of evolution", capisce?)
No scientific theory, Darwin's or Gould's or anyone else's, of the diversity of life will get away with ignoring the evidence of [..]
True enough. You don't even have to complete the sentence. No scientific theory may ignore evidence.
the clear result of common descent.
A plausible hypothesis, I'll grant.