Replies

I am aware that Dawkins says that evolution is a fact in the paper cited at the top of this exchange. Are you aware of that? Or shall we decide that Dr. Dawkins is not speaking as a scientist when he pens an introduction to an evolution textbook for the purported instruction of collegiate heads full of mush? That must be quite convenient.

And common sense always looks rambling to those who lack it.

"I am aware that Dawkins says that evolution is a fact in the paper cited at the top of this exchange. Are you aware of that? Or shall we decide that Dr. Dawkins is not speaking as a scientist when he pens an introduction to an evolution textbook for the purported instruction of collegiate heads full of mush? That must be quite convenient.

Evolution is a fact. It is observable in extant species, and can be logically extrapolated from fossil evidence and current DNA studies. The explanation for these observations is a theory. It is called the Theory of Evolution. One is an observation, the other an explanation, or a model if you prefer.

"And common sense always looks rambling to those who lack it.

You assume common sense is always valid, appropriate and true.

I am aware that Dawkins says that evolution is a fact in the paper cited at the top of this exchange.

Yes, this unfortunate equivocation between scientific language and the vernacular has caused a lot of confusion. A scientific fact is a data point, or observation. When we talk of facts in day to day life, we're often talking about non-observed occurrances which are nevertheless so overwhelming supported by extrapolation from the observations that we can consider them functionally proven.

Evolution is a scientific theory. That evolution has occurred and continues to occur is a vernacular fact. I'm sure Dawkins knows this, and I do think he could have done a better job clarifying the equivocation. Ideally, the words would diverge, to eliminate the problem.

So there you go. Evolution is a "fact" as we normally use fact, as for example that Pluto orbits the Sun is a fact. It is a scientific theory, and not a vernacular theory, the latter of which roughly means "guess."

Or shall we decide that Dr. Dawkins is not speaking as a scientist when he pens an introduction to an evolution textbook for the purported instruction of collegiate heads full of mush?

This isn't the introduction to a college evolution textbook. It's a magazine article. I would nevertheless expect Dawkins to do a better job of educating the public, being as he is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford.